Search

This study addresses the question of how interplays of stigmatized categories might trigger public disapproval and stigma response strategies. We develop two categories: possession of network ties with home‐country governments and market entry into salient industries in target nations. Based on a comparative study of four Chinese firms’ acquisitions in the United States and Australia, we show that (1) firms face different levels of disapproval amid differing interplays of the stigmatized categories and that (2) each firm adopts a distinctive response strategy. Our study contributes to the organizational stigma literature by theorizing about the relationships of categories’ interplays, disapproval levels, and stigma responses. It also adds to the embeddedness perspective by providing an argument for the socio‐political liabilities of strong ties, and it contributes to international business studies on exploring a theme of geopolitics and stigmatization of firms. Finally, it offers research directions relating to these fields of inquiry.

This study is based on an interpretive content analysis of oral history data and documentary data on ethnic Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs in Singapore and their enterprises. This data is complemented by personal interviews with family members, informants and business community leaders, as well as historical analysis. The data reveals that most ethnic Indian entrepreneurs maintained their trade specializations and family management, whereas most ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs pursued unrelated diversification and incorporated outsiders into their operational management over time. What is particularly intriguing is the existence of an intra-ethnic division in business structure among the ethnic Indian enterprises. I argue that the opportunity structure in the country of residence and ethnic resources play only a limited role in shaping the differential management and business structures of the two ethnic groups. Rather, I attribute such differences primarily to the differential strength of ties of the entrepreneurs to their region/dialect-based networks. The strength of the ties reflects the degree of intra-community homogeneity and inter-community heterogeneity. These arguments are presented in the form of hypothesized relationships for future validation. The paper concludes with a critique of the structuralist, culturalist and interactionist perspectives on ethnic entrepreneurship, and suggests directions for future research into intra-ethnic entrepreneurship, comparative business systems and the paradox of embeddedness.

Both the proponents and critics of Asian economic organization have been preoccupied with the ideal-typical management models of family businesses, and have rarely identified their changing management structures. We, instead, identify the change and continuity in these management structures through an analysis of family-controlled business groups in Singapore and South Korea before and after the Asian currency crisis. In our view, these business groups professionalized their management, but retained family control and corporate rule before the crisis. The crisis, however, increased the pressure on such groups to relinquish family control and corporate rule. Singaporean Chinese business groups tended to loosen their tight grip on corporate rule by absorbing more professional managers into their upper echelons. The surviving Korean chaebol, however, intensified family control. Only a few chaebol, which were on the brink of bankruptcy, relinquished corporate rule to professional managers. We argue that other than the market, cultural, and institutional factors as suggested in the existing literature, state capacities and strategies do matter in shaping the changing management structures of business groups. Drawing on our analysis, researchers will be able to conduct comparative studies of family businesses across East Asian societies, of organizational imitation, and of the role of the state in influencing management models.