Diaspora Interest in Homeland Investment

Author(s): Kate Gillespie, Liesl Riddle, Edward Sayre and David Sturges
Source: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1999), pp. 623-634
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/155469 .
Accessed: 06/02/2015 06:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
International Business Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Diaspora Interest in Homeland
Investment

KateGillespie*
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Liesl Riddle**
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

EdwardSayre***
KENYON COLLEGE

DavidSturges****
THE UNIVERSITY
OFTEXAS-PAN AMERICAN

This paper examines four they be generalized across the

diaspora communities resident in four communities? The paper
the United States that were explores concepts of ethnic
targeted by their homelands as advantage, altruism, homeland
foreign investors during the orientation, and perceptions of
1990s. The homelands comprise business impediments, as well as
Armenia, Cuba, Iran, and Pales- investigating the role of demo-
tine. We pose the question: What graphic factors regarding invest-
are the determinants of interest in ment interest.
homeland investment, and can

M ost less developed countries cur- suggest that foreign direct investment
rently welcome or even encourage (FDI) is affected positively by domestic
foreign investment. In fact, they often market size [Davidson 1980; Dunning
find themselves in competition for such 1973; Nigh 1985; Scaperlanda and
investment. Various empirical studies Mauer 1969; Terpstra and Yu 1988],

*KateGillespie is Associate Professor of International Business in the Department of

Marketing Administration at The University of Texas at Austin.
**Liesl Riddle is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at The University of
Texas at Austin.
Edward Sayre is Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics, Deparment of Economics at
Kenyon College.
David Sturges is Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Manage-
ment, Marketing and International Business at The University of Texas-Pan
American.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, 30, 3 (THIRD QUARTER 1999): 623-634. 623

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIASPORA INTEREST IN HOMELAND INVESTMENT

adequate infrastructure, and attractive from other expatriate communities,

structural characteristics [Kumar 1994]. whose members attempt to assimilate to
LDCs that rank relatively low on some the new culture and distance them-
or all of these factors may need to pur- selves from their country of origin.
sue creative strategies. Our study Indeed, Cohen [1997] credits diaspora
explores one such strategy: the target- communities with facilitating interna-
ing of diasporas for homeland invest- tional commerce, and Kotkin [1992]
ment. predicts that they will wield significant
The international business impact of influence in the economy of the 21st
emigrant communities has been noted century.
in a number of studies. Researchers During the mid-1990s we observed
have observed and even quantified the four governments representing problem-
particular importance of emigrant atic investment sites that announced
investment [Gillespie 1984; Kao 1993]. their intentions to solicit FDI from their
Overseas Chinese and Egyptians played diasporas in hopes of benefiting from
significant roles as investors in their transnational entrepreneurial as well as
homeland at times in which these coun- corporate investment. These were the
tries were considered unattractive by governments of Armenia, Cuba, Iran
most multinational corporations. Some and Palestine. All possessed significant
investments came from expatriate busi- communities resident in the United
nesses that were already established States that were identified by scholars
abroad, while others were made by pro- as meeting the qualifications to be
fessionals whose homeland investments deemed a diaspora [Bakalian 1993;
represented their first business cre- Bozorgmehr 1995; Kotkin 1992; Orfalea
ations; i.e., new transnational entrepre- 1988; Portes and Bach 1985]. Two
neurs. In either case, emigrant partici- countries, Armenia and Palestine, were
pation not only provided needed invest- re-emerging states that only recently
ment at the time, but it also helped acquired independent governments.
improve others' perceptions of the The other two, Cuba and Iran, were
investment climate. repositioning states; i.e., the same gov-
While many countries experience ernments that were responsible for exil-
emigration, those whose emigrant com- ing their diasporas were now seeking a
munities qualify as diasporas could be rapprochement and courting their
better positioned to elicit interest in investment.
homeland investment given the salient Yet little is actually known as to why
characteristics of diasporas: (1) they a diaspora member from either a re-
maintain a memory, vision, or myth emerging or a repositioning state would
about their original homeland, (2) they even be interested in homeland invest-
are committed to the maintenance or ment when poor investment climates
restoration of their homeland, and (3) likely eliminate these countries from
their consciousness and solidarity are consideration by multinational corpora-
importantly defined by this continuing tions. Thus emerged our research ques-
relationship with the homeland [Safran tion: What are the determinants of
1991]. It is this continued psychic interest in homeland investment, and
relationship with the homeland that can these factors be generalized across
differentiates diaspora communities these four communities?

624 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KATE GILLESPIE, LIESL RIDDLE, EDWARD SAYRE AND DAVID STURGES

HYPOTHESESDEVELOPMENT scend the local market and include the

The only research that examines market of the homeland. We refer to
interest in homeland investment is this perception as "ethnic advantage,"
Aharoni's [1966] case study of invest- and we propose:
ment in Israel. Research on transnation-
al entrepreneurship is equally under- Hi: Ethnic advantage positively
examined, despite entrepreneurship affects interest in homeland invest-
being cited as one of the four major ment.
directions for international business Altruism
research [Wright and Ricks 1994]. The
following hypotheses are derived, there- Preliminary interviews conducted by
fore, from various literatures including the research team indicated that some
those of FDI and migration as well as community members did not want to
interviews with diaspora members from invest in the homeland for profit alone.
the four communities. Researchers have explored the role of
social responsibility as a consumer and
Ethnic Advantage organizational purchasing criterion, yet
Several studies concerning psychic this type of altruistic motivation for
distance have observed that firms exhib- investment has yet to be studied in-
it a propensity to invest in countries depth. However, it was mentioned as a
culturally similar to their home country, motivation for Jewish diaspora invest-
especially early in the internationaliza- ment in Israel during the initial state-
tion process. This may be due to the building period of the late 1940s and
fact that some decision makers associate 1950s [Aharoni 1966]. We suggest that
culturally similar markets with lower persons who rate higher on measures of
business uncertainty, since one could altruism towards the homeland would
assume more market knowledge in a also register higher on interest to invest.
culturally similar market than in a cul- This yields our second hypothesis:
turally distant one [Johanson and
Vahlne 1977; Davidson 1980, 1982; H2: Homeland altruism positively
Root 1983]. A similar perceived advan- affects interest in homeland invest-
tage has been noted in the literature ment.
concerning immigrant entrepreneurship Homeland Orientation
in the United States [e.g., Bonacich and
Modell 1980; Portes and Bach 1985]. Dichtl, Koeglmayr and Mueller [1990]
This literature suggests immigrants posit that certain managers might in
often believe that as fellow co-ethnics, themselves exhibit a greater orientation
they are better able to ascertain and for the foreign marketplace, thus posi-
meet the needs of their immigrant com- tively influencing their decisions for
munity. Thus, immigrants have a their firms to enter foreign markets.
propensity to establish businesses They operationalized foreign-market
geared to their particular ethnic market. orientation as including foreign travel
In terms of a diaspora community, and foreign language proficiency. In a
whose referent ethnic group extends five-nation study they found support for
beyond national boundaries, this per- hypotheses relating foreign-market
ceived ethnic advantage may well tran- entry (in this case, exporting) with man-

VOL. 30, No. 3, THIRDQUARTER,1999 625

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIASPORA INTEREST IN HOMELAND INVESTMENT

agers' command of foreign languages Demographic Variables

and travel stays abroad. The former Since the literature on FDI has
finding supported earlier studies focused on the behavior of the firm, we
[Cavusgil 1982; Barrett and Wilkinson again have little literature to identify
1986]. Aharoni [1966] also noted evi- personal demographic variables that
dence that contact with relatives in the might affect interest in investment.
homeland could affect investment inter- However, managerial demographics
est. These studies suggest that diaspora have been examined under the broader
members who are homeland-oriented; rubric of foreign-marketentry, again in
i.e., those who use the homeland lan- the exporting literature. Dichtl,
guage, visit the homeland regularly Koeslmayr and Mueller [1990] observed
and/or keep in contact with relatives in that in two national samples, exporters
the homeland might exhibit a greater were younger than non-exporters. They
predilection to enter homeland markets also observed that in four national sam-
and invest there than members who do ples, exporters had higher education
not exhibit these characteristics. This than non-exporters, and other studies
yields our third hypothesis: found that firms with more educated
managerial personnel exhibited greater
H3: Homeland orientation positively international involvement [Barrett and
affects interest in homeland invest- Wilkinson 1986; Cavusgil 1982]. This
ment. yields our fifth and sixth hypotheses:
Perceptions of Business
H5: Education level positively corre-
Impediments
lates with interest in homeland
As stated above, governments that tar- investment.
get diasporas for investment may do so
because their countries appear relatively H6: Age negatively correlates with
unattractiveto foreign investors in gener- interest in homeland investment.
al. Aharoni [1966] notes a number of
business impediments that appearto neg- The self-employed could be more com-
atively affect the investment decision fortable with the idea of establishing a
process in its earlier stages within the business, thus decreasing the perception
multinational corporation. These factors of overall risk of a venture in the home-
include poor physical, financial, and land. There is also strong evidence that
legal infrastructure;difficulty in obtain- entrepreneursare greaterrisk-takersthan
ing information; and excessive govern- others [Hornaday and Aboud 1971;
ment bureaucracy. Diaspora members McClelland 1961; Shane 1996]. This
may believe that they can betterhandle or could prove significant for considering
circumvent such problems and may be investment in problematicenvironments.
less negatively influenced by such This yields our seventh hypothesis:
impediments in the homeland as a result.
This yields our fourthhypothesis: H7: Self-employment positively
affects interest in homeland invest-
H4: Estimation of business impedi- ment.
ments will not affect interest in home-
land investment. One might also expect first generation
626 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KATE GILLESPIE,LIESLRIDDLE,EDWARDSAYREAND DAVID STURGES

immigrants to be more interested in The selected frames consist of mailing

investing in their country of origin lists provided by different religious,
because of their closer ties to it. Yet, for business, and cultural community orga-
diasporas, the psychic tie to the home- nizations. The Armenian frame was a
land is purported to transcend genera- list of 2000-plus charitable contributors
tion [Safran1991]. Thus, we propose: to the North American Eastern Diocese
of the Armenian Orthodox Church, and
H8: Generation will not affect inter- the Iranian list consisted of 800 mem-
est in homeland investment. bers of the Iranian-American Organi-
zation. The Cuban-American National
METHODOLOGY Foundation (CANF) participated in the
We designed a 55-question mail sur- pretesting for the Cuban community but
vey in order to investigate the attitudes denied us access to their membership
toward homeland investment of US list unless we guaranteed them control
Armenians, Cubans, Iranians, and over the data collected. Our contact at
Palestinians. Questions were written to CANF, however, recommended the
operationalize ethnic advantage, home- membership list (803 names) of the
land altruism, homeland orientation, Hispanic Business Association of
perceptions of business impediments, Miami, whose membership is predomi-
and investment interest, as well as to nantly Cuban. This frame was used
collect demographic information. employing a filter to select Cuban
Members of diaspora organizations, as respondents only. Acquiring an appro-
well as businesspersons and profession- priate mailing list of Palestinian names
als from each of the communities, was even more difficult, since
assisted in the development of the con- Palestinian-Americans tend to be mem-
structs and pre-testing of the question- bers of various Arab-Americanorganiza-
naire. tions, and these organizations generally
Designing a sampling technique that do not divide their mailing lists accord-
would efficiently generate useable sam- ing to homeland country. However, we
ples from the four populations was were successful in obtaining a list of
complex, since the communities are 297 influential Palestinians residing in
very rare and fairly geographically dis- the United States that had been original-
persed. Many methodologists have rec- ly compiled for a Geneva-based philan-
ognized the difficulty in applying con- thropic organization.
ventional sampling methods to such In the second sampling phase, sys-
populations and have recommended tematic samples were drawn from the
that researchers first consider redefining frames except in the case of the
the target population [e.g., Sudman Palestinian list where a census was
1976]. Since complete enumerations of taken. Questionnaires were followed by
the populations under investigation did reminder cards mailed out two weeks
not exist, we narrowed our definition of later. A total of 572 people responded
the target populations to diaspora mem- and returned a completed question-
bers who appear on organizational naire. The response rates for the
membership lists. This technique is Armenian, Cuban, Iranian, and
often used for sampling very rare popu- Palestinian samples were 41, 17, 17 and
lations [Kalton 1983]. 19 percent respectively. This is on the

VOL. 30, No. 3, THIRDQUARTER,1999 627

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIASPORAINTERESTIN HOMELANDINVESTMENT

higher end of the typical response rate ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

range for a cold mail survey [Dillon, We defined our dependent variable,
Madden, and Firtle 1988]. investment interest (INVINT), as
While respondents to this question-
naire might be assumed to be more respondents interested in at least one of
interested in investment in the home- the following: (a) manufacturing facili-
land than non-respondents, there was ties in [the homeland] to produce prod-
considerable variation in investment ucts for sale in [the homeland], (b) man-
interest both within and between ufacturing facilities in [the homeland]
groups. Forty-five percent of the to produce products to be exported from
returned questionnaires indicated no [the homeland], and (c) service opera-
interest in foreign direct investment in tions located in [the homeland].
Armenia, compared with 18 percent for Respondents were coded not interested
the Cuban sample, 23 percent for the (0), potentially interested (1) or current-
Iranian sample, and 22 percent for the ly interested (2). Measures of ethnic
Palestinian sample. (See Table 1 for a advantage, altruism and business
further breakdown of descriptive statis- impediments are presented in Table 2.
tics for the four samples.) We employed three measures for

TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICSFOR THE FOUR SAMPLES*

Armenian
(n=166) Cuban (n= 111) Iranian (n= 78) Palestinian
(n= 40)
Variable CurrentPotentialCurrentPotentialCurrentPotentialCurrentPotential
InterestforSale 3% 34% 9% 42% 21% 45% 14% 52%
in Homeland
InterestforExport 6% 41% 8% 41% 20% 46% 14% 55%
ServicesInterest 8% 36% 15% 57% 16% 38% 21% 44%
EthnicAdvantage 2.75 (0.93) 3.29 (1.05) 3.58 (0.80) 3.63 (0.93)
Altruism 3.76 (1.04) 2.43 (1.69) 3.69 (1.09) 4.08 (1.04)
Speak 50% 97% 99% 98%
Read 21% 87% 81% 70%
Visits 7% 7% 50% 41%
Relatives 15% 59% 96% 67%
BusinessImpediments 2.17 (0.41) 2.70 (0.31) 2.22 0.35) 2.11 (0.37)
College 60% 70% 90% 81%
Age 58.2 (15.4) 49.8 (11.4) 45.4 (11.1) 53.4 (11.4)
Self-employment 21% 52% 59% 61%
FirstGeneration 32% 92% 100% 93%
SecondGeneration 54% 8% 0% 7%
Income $30,000$39,000 $100,000+ $100,000+ $100,000+
Female 28% 21% 21% 8%
*Incells withtwo values,the firstis the meanandthe valuein parenthesesis the standarddeviation.See foot-
notes in Table2 (Variablesand Measures)for scale explanations.The incomemeasurewas categoricalwith
multipleresponsechoices;therefore,the mode,a bettermeasureof centraltendency,is reported.

628 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KATE GILLESPIE, LIESL RIDDLE, EDWARD SAYRE AND DAVID STURGES

TABLE2
a
ANDMEASURES
VARIABLES
Index Alphas | Measures
Ethnic .748,.784,.800,.812 I believe I have a competitive advantage in
Advantage doing business in (the homeland) because I
share the same ethnic backgroundas the people
in (the homeland).
I have much in common with people in (the
homeland).
I believe that doing business in (the homeland)
is less risky for me because I share the same eth-
nic backgroundas the people in (the homeland).
I understand consumer preferences in (the
homeland) better than the average American
businessperson because I share the same ethnic
backgroundas the people in (the homeland).
I believe I understand how to do business in
(the homeland) better than the average
American businessperson.

Altruism I believe that (community members) in the

United States should invest in (the homeland)
and not just donate to (homeland) or (home-
land-American)charities.

Business .767, .809, .828, .796 Weak financial system

Impedimentsc Poor physical infrastructure
Lack of U.S. government support for investment
in (the homeland)
Cumbersomegovernment bureaucracy
Unclear who in the government has the authori-
ty to approve or facilitate foreign investment
Hostilities with neighboring countries
Internalstrife
Weak legal system
Governmentcorruption
Absence of a pro-business government
Lack of specific investment opportunities com-
municated to smaller overseas investors
Too few economic incentives provided by (the
homeland)
Problems with labor and/or labor laws

aUnless otherwise noted, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Somewhat

Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree
bThe order for the alphas is Armenian, Cuban, Iranian, and Palestinian
CScale: 1 = Not an impediment, 2 = An impediment, 3 = A major impediment

homeland orientation: (1) homeland guage, and (3) whether or not the
visitation, (2) whether the respondent respondent kept in contact with rela-
read periodicals in the homeland lan- tives in the homeland. Since virtually

VOL. 30, No. 3, THIRDQUARTER,1999 629

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIASPORAINTERESTIN HOMELANDINVESTMENT

TABLE3
ORDEREDPROBITRESULTS
DEPENDENT IN DIRECrINvEsTmEw IN rim HoMELAND
VARIABLE:INTEREST
Armenian(n=173) Cuban(n=112) Iranian(n=82) Palestinian(n=44)
ETHNAD 0.218** 0.553*** 0.488** 0.456**
(0.104) (0.130) (0.185) (0.280)
ALTRUISM 0.189** 0.148** 0.389*** 0.654**
(0.099) (0.077) (0.141) (0.292)
READ -0.234 0.188 -0.270 1.894***
(0.274) (0.366) (0.351) (0.712)
NUMVIS 0.457** 0.449* 0.034 0.189
(0.199) (0.311) (0.123) (0.201)
RELATIVE -0.010 -0.473** 0.253 -0.416
(0.261) (0.248) (0.734) (0.585)
BUSIMP -0.035 -0.166 0.090 -0.512
(0.236) (0.404) (0.394) (0.609)
COLLEGE -0.197 -0.077 0.413 -0.908
(0.194) (0.266) (0.462) (0.735)
AGE -0.009* -0.008 -0.017 -0.026
(0.006) (0.011) (0.012) (0.021)
SELFEM 0.466** -0.173 -0.105 -0.128
(0.224) (0.245) (0.283) (0.450)
GENER 0.189 -0.498 NAt 0.195
(0.244) (0.523) (1.029)
Log Likelihood -149.31 - 83.650 - 75.991 -29.237
Chi2 27.86 36.45 22.99 33.92
Prob > Chi2 0.0019 0.0001 0.0062 0.0002
Pseudo R2 0.0853 0.1789 0.1314 0.3672
*p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01
tNot applicable because this sample contains only first generation

all respondents in the Cuban, Iranian, contact and zero is s/he does not.
and Palestinian samples spoke the Education was measured by employing a
homeland language, we did not include dummy variable (COLLEGE),assuming a
this as a measure. value of one if the respondent completed
Respondents were asked how many college and zero if not.2
times they had traveled to their respec- Our ordered probit model for each
tive homelands in the past five years, and community is: INVINT=f(ETHNAD,
this measure (NUMVIS)was used to test ALTRUISM, READ, NUMVIS, RELA-
the homeland visitation hypothesis. The TIVE, READ, BUSIMP, COLLEGE,
effect of reading periodicals in the home- AGE,SELFEM, GENER.) Table 3 pre-
land language and keeping in contact sents the regression results for the
with relatives in the homeland were mea- Armenian, Cuban, Iranian and Pales-
sured by employing a dummy variable tinian samples.3
(READ)and (RELATIVE), taking a value We found consistent support across
of one if the respondent reads/keeps in all four communities for the hypotheses

630 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KATE GILLESPIE,LIESLRIDDLE,EDWARDSAYREAND DAVID STURGES

that altruism and perceptions of ethnic that they are culturally closer to a cer-
advantage have a positive effect on tain foreign market are more likely to be
interest in homeland investment. As interested in investing in that market.
hypothesized, generation and estima- (Our findings caution, however, that as
tion of business impediments proved to individuals within diasporas vary on
be insignificant in determining interest their perceptions of ethnic advantage,
in homeland investment. The findings managers from the same country may
for homeland orientation were mixed. vary on their perceptions of psychic
Little support for the homeland orienta- proximity as relates to a particular for-
tion hypothesis was found across its eign market.)
three measures, and what support Other similarities across communities
emerged varied widely among the four relate to altruism and estimation of
communities. Age and self-employ- business impediments. Our measure of
ment were only significant for Armenia. altruism proved significant, supporting
Education proved insignificant across qualitative findings from our own pre-
communities (see Table 3). liminary research as well as those of
Aharoni [1966]. Similarly, perceptions
CONCLUSIONSAND LIMITATIONS of business impediments do not appear
The examination of homeland invest- to affect investment interest. These two
ment expands on the current discussion findings are potentially good news for
in the international business literature homelands-whether re-emerging or
concerning the definition and opera- repositioning states-that might be con-
tionalization of FDI in current and sidered generally unattractive and risky
future research [Brewer 1993; investment environments.
Aswicahyone and Hill 1995; Hennart While behavioral measures and
1989]. As international migration and demographic variables were significant
market liberalization expand globally, in some cases, these were not consistent
homeland investment by diaspora busi- across communities. The lack of posi-
nesses and entrepreneurs may well tive findings relating to self-employ-
become an increasingly significant cate- ment except in one case supports
gory of foreign investment. In light of descriptive evidence that homeland
this, our study suggests that both simi- investment is not only of interest to the
larities and possible differences exist self-employed or current entrepreneurs
among diaspora communities as regards but also to potential entrepreneurs as
interest in homeland investment. well. Also, the insignificance of genera-
Across all four surveyed diasporas, tion was as expected. However, it
members who perceive they have an should be noted that the Iranian sample
ethnic advantage in the homeland mar- contained only first-generation respon-
ket are more likely to be interested in dents, and the number of second-gener-
investing there than diaspora members ation respondents was low for Cuba and
that do not perceive this advantage. At Palestine. For Armenia, there were ade-
a broader level, our findings concerning quate numbers for both first and second
ethnic advantage suggest individual- generation. Also, this community is dif-
level support of the assumption behind ferent in that only two percent of first-
the observed psychic-distance phenom- generation respondents for this group
enon: Decision makers who perceive emigrated directly from Armenia,

VOL. 30, No. 3, THIRDQUARTER,1999 631

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIASPORAINTERESTIN HOMELANDINVESTMENT

unlike first generations of the other al investors would lend insight into the
communities who nearly all arrived evolution of the homeland investment
from their homelands. process. For example, do perceptions of
It is important that we acknowledge ethnic advantage and altrusim affect
other limitations of the study. First, actual investment as they do investment
there are limitations encompassing interest? Future research could also
issues of sample errorand generalizabil- attempt to examine the homeland
ity. We were unable to use sampling investment decision-making process
frames consistent across four relatively from the points of view of current entre-
rare and geographically diverse commu- preneurs versus potential entrepre-
nities. While this does not invalidate neurs. The role of diaspora members
similarities identified across these com- within multi-ethnic firms could be
munities, it may explain differences explored. Do they influence FDI deci-
among them. Also, we surveyed dias- sions related to their homeland within
poras resident in the United States. such firms? If so, how? Such research
Thus, we may not be able to extrapolate would contribute to our understanding
to similar communities resident in other of international entrepreneurship,
countries. Our sampling frames were migration's impact on global business,
taken from community lists that com- and the individual's role in the deci-
prised individuals whose ethnic identi- sion-making processes of the multina-
ty was fairly salient [Laserwitz 1986]. tional firm.
This possible high level of ethnic iden-
tity in the sampling frames might affect NOTES
the overall level of respondent interest 1. Measures for altruism relating to
in homeland investment. (However, the homeland were not available in the
since homeland governments can most extant literature. We employed four
easily contact their diasporas via com- measures in our survey and examined
munity lists, an understanding of these them in exploratory runs. Three of
segments alone can be useful to them.) these were based on statements arising
The study is also limited in that it from our preliminary interviews, and
attempts to measure investment interest the fourth was based on reported dona-
rather than actual investment. While tions to diaspora or homeland charities.
examining investment interest is a logi- Estimated coefficients for the combina-
cal place to begin our understanding of tions of these measures were not statis-
the homeland investment phenomenon, tically significant. The single measure
it was further necessitated by the fact that proved the most consistently signif-
that current actual homeland invest- icant and interesting across various iter-
ment by the surveyed diasporas remains ations was the one we subsequently
low. While interest precedes invest- employed in our model.
ment, behavior evolves through the for- 2. In addition to the variables
eign investment process. This should described, we controlled for income and
be kept in mind when comparing this gender.
study to others that measure actual 3. For reasons of brevity, we have
investment. presented a single base model for each
Future research concerning the con- community. Variations on each base
cepts developed here but aimed at actu- model were run to establish that the

632 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KATE GILLESPIE,LIESLRIDDLE,EDWARDSAYREAND DAVID STURGES

results presented were not mere statisti- Bozorgmehr, Mehdi. 1995. Diaspora in
cal artifice and were acceptably insensi- post revolutionary period. Encyclo-
tive to model specification. Also, one pedia Iranica.
might be concerned that the reason why Brewer, Thomas. 1993. Government
some of the measures are not significant policies, market imperfections, and
in the ordered probit results is related to foreign direct investment. Journal of
collinearity of the regressors. For the International Business Studies, 24(1):
four communities the values of the con- 101-120.
dition numbers are 4.8 (Armenian), 3.6 Cavugisil, S. Tamer. 1982. Some obser-
(Cuban), 6.5 (Iranian), and 5.9 vations on the relevance of critical
(Palestinian). Since all of these values variables for internationalization
are less than 20, this implies that multi- stages. In R. Czinkota & G. Tesar, edi-
collinearity is not a serious problem tors, Export management: An inter-
[Belsley, Kuh and Welsh 1980]. national context. New York: Praeger:
276-85.
REFERENCES Cohen, Robin. 1997. Global diasporas:
Aharoni, Yair. 1966. The foreign An introduction. Seattle: University
investment decision process. Boston: of Washington Press.
Harvard Graduate School of Business Davidson, William H. 1980. The loca-
Administration, Division of Research. tion of foreign direct investment
Aswicahyono, H. H. and Hal Hill. 1995. activity: Country characteristics and
Determinants of foreign ownership in experience effects. Journal of
LDC manufacturing. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(2):
International Business Studies, 26(1): 9-22.
139-158. 1982. Global strategic man-
Bakalian, Anny. 1993. Armenian- agement. New York: John Wiley &
Americans: From being to feeling Sons.
Armenian. New Brunswick: Trans- Dichtl, Erwin, Hans-Georg Koeglmayr &
action Publishers. Stefan Mueller. 1990. International
Barrett, Nigel I. & Ian F. Wilkinson. orientation as a precondition for
1986. Internationalization behavior: export success. Journal of
Management characteristics of International Business Studies, 21(1):
Australian manufacturing firms by 23-40.
level of international development. Dillon, William R., Thomas J. Madden &
In P. W. Turnball and S.D. Paliwoda, Neil H. Firtle. 1987. Marketing
editors, Research in International research in a marketing environment,
Marketing, London: Croom Helm: Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin, Inc.
213-233. Dunning, John A. 1973. The determi-
Belsey, D., E. Kuh and R. Welsh. 1980. nants of international production.
Regression diagnostics: Identifying Oxford Economic Paper, November:
influential data and sources of multi- 289-355.
collinearity. New York: Wiley. Gillespie, Kate. 1984. The tripartite
Bonacich, Edna & John Modell. 1980. relationship: Governm en t, foreign
The ethnic basis of economic solidari- investors, and private investors dur-
ty. Berkeley: University of California ing Egypt's economic opening. New
Press. York: Praeger.

VOL. 30, No. 3, THIRDQUARTER,1999 633

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIASPORA INTEREST IN HOMELAND INVESTMENT

Hennart, Jean-Frangois. 1989. Can the flames: A quest for the history of
''new forms of investment" substitute Arab Americans. Austin: University
for the "old forms?" Journal of of Texas Press.
International Business Studies, 20(2): Portes, Alejandro & Robert L. Bach.
211-234. 1985. Latin journey: Cuban and
Hornaday, John A. & John Aboud. 1971. Mexican immigrants in the United
Characteristics of successful entrepre- States. Berkeley: University of
neurs. Personnel Psychology, 24: California Press.
141-153. Root, Franklin R. 1983. Foreign market
Johanson, Jan and Jan-Erik Vahlne. entry strategies. New York: AMA-
1977. The internationalization of the COM.
firm: A model of knowledge develop- Safran, William. 1991. Diasporas in
ment and increasing foreign market modern societies: Myths of homeland
commitments. Journal of Interna- and return. Diaspora, 1(1), 83-99.
tional Business Studies, 8(2): 23-32. Scaperlanda, Anthony E. & Laurence J.
Kalton, Graham. 1983. Introduction to Mauer. 1969. The determinants of
survey sampling. Newbury Park: U.S. direct investment in the E.E.C.
Sage. The American Economic Review,
Kao, John. 1993. The worldwide web September: 558-568.
of Chinese business. Harvard Shane, Scott. 1996. Explaining varia-
Business Review, 109 (March-April): tion in rates of entrepreneurship in
24-36. the United States: 1899-1988.
Kotkin, Joel. 1992. Tribes: How race, Journal of Management, 22(5): 747-
religion, and identity determine suc- 781.
cess in the new global economy. New Sudman, Seymour. 1976. Applied
York: Random House. sampling. New York: Academic
Kumar, Nagesh. 1994. Determinants of Press.
export orientation of foreign produc- Terpstra, Vern & Chno-Ming Yu. 1988.
tion by U.S. multinationals: An inter- Determinants of foreign investment of
country analysis. Journal of U.S. advertising agencies. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25(1): International Business Studies, 19(1):
141-156. 33-46.
Lazerwitz, Bernard. 1986. Some com- Wright, Richard & David A. Ricks.
ments on the use of distinctive Jewish 1994. Trends in international busi-
names in surveys. Contemporary ness research: Twenty-five years
Jewry,7: 116-122. later. Journal of International Busi-
McClelland, David C. 1961. The ness Studies, 25(4): 687-701.
achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Nigh, Douglas. 1985. The effect of
political events on U.S. direct foreign
investment: A pooled time series
cross-sectional analysis. Journal of
International Business Studies, 16(1):
1-18.
Orfalea, Gregory. 1988. Before the

634 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONALBUSINESS STUDIES

This content downloaded from 128.122.253.228 on Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:15:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions