is an enormous amount of literature on foreign direct investment (FDI), both theoretical and empirical, but by contrast little has been written on foreign divestment. Among the few exceptions, Boddewyn (1983) suggested that with certain qualifications foreign divestment can be treated as the process of FDI. Thus, the determinants of FDI will also be the determinants of foreign divestment, but with the signs reversed. For instance, the conventional FDI theory advanced by Hymer (1960) stresses the central role of firm-specific assets as a necessary condition for cross-border operations. According to the reverse hypothesis, the loss or deterioration of these firm-specific assets leads to divestment. Similarly, the product life cycle theory (Vernon 1966; 1979), which emphasizes the role of labor and local demand in determining the location of production in accordance with the evolution of the product cycle, would imply that foreign divestment is dictated by the local market conditions of the host country. The internalization theory (Buckley and Casson 1976; Rugman 1980; Casson 1982), which emphasizes the role of transaction costs in the formation of multinational firms, implies that the reduction of transaction costs in arms-length dealings is the cause of divestment. Finally, Dunning's (1980; 1988) eclectic theory, which determines the firm-specific advantage, locationspecific advantage, and internalization advantage preconditions for FDI, implies that loss of any one of the three advantages may cause foreign divestment. Empirical research aimed at substantiating Hymer's theory has generally identified larger firm size, superior technology and a higher degree of product differentiation to be indicators of firm-specific advantage (e.g., Caves 1974; Lall 1980). A study of the process by Horaguchi (1992) on Japanese multinationals confirmed that firm size (measured in terms of sales) and technological capability (measured in terms of the ratio of R& D expenditures to sales) of the parent
Read full abstract