The Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks: A Study of … · 2000-09-12 · The Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks: A Study of Singaporean Firms in Hainan, China*

Professional Geographer, 52(3) 2000, pages 437–454 © Copyright 2000 by Association of American Geographers.Initial submission, September 1998; revised submissions, January 1999, May 1999; final acceptance, June 1999.

Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.

The Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks:

A Study of Singaporean Firms in Hainan, China*

Chia-Zhi Tan

National University of Singapore

Henry Wai-chung Yeung

National University of Singapore

This paper examines the central role of social and political institutions behind motivations and strategies of ethnicChinese Singaporean investment in Hainan, China. Drawing upon 22 case studies of Singaporean firms in Hainan, weshow that Singaporean investment in Hainan is embedded in Chinese business networks and their associated institu-tions. At the personal level, direct investments are largely motivated by the cultural attachments of Singaporean Hain-anese to Hainan. Their small- and medium-sized joint ventures largely reflect the characteristics of ethnically-basedChinese business networks that stress connections, or

guanxi.

Similarly, the influence of social organizations (e.g., clanassociations) and government institutions (e.g., public and quasi-public agencies) on Singaporean investment strate-gies in Hainan reveals the significance of ongoing social relations institutionalized at the broader societal level.

KeyWords: embeddedness, institutions, Chinese business system, Singapore investment, Hainan, China.

Introduction

n an increasingly competitive and interde-pendent global economy, firms are con-

stantly compelled to maintain their competi-tive advantages through dynamic organizationaland operational strategies. Today, one signifi-cant competitive strategy commonly adoptedby firms is to engage in investments across na-tional boundaries (Dunning 1993; Caves 1996;Dicken 1998). Through this process of pursu-ing foreign direct investments (FDI), a nationalfirm is transformed into a transnational corpo-ration (TNC), defined as “[a] firm which hasthe power to coordinate and control operationsin more than one country, even if it does notown them” (Dicken 1998, 8). The worldwideoperations of these TNCs potentially allowthem to reap advantages arising from nationaldifferentials and therefore to remain globallycompetitive. The opening of China to theglobal economy since December 1978 createdtremendous market and investment opportuni-ties for TNCs from outside of the Asia Pacificregion. To date, ethnic Chinese investors fromEast Asia (e.g., Hong Kong, Macau, and Tai-wan), Southeast Asia, and other parts of the

world, are the most important source of for-eign investment in China (

The Economist

1992;East Asia Analytical Unit 1995; Lin 1997; Hay-ter and Han 1998; Hsing 1998; Huang 1998).The extensive and powerful system of Chinesebusiness networks is also recognized as the maindriving force behind some of the world’s fastestgrowing economies in East and Southeast Asia(Sender 1991; Whitley 1992; Kao 1993; Yeungand Olds 2000).

As a city-state in Southeast Asia with a ma-jority ethnic Chinese population, Singapore hasshown a strong propensity to establish closeeconomic relationships with China. This issupplemented by Singapore’s recent drive to-wards the regionalization of its national firmsto maintain its competitiveness in the globaleconomy. The promotion of overseas invest-ment was mounted when Singapore registeredits first gross domestic product (GDP) declinesince independence in 1985. Then the Eco-nomic Committee for Overcoming Recessionidentified overseas investment and the devel-opment of offshore business opportunities as along-term solution to the lack of investmentand market opportunities in Singapore. Sin-gapore is constrained by its small domestic

I

* We would like to thank Stuart Aitken and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. TheLee Foundation in Singapore generously funded the fieldwork for this study. Thanks also to Mrs. Lee Li Kheng for drawing Figure 1. Somematerials in assisting the revisions of this paper originate from ongoing research into the regionalization of Singaporean firms funded by theNational University of Singapore (RP960045 and RP970013). As usual, all errors and mistakes are our own responsibility.

438

Volume 52, Number 3, August 2000

population and market size, as well as limitedlabor and land which accentuate the need todevelop an external economy (Yeung 1998a,1999a). Since the establishment of official dip-lomatic relationships between China and Sin-gapore in October 1990, Singaporean invest-ment in China has increased substantially (Kanai1993; Cartier 1995; Lu and Zhu 1995; Tan1995). An investment strategy involving the di-rect participation of Singapore’s government-linked companies (GLCs) in China’s industrialdevelopment has evolved.

1

Singaporean invest-ment in China has extended spatially from thetraditional ancestral regions of Fujian andGuangdong to various Sino-Singapore indus-trial parks in such non-ancestral locations asSuzhou, Wuxi, Ningbo, and Sichuan in China(Fig. 1). These patterns of regionalization re-sult largely from the political arrangements andinter-firm collaborations of large GLCs, localfirms, and foreign companies in Singapore.Much less public and research attention hasbeen paid to the role of social and business net-works in influencing the spatial organization ofSingaporean investment in China.

This public and intellectual lacuna originatesprimarily from what economic sociologist MarkGranovetter (1985, 483), called the “underso-cialized” view of economic action most com-monly held by neoclassical economists. Tothem, economic action such as cross-border in-vestment is determined by abstract economiclogic of costs and benefits. The “economic”sphere therefore has an independent and self-driven existence outside all other spheres of so-cial life. We do not subscribe to this view ofeconomic action. In fact, there is now an in-creasingly significant call by economic geog-raphers to re-examine the concept of the “eco-nomic” itself (Dicken and Thrift 1992; Thriftand Olds 1996; Lee and Wills 1997; Schoen-berger 1997). Using the concept of

networks

,economic geographers and sociologists showthat economic action is often embedded inwebs of ongoing social relations constituted in

and

through space (Yeung 1994a, 1998b;Dicken et al. 1998; see also Swedberg 1990;Granovetter and Swedberg 1992; Smelser andSwedberg 1994). As argued by Thrift and Olds(1996, 322), “[t]he topological presuppositionof the network is now in common usage in thesocial sciences as the emblem of an ambition toproduce flatter, less hierarchical theories of the

economy.” These network theories have in-deed placed a much greater emphasis on the so-cial and institutional foundations of economictransactions in today’s global economy.

In this paper, we aim to provide insights intothese social and institutional mechanismsthrough which Singaporean firms have in-vested in China, with a particular emphasis onthe province of Hainan (see Fig. 1). Specifi-cally, we evaluate the extent to which social andcultural reasons have attracted Singaporean in-vestment to Hainan. We adopt an institutionalperspective and theorize the embedded rela-tionships between cross-border investmentsand Chinese business networks (see also Yeung1998e). We argue that social ties and businessnetworks between Singaporean Hainanese andtheir counterparts in Hainan have been institu-tionalized at different levels. We define insti-tutions as

social structures

organized throughcommon purposes and shared values. These in-stitutions range from family ties to clan associ-ations to state agencies. At the personal level,familism is an important attribute inscribed inthe cultural institutions of ethnic Chinesethrough shared family and/or clan norms andvalues. Many family-oriented business transac-tions between Singapore and Hainan are em-bedded in these forms of cultural institutions.Beyond the family domain, trust and

guanxi

(defined as connections and interpersonal rela-tionships) between business partners also pro-vide the necessary social relations to sustaincross-border economic activities. At the broadersocietal level, such voluntary organizations aschambers of commerce and clan associationsserve as the institutional mechanism to reducethe “friction of distance” and potential prob-lems in the Hainan operations by Singaporeanfirms. Together, these important social and cul-tural institutions play a significant role in shap-ing the investment strategies and economic orga-nization of Singaporean firms in Hainan. Thesefirms include relatively small-scale personal busi-nesses (loosely organized by kinship relation-ships), medium-scale joint ventures and large-scale investments by modern corporations.

The next section briefly outlines the histori-cal linkages between Singapore and China toset the social and geographical contexts of thispaper. This is followed by an exposition of aninstitutional framework in organization studies.The main empirical section examines the vari-

Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks

439

Figure 1: The location of Singaporean investments in Hainan, China. Source: Authors’ field research.

440


ous linkages between Singaporean firms andHainan on the basis of this institutional frame-work. Our analysis is based on 22 case studiesand field interviews.

2

The concluding sectionsummarizes the findings and highlights someimplications for future research into the cross-border operations of Chinese business networks.

Historical Linkages between

Singapore and China

During the nineteenth and early twentieth cen-turies, Chinese immigrants arrived at Sin-gapore from traditional emigrant areas in thesouthern coastal provinces of China such asGuangdong, Fujian, and Hainan. The break-down of Singaporean Chinese in terms of theirdialect groupings is given in Table 1. Histori-cally, Singaporean Chinese have maintainedstrong linkages with their immediate familymembers or close relatives in China (Cheng1985, 1990; Wang 1991; Xing et al. 1991; Yen1995). They continuously exchanged letters,sent remittances, and actively contributed do-nations for various social purposes (e.g., build-ing schools) (Cheng 1990). Chinese clan asso-ciations in Singapore also extended theiractivities into their home villages, districts,prefectures, and provinces to keep emigrantsinformed of their motherland’s prevailing situ-ation. During the politically unstable periodsof the 1950s and the 1960s, an important insti-tution contributing to the continual commer-cial relations between Singapore and Chinawas the Bank of China.

3

In the absence ofChina’s official diplomatic representation in

Singapore prior to 1981, the Bank of Chinaserved as a semi-official representative of Chinaand facilitated commercial, trade, and other con-tacts between the two countries (Chin 1988).

Prior to the 1980s, Singaporean investmentin China was minimal due to the fear of Com-munist China, Cold War tensions, and the sen-sitivities of neighboring Southeast Asian coun-tries. Singapore’s commercial linkages withChina were mainly conducted through trade.Since 1980, the level, variety, and extent ofSino-Singaporean contacts has increased as aresult of political and economic changes in theregion (e.g., the economic reform of China andthe normalization of diplomatic relations be-tween China and Singapore’s neighboringcountries). Total trade with China experienceddramatic increases in the last two decades (seeFig. 2). Singaporean companies also venturedmore into direct investment projects in China(see Fig. 3). During the 1983–1996 period, Sin-gapore invested some US$6.17 billion in China(measured by actual realized FDI value) andwas ranked fifth largest foreign investor afterHong Kong (US$101.3 billion), Taiwan(US$14.9 billion), U.S. (US$14.2 billion), andJapan (US$14.0 billion) (Sun 1998, AppendixA). In terms of cumulative Singaporean equityinvestment abroad by 1995, some S$2.4 billionor 6.6% went to China (Department of Statis-tics 1998, Table 5.13).

4

This placed China asthe fourth largest recipient of Singapore’s eq-uity investment abroad, after Malaysia (S$7.3billion), Hong Kong (S$5.1 billion), and Indo-nesia (S$3.4 billion). In 1996, Singapore’s in-vestment in China surged some 44% to S$5.3billion, placing China as the third largest hostcountry for Singapore’s investment abroad(

The Straits Times

1998).Early investment from Singapore was spa-

tially concentrated in southern coastal citiesand provinces. During the 1980s and the 1990s,these provinces became key centers of eco-nomic growth. Five special economic zones(SEZs) were established in these provinces:Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Xiamen, Shantou, andHainan. The first three SEZs were launched in1980, Shantou in 1981, and the latest, Hainanin 1988. Previously a part of Guangdong,Hainan Island was redesignated as a provinceand granted the status of a SEZ in 1988 as anattempt by Beijing to resolve its “Hainan prob-lem” (Feng and Goodman 1995). The Beijing

Table 1

Dialect Groupings of Chinese Residents in Singapore

Number %

Total(Chinese residents in Singapore only) 2,102,795 100%

Hokkien 886,741 42.2Teochew 461,303 21.9Cantonese 319,322 15.2Hakka 153,942 7.3Hainanese 146,629 7.0Foochow 35,883 1.7Kenghua 19,776 0.9Shanghainese 16,676 0.8Hockchia 13,065 0.6

Others

49,458

2.4

Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore (1991)


441

government intended to make Hainan a “test-ing ground for many of the comprehensive,market-based reforms whose implementationthroughout China is planned over the mediumterm” (Cadario et al. 1992, vii).

Apart from enjoying all privileges granted toother SEZs, Hainan was bestowed with free-dom to adopt a more liberal economic systembecause the Beijing government wanted to at-tract as many foreign investors as possible tohelp “kick-start” its sluggish economy. Hainanwas encouraged to have a “small governmentand large society,” implying less involvementby state-owned enterprises and minimal gov-ernment intervention in the economy (Cadarioet al. 1992). For example, in order to set up anew firm, an investor in Hainan today needsonly to register once at the Administrative Bu-reau of Industry and Commerce without seek-ing approvals from other ministerial units (Fengand Goodman 1995, 24). Another example isthat a developer can buy a piece of land below100

mu

(approximately 6.67 hectares) from the

county government without seeking prior ap-proval from the provincial government (fieldinterview, February 1998).

Ethnic Chinese abroad were the most im-portant source of foreign capital in Hainaneven before the establishment of the People’sRepublic of China (PRC) (Xing et al. 1991;

Dangdai Zhongguo de Hainan

1993; Feng andGoodman 1995, 1997). They introduced manyimportant tropical cash crops and foundedmodern factories, schools, and hospitals. Manyenterprises in Hainan were established throughcapital remitted by ethnic Chinese of Hainanorigin living abroad. The declaration of Hainanas a separate province and SEZ in 1988 re-energized the Hainanese communities aroundthe world. These Hainanese abroad now take amore direct investment strategy to help Hainan’sgrowth and development (East Asia AnalyticalUnit 1995). Today, ethnic Chinese abroad ac-count for more than 80% of total investment inHainan (Feng and Goodman 1995, 76). In termsof realized foreign investment, Singapore was

Figure 3: Singapore’s equityinvestment in China, 1985–1995.Prior to 1985, Singapore’s in-vestment in China was toominimal to be recorded in theYearbook of Statistics. Source:Department of Statistics, Singa-pore (1997).

Figure 2: Singapore’s total tradewith China, 1978–1996. Source:Department of Statistics, Singa-pore (1998).

442


ranked third in 1996 (see Table 2). In relativeterms, Singapore’s investment in Hainan is asimportant to the host province as that inGuangdong, Fujian, and Jiangsu. In fact, Sin-gapore’s investment in these latter provinceshardly exceeds that from Hong Kong, Taiwan,and the U.S. (Yeung 2000c).

An Institutional Framework for Analyzing Business Networks and

Overseas Investments

There is now a significant body of empiricalstudy examining Singapore’s investment inChina (Pang and Komaran 1985; Lim 1990;Cartier 1995; Lu and Zhu 1995; Tan 1995;Yong 1995). Among other relevant literatureon the regionalization of Singaporean firms,most work included some discussions of Sin-gapore’s FDI in China (e.g., Kanai 1993; Lee1994; Pang 1994, 1995; Yeung 1998a, 2000c).Table 3 shows the determinants of Singaporeaninvestment in China as suggested by variousstudies. We identify, however, several weak-nesses in these earlier studies. First, they placedtoo much emphasis on the role of the homecountry government (i.e., the influence of pub-lic and quasi-public agencies). Much less em-pirical research was done on the historical link-ages between Singaporean Chinese and theirancestral lands that may have motivated Sin-gaporean investment in the southern coastalprovinces. Second, most studies have examinedSingaporean investment in two large provincesin south China (Guangdong and Fujian) andJiangsu (which hosts Singapore’s Suzhou In-dustrial Park). Other provinces and regions inChina received less attention from these studies.

Third, there is a bias of empirical studies to-wards manufacturing industries (e.g., Lee 1994)at the expense of service industries (e.g., tour-ism, hotels, real estate, etc.) and primary indus-tries (e.g., agriculture and plantations). Finally,the explanatory matrix of most studies focuseson economic reasons such as cost reductionand market potential in China. Virtually noneof them examines the role of social and institu-tional mechanisms in facilitating Singaporeaninvestment in China.

Table 2

Hainan’s Realized Foreign Investment from Asian Countries

Country 1996 Rank 1995 Rank

Total(US $ million) 1,189.6 1,455.0

Hong Kong 376.6 1 564.4 1Japan 146.9 2 189.8 2Singapore 83.8 3 73.8 4Taiwan 79.9 4 78.7 3Thailand 19.8 5 22.9 5Korea 11.9 6 14.1 7Malaysia 9.5 7 16.1 6

Indonesia

N.A.

8

1.7

8

Source:

Hainan Jingji Nianjian

(1996, 1997)N.A.

5

Not Available

Table 3

Determinants of Singapore’s FDI in China

Social ReasonsHistorical Affinity

•

Ethnic ties with ancestor land (particularly with Guangdong, Fujian, and Hainan Province)

•

Close historical and cultural links

Cultural-LanguageSimilarities

•

Similar spoken dialects with their ancestral provinces

Familiarities with China

•

Familiarities of the Chinese busi-ness culture (e.g., personal net-works relations based on trust)

•

Willingness of the Chinese to do business with Singaporean Chinese

Economic ReasonsChina’s Economic

Reform

•

Open door policy and moderniza-tion movement since 1979

•

Favorable economic incentives to attract foreign capital, technologi-cal and managerial expertise

•

Designation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and opening-up of coastal regions

Singapore’sLimitations

•

Need of Singapore to develop an external economy

•

Taxation incentives and financial assistance for Singaporean firms to regionalize

•

Constraining land factor and increasing cost of labor

•

Policy shift to “transfer” labor-intensive operation from Sin-gapore to the region

China’sOpportunities

•

Large consumer and factor markets

•

Availability of cheap labor and land

Political ReasonsSingapore-China

Diplomatic Relations

•

Establishment of diplomatic rela-tions in 1990

Singapore’sRegionalization Drive

•

Development of Singapore-China industrial parks

•

Government-led large-scale investments (through govern-ment-linked companies or GLCs joint ventures with other private Singaporean companies)

•

Ministerial visits by Singapore top

senior politicians to China

Sources: Pang and Komaran (1985), Lim (1990), Kanai (1993), Lu and Zhu (1995), Tan (1995), Pang (1994,1995)


443

We do not intend to suggest an alternativeexplanatory framework for the organizationaldynamics of Chinese business (see Jamann1994a; Menkhoff 1994; also Limlingan 1986;Chan and Chiang 1994; Brown 1995; East AsiaAnalytical Unit 1995; Lasserre and Schütte1995; Hodder 1996; Weidenbaum and Hughes1996; Yeung 1998c). The purpose here is toconstruct an explanatory framework relatingexisting analytical features of Chinese businessorganizations, the institutional environment inwhich they operate and their investment strat-egies in China. We draw upon the recent workby Orrù et al. (1997) that explores the eco-nomic organization of East Asian capitalism(Hamilton 1991; Brown 1995; Westney 1996;see also Powell and DiMaggio 1991). We arguethat economic and organizational activitiesshould not be viewed as being separated from,but rather as embedded within society. The an-alytical focus here is on the institutional envi-ronment and the socially constructed norma-tive world in which business organizationsoperate. In fact, this social and institutionalembeddedness of firms is confirmed by recentstudies in economic geography (Amin and Thrift1994; McDowell and Court 1994; Schoen-berger 1994, 1997; Gertler 1995; McDowell1997; Clark 1998b; Cooke and Morgan 1998;Hudson 1998; Thrift 1998; Amin and Cohen-det 1999; see Yeung 2000a). Schoenberger, forexample, suggests that we should “considerhow the firm is constituted as a society, how itconstructs its identity, and the relationship be-tween culture, identity, knowledge, and action”(1997, 108). To her, corporate cultures andmanagerial identities structure the institutionalcontext in which inertia exists to prevent pos-sible changes in corporate behavior and action.

What then constitutes this emerging institu-tional framework for analyzing business orga-nizations? According to Orrù et al. (1997),there are four elements in an institutional the-ory of economic organizations. First, an insti-tutional explanation begins with the premisethat actors are not isolated and are not purelyself-interested individuals conceived in neo-classical economic models. Any business activ-ity such as an investment strategy or organizingbusiness structures is not asocial, but is deter-mined by the social behavior of individuals insociety. Second, economic and organizationalactivities are socially embedded in that individ-

ual actors develop mutually agreeable means ofbusiness conduct and these practices are rou-tinized through economic institutions. Organi-zational and ideological arrangements aredeveloped to sustain these institutionalizedeconomic patterns. Research into the role ofculture and social norms in London, for exam-ple, shows that the economic behavior of trad-ers and brokers continues to be locally embed-ded in their knowledge and informationnetworks (Thrift 1994; Tickell 1996; Clark1997). These networks provide the institu-tional foundation of economic transactions inLondon. The nature of this embeddedness ofeconomic activities and organizations is deter-mined by the institutional setting of a particu-lar place. Orrù et al. (1997, 26) note that “[t]henetworks of relations, social beliefs, gender andfamily structure, and other institutionalizedforms of social order such as the state and reli-gion vary across societies [and space].”

Third, as a “legitimating principle that is elab-orated in an array of derivative social prac-tices,” organizational logic informs us aboutbusiness relations as well as social relations inother institutions of that particular society(Orrù et al. 1997, 26). The application of com-mon organizational logic both across and be-tween societal sectors results in the tendencyfor organizations within the same institutionalenvironment to resemble each other. This in-stitutional logic explains why, despite the ho-mogenizing tendencies of globalization, nationalfirms from different social and institutionalcontexts continue to exhibit enduring organi-zational differences (see Whitley 1992, 1998;Pauly and Reich 1997; Yeung 1998d, 2000c). Inthis paper, we identify different institutionalspheres such as the family, the polity, and theeconomy. These different spheres tend to usesimilar logic to organize and structure eco-nomic interaction. Hence, exploring anysphere offers related explanations of a phe-nomenon in another domain (see empiricalanalysis in the next section). Fourth, an insti-tutional perspective on economic action offersa multilevel and multidimensional analysisthat takes into account the micro-level such asindividual actors and agencies, as well as thebroader macro-structural environment.

Based on these central tenets of an institu-tional framework, we examine the motivationsof Singaporean investment in Hainan and the

444


nature of organizational structure in two broadinterdependent domains—individuals/firmsand institutions (Fig. 4). We argue that both in-vestment strategies and organizational struc-tures of Singaporean Chinese firms in Hainanare embedded in institutional environmentscomprising the family, the Chinese businesssystem, voluntary organizations, and state in-stitutions. These institutions influence the mo-tivations and rationality of individual Sin-gaporeans when they make decisions to investin Hainan. We argue, therefore, that apartfrom the economics of FDI, the motivationsand mechanisms of Singaporean investment inHainan can be explained by

institutional factors.

At the level of the family as a central social in-stitution in Chinese societies (see Fig. 4), theimportance of ancestry inscribed culturally inthe mindset of Singaporean Hainanese sug-gests a sense of kinship attachment to Hainan.Similarly, the modes of foreign entry by Sin-gaporean firms, particularly through joint ven-tures and cooperative strategies, reflect theirembeddedness in strong ethnicity-based net-work relationships. Some joint ventures involv-ing partnerships with local Chinese institutionsalso demonstrate the significance of

guanxi

inthe business practices of Singaporeans in China.On the other hand, such social institutions as

clan associations often help to create a favorable“atmosphere” to encourage Singaporean invest-ment in Hainan. Liu’s (1998) recent study of theglobalization of Chinese voluntary associations,for example, shows that these social institutionsplay a very important role in facilitating theglobalization of Chinese business firms. Asshown in Figure 4, political-institutional forcesmay also affect the conduct of Singaporean in-vestors in Hainan who seek

guanxi

with hostpolitical actors. This process of institutionaliz-ing bilateral business relationships betweentwo countries has been termed “political entre-preneurship” (Yeung 1998a, 2000c).

Institutional Influences and

Singaporean Firms in Hainan, China

In our study, we found that institutional forceshave a significant influence on Singaporean in-vestment in Hainan. These institutional forcesemerge from different spheres of a society (seeFig. 4). In the following subsections, we exam-ine how these spheres shape the strategies andmotivations of Singaporean investment inHainan. We start with

cultural institutions

anddiscuss the role of familism and business net-works in influencing Singaporean investmentin Hainan. We then proceed to examine the

Figure 4: An institutional analysis of Singaporean investments in Hainan.


445

significance of such broader

organizational in-stitutions

as voluntary organizations and stateinstitutions.

The Role of Familism and Ancestry in Singaporean Investment in Hainan

Our research shows the importance of familismin driving Singaporeans to invest in Hainan.Familism, and a sense of ancestry, are of para-mount importance in the sociocultural systemof ethnic Chinese. According to Redding(1990, 2), familism is a central value still wellembedded in the mindset of most ethnic Chi-nese abroad. In an authoritative account ofChinese philosophy, Fung (1948, 21) describesthe family system as a social system of Chinaand ancestor worship as the basis of Chineseculture. This principle of familism extends tosuccessful kin groups through the concept oflineage.

5

Most settlements or villages in thesouthern provinces of China, including Hainan,are basically constituted of, and cemented by,one lineage originated from a common ancestor(Baker 1979, 49).

6

Filial piety, the core virtue offamilism, also plays a part in inculcating a strongtradition of ancestral worship and kinship.

Many Chinese business enterprises in Asiaare indeed embedded in the principle of famil-ism (see Brown 1995; Yeung 1997, 1998c,1999b; Olds 1998; Tong and Yong 1998).Structurally, family ties are important in ce-menting the internal core of Chinese enter-prises. In other words, familism tends to sustainownership bonds. A good example is Sam SonTravel Service, currently managed by Mr. Wil-liam Tan, a fourth-generation owner of the touragency. Two other companies, Metropole Ho-tel and Hoe Leong, are currently managed bythe children of the founding entrepreneurs. InMetropole Hotel, its Hainan subsidiary is man-aged by the wife of Mr. Lee (the founder-ownerof Metropole Hotel) and some of his close rel-atives from the same lineage. Likewise, fourbrothers of the same family manage Hoe Le-ong’s regional subsidiaries in Hainan, Guang-dong, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Both examplespresent a good case of strong intra-firm net-works based on high level of trust embodied infamily-based organizational structures.

Traditionally, Singaporean Hainanese main-tained very close social relationships with Hainaneven though they were geographically far apart.With the declining threat of communism and the

establishment of the Chinese Trade Mission inSingapore in 1981, more Singaporean Chinesewere allowed to visit China on personal socialgrounds. Since then, Singaporean Hainanesegradually embarked on “home-visiting” toursto their ancestral homeland in Hainan. Theseforms of personal attachment to Hainan reflectthe importance of ancestry and familism in thecultural value of Singaporean Hainanese. Sincethe establishment of Hainan as a province andSEZ in 1988, a significant number of Sin-gaporean Hainanese moved away from theirtraditional forms of sociopersonal linkageswith Hainan and began to engage in direct in-vestment in the island. A majority of 14 firmsout of the 22 case studies belong to Hainaneseowners. Most of them cited family reasons asone of their motivations to invest in Hainan.They also brought up sentimental reasons andnostalgic feelings for

zhuguo

or their “mother-land.” However, this sense of attachment totheir ancestry in Hainan varies across genera-tions. The respondents’ place of birth and per-sonal experiences play a part in determiningthe intensity of their emotional attachment toHainan. In this study, two groups of Sin-gaporean Hainanese with different levels ofpersonal attachments are identified: 1) theolder generation Singaporean Hainanese and2) the younger generation Singapore-bornHainanese.

From our survey, one group of Singaporeaninvestors in Hainan who are highly motivatedby cultural reasons belongs to the

older genera-tion

Singaporean Hainanese. They are eitherHainan- or Singapore-born Hainanese. Onecommonality among them is that they havelived in Hainan for a significant period of time.These elder Hainan-born Singaporeans aremostly in their late 60s and possess strong nos-talgic feelings for their ancestral villages andhometowns. Patriotism is another motivationfor these “homeward” investments from Sin-gapore. Some of these elders have retired andresettled in Hainan. They have invested mostlyin small hotels or lodging apartments in theirancestral towns which are often the administra-tive towns of their ancestral villages. Some-times, they live in their own small hotels foras long as six to twelve months each year.

7

Two Hainan-born Singaporean interview-ees, Mr. Liang (Jinghua Hotel) and Mr. Foo(SINFenghuang Hotel) come from this group

446


of resettler-elder investors. There are also nu-merous other unverified accounts of Sin-gaporean Hainanese living in their ancestralhometowns on their own invested properties.

8

Another group of Singaporean Hainanesewho voiced personal feelings as one of theirreasons for investing in Hainan is the

youngergeneration Singapore-born

Hainanese. Mr. Limfrom Lion City Resort noted that:

Basically, we go there because we are Hainanese—number one. Number two, we also come fromWenchang—our roots are there—our ancestorsfrom there. . . . Number three, the land is quitereasonable, beachfront, hard-to-come-by. (In-terview in Singapore, 22 December 1997)

Another respondent, Mr. Hoe from Hoe MajorProperty, also cited social reasons for his in-vestment in Hainan:

It’s a social reason because I am a Hainanese;some effects also because of my Chinese educa-tion. I want to see how I can contribute to myprofessional areas in Haikou. (Interview in Sin-gapore, 26 January 1998)

Both respondents are first-generation Sin-gapore-born Hainanese in their late 40s. Com-pared to their older Hainanese seniors, they donot possess a similar extent of nostalgic feelingsfor Hainan because of their lack of personal ex-perience with their ancestral homeland. How-ever, the fact that they revealed their obligatoryfeelings for Hainan shows the influence of Chi-nese culture as an institutionalized system inwhich they were raised. Their sense of attach-ment to Hainan may be strengthened indi-rectly by their parents and other Hainanese se-niors. Due to their filial piety to their parents,the same family value of ancestral attachment isnaturally extended to Hainan. For example,Mr. Lim followed his parents’ tradition ofsending remittances to their relatives inHainan. He believed that since his roots camefrom Hainan and his parents had the traditionof contributing to Hainan, he should be simi-larly inclined.

Ethnicity-Based Business Networks of Singaporean Firms in Hainan

Outside the family domain, two important as-pects of familism, trust and connections, con-tinue to form the basis for other personalizedrelationships among ethnic Chinese abroad. Astrong

guanxi

can only be established and im-

proved through personal and social interac-tions. Personal relationships developed amongfamily, friends, classmates, or colleagues can betranslated into strong business connections andnetworks in a Chinese business system (seeWhitley 1992). Many authors observed the im-portance of trust and friendship

9

in Chinesebusiness networks (Menkhoff 1994; Jamann1994a, 1994b; Tracy and Ip 1995; Weidenbaumand Hughes 1996; Yeung 1997; Haley et al.1998; Tong and Yong 1998; see also Olds andYeung 1999). Such culturally specific conceptsas

mianzhi

or “keeping face” are used to sup-port the extension of trust from the level of so-cial hierarchy (i.e., family) to the level of com-munity circles (i.e., non-kin acquaintance).Trust and friendship improve simultaneouslyover time.

Trust is an essential precondition for tradeand investment. The reliance on trust and

guanxi

is particularly pronounced in doingbusiness in China (Smart and Smart 1991;Davies et al. 1995; Yeung and Tung 1996; Luoand Chen 1997; Tsang 1998; cf. Guthrie 1998).From our research, a number of SingaporeanChinese investments engaged in one specificform of cooperative strategy—joint ventures.Joint ventures are established on the basis of di-alect affiliation, business associates, and per-sonal friends. For example, the Lion City Con-dominium project is a joint venture based ondialect affiliation. According to Mr. Hoe (oneof the developers), “all of these 21 shareholdersare Hainanese” (Hoe 1998). In the case ofHaixin Investment Pte Ltd, a network of tenbusiness friends from related industries (mainlyconstruction and real estate industries) formedan investment company to jointly develop aparcel of land in Hainan. Although half of theshareholders are Hainanese, this network is notbased entirely on dialect grouping, but also onbusiness associations. Mr. Lim, the managingdirector of the Haixin, is a Hokkien. He waselected to be the managing director of thecompany because he has the highest relevanteducational level (Bachelor of Commerce) andmanagement capabilities. Mirroring theirmutual trust and relationships, the decision-making process in this collaborative network issuch that “all come down together to discussand make decision” (Lim 1998). Lion City Re-sort is another joint venture that exemplifiesthe kind of

guanxi

bonds in Chinese business


447

networks. Mr. Lim and Mr. Foo are partners inthis joint venture project. On how they cametogether in this investment, Mr. Lim repliedthat:

we went for [a] tour and Mr. Foo is my ex-teacher’s brother. And then . . . we like the land. . . I was the one who proposed “Why don’t webuy the piece of land and do something?” (Inter-view in Singapore, 22 December 1997)

In this subsection, we examine how Sin-gaporean Chinese business networks are em-bedded in the principle of trust and connec-tions. These connections, however, are notlimited to private business firms and busi-nesspersons. They are also observed in busi-ness ties promoted by such voluntary organiza-tions as clan associations and other socialgroupings, as well as state institutions. Benefitssuch as insider information about good busi-ness opportunities are often derived frommemberships in these social/political institu-tions and having good connections with othermembers.

Ethnic Lineage, Clan Associations, and Commerce Associations in Singapore’s Regionalization

Early Chinese emigrants were detached fromtheir customary methods of organization alongkinship lines (Baker 1979; Hodder 1996; Liu1998).10 In order to acquire the synergy ofgrouping, they had to find ways to connect withone another. Baker (1979, 170) noted that they“were well convinced of the value of kinship asan organizational principle, and looked to kin-ship models as they institutionalized their livesabroad.” As a result, several organizationalmodels based on kinship, speech group affilia-tion, and strong regional allegiance were cre-ated in host countries to sustain the institution-alized social and cultural values of ethnicChinese. Cheng (1985, 36) also argued that “itis obvious, then, that the establishment of asso-ciations outside China by the Chinese repre-sents the transplanting of a Chinese traditionoverseas.” Being an extended form of familism,lineage of the same surname ancestry was con-sidered as one of the most important forms ofinstitutional support for ethnic Chineseabroad. In Singapore, as well as among otherplaces with Chinese inhabitants, the clan associ-ation is an important social institution thatamalgamates scattered groups of related lin-

eage, either bearing the same surname or froma common dialect group or ancestry locality.Historically, such Hainanese clan associationsas the Singapore Hainan Hwee Kuan and otherHainanese clan associations bearing the samesurname provided a good avenue for Hain-anese emigrants to establish personal relation-ships with their fellow emigrants and to keep intouch with their mainland kin. Other socialfunctions of these clan associations were “toprovide mutual help, assistantships, bursaries,loans, and scholarships for the children of themembers” (Cheng 1990, 59).

Another form of non-kin organizations is thechamber of commerce or social societies formed bybusinesspersons or other social leaders. As clanconsciousness gradually lost importance, theyounger generation Hainanese businessper-sons have taken the initiative to form theHainan Society to renew and sustain theirgroupings more on the basis of economic ben-efits. Unlike the traditional clan associations,the Hainan Society focuses more on introduc-ing and establishing business connectionsamong Singaporean Hainanese as well as link-ages with China. At the broader institutionallevel, such non-governmental agencies as theSingapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associ-ations (SFCCA) and the Singapore ChineseChamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI)were established to coordinate and develop fur-ther social and economic linkages among allethnic Chinese in Singapore, irrespective oftheir dialect affiliations.

One of the benefits of being members ofthese associations is the establishment of con-nections. Connections, in this case, exist in twoforms: 1) connections with local (i.e., Sin-gapore) businesspersons and 2) connectionswith foreign (i.e., Hainan) business and politi-cal parties. Recent studies of Chinese business(e.g., Cheng 1985; Yeung 1997; Liu 1998) ac-knowledge that participation in associationsand other ethnic groupings can enhance one’spersonal contacts and is vital for business ex-pansion and greater cooperation. In addition,valuable overseas linkages with local Hainaninstitutions can be established via these associ-ations. Connections with home villages, towns,and cities in Hainan have become a crucialbusiness advantage for Singaporean busi-nesspersons when investing in an imperfect le-gal and business environment (e.g., Hainan). In

448 Volume 52, Number 3, August 2000

our study, Singaporean investments such as theLion City Condominium and some of Mr. Le-ong’s (of Great Link Investment) businesses inHainan are embedded in social and clan associ-ations. Most of the shareholders in the LionCity Condominium project are members of theHainan Society. Being members of the Hainansociety, they have benefited from receivingfirst-hand insider information about businessopportunities in Hainan.

On the other hand, Mr. Leong holds an im-pressive portfolio of appointments with severalsocial and commerce institutions in both coun-tries (see Table 4). Through these appoint-ments, he established many important personalcontacts with Hainan’s top political figures (seeTable 4B). According to Mr. Leong himself:

I was formerly the Director of Foreign AffairsDepartment of Hainan Hwee Kuan . . . Those [of-ficials] who came from Hainan had to go throughthe Singapore Hainan Hwee Kuan. Hence, I gotto know of their arrivals and had the chance tohandshake with them. As a result, I got to knowthem personally. Because of my good relation-ships [guanxi] with these authorities, some ofthem had even appointed my company to pro-vide information to their units and companies,

such as corporate profiles and other printed mate-rials. This Company and I were also appointed byHainan Province Overseas Chinese Office to betheir official “interaction point” [jiaoliudian]. (In-terview in Singapore, 30 December 1997)

Because of these spinoff connections fromhis participation in Hainan Society, Mr. Leongestablished the Great Link Investment Pte Ltdto provide consultancy services for potentialinvestors interested in Hainan. Mr. Leonghimself also has several personal investmentsand is a shareholder of several Singaporeanfirms in Hainan (see Table 4C). His partner-ships in the listed joint ventures are indirectlylinked to his connections with important polit-ical figures in Hainan (see next section).

State-Business Relations and Singaporean Investment StrategiesHaving guanxi with political figures is tradi-tionally perceived as a very advantageous andpowerful means of getting things done in China.The relatively more successful and faster imple-mentation of investment ventures by Sin-gaporean firms in various China-Singapore in-dustrial parks (compared to those privately led

Table 4 Mr. Leong’s (of Great Link Investment) Portfolio

4A Mr. Leong’s Memberships and Appointments Held

Singapore Hainan✓ Hainan Society—Chairman✓ Hainan Society—Foreign Affairs Director

Singapore SMEs Association—Trade and Investment DirectorSingapore Hainan Hwee Kuan—memberSCCCI - member

Hainan Province Foreign Exchange Society—Overseas representativeHainan Overseas Chinese News—Advisor

✓ Previous appointments heldCurrent appointment held

4B Mr. Leong’s Political Connections

Singapore Hainan• Arranged Hainan’s official visit to EDB (1992)• Helped TCS to produce a 15-part documentary

series on Hainan Province (1996)

• Provincial Head of Hainan Province• Mayor of Wenchang City• Various ministers in Agricultural Department,

Trade and Investment Department

4C Mr. Leong’s Business Establishments

Singapore Hainan• Method Engineering Pte Ltd• Great Link Investment• South Chinese Investment Pte Ltd*• Tongyong International Trust Pte Ltd*

• Hainan Method Engineering• Leong’s Farming• Fu’an International Travel• Guanqiao Auto Car Washing*• Lucky Thermal*• Diamond Travel*

*Small shareholder of company

✓h

✓h✓h

✓h

✓h

✓h

Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks 449

investments in Hainan) reflects the influence ofactive governmental participation. Similarly,the success of two prominent businesspersons(Mr. Han of Arklight Engineering and Mr. Le-ong of Great Link Investment), who have mul-tiple investments and property assets, showsthe advantage of having good political connec-tions when doing business in Hainan. Interest-ingly, from our survey of Singaporean firms inHainan, Singaporean Chinese entrepreneursdisplay little connections with their homecountry government and are often not aware ofthe Singapore government’s active promotionof regionalization. Instead, these SingaporeanChinese business people have actively searchedfor political alliances in the host country to fa-cilitate their overseas investments.

Although the regionalization of Singaporeanfirms into other provinces of China is essen-tially a state-guided phenomenon, its material-ization is highly uneven across all regions inChina. From our research Hainan is clearly notgiven as much attention by the Singapore gov-ernment for several reasons. One reason men-tioned by our interviewees is the critical re-marks made by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yewduring his visit to Hainan in 1993. SM Leeonce expressed his reservations about the eco-nomic potential of Hainan due to its lack of in-frastructure, underdeveloped economy, and ir-relevant industries (relative to Singapore’sindustrial structure). Its leading industries weretourism and agriculture. SM Lee perceivedthat Singaporean enterprises would not be ableto benefit much from there and that one ofHainan’s key areas of attractions (i.e., agricul-ture) was not the strength of Singaporeanfirms. Hainan’s economic structure thereforedid not attract Singapore’s governmental agen-cies to promote investments there. There isthus very little involvement from Singapore’sgovernmental or quasi-governmental institu-tions in Hainan.

Another reason is that government agenciesin Singapore are less interested in supportinginvestments that do not belong to high-profilemanufacturing industries or large infrastruc-ture developments. Most Singaporean venturesin Hainan are relatively small-scale investmentsmotivated by social and cultural reasons. Theirlevel of contribution to Singapore’s high-techeconomy is not as substantial when comparedto other high-profile large-scale investments in

China-Singapore industrial parks in Wuxi andSuzhou (see Cartier 1995; Yeung 1998a, 2000c).As pointed out by one respondent:

The Economic Development Board [main mar-keting arm of the Singapore government] onlyhas an interest at the provincial level. They haveno interest in city, county or low-level projects.They want to know the provincial head, maybethe city-mayor. It would be best if he’s from thecentral government. (Interview in Singapore, 30December 1997)

Many owners of small and medium enter-prises interviewed are also not aware of the Eco-nomic Development Board’s regionalizationpolicies because either they do not qualify forBoard’s supporting schemes or they have enoughfinancial ability on their own to sustain their in-vestments. Whereas small and medium enter-prises pooled their investment capital throughpartnerships in joint ventures (e.g., Lion CityCondominium, Lion City Resort, Haixin In-vestment), large corporations had very strongfinancial support from their parent firms or ac-cess to local and regional capital markets (e.g.,APB, APP, Overseas Union Enterprise). Thoseretirees mentioned earlier transferred their per-sonal savings to Hainan. Their intentions aremostly for retirement’s sake and not for expan-sionary reasons. As a result, they do not needmuch support from the Singapore government.

Conclusion

To put our study in perspective, an institutionalapproach to the study of economic activitiesand organizational structures “has provided anevolving framework of inquiry rather than a setof tested propositions” (Westney 1993, 75).Through an empirical inquiry into the motiva-tions and strategies of Singaporean investmentin Hainan, China, we argue that beyond con-ventional economic reasons, institutional em-beddedness provides an important motivationand mechanism for these Singaporean venturesabroad. Based on a total of 22 case studies, weagree with Orrù et al. (1997, 299) that eco-nomic action is best understood as historicallyemerging, socially constructed and patternedbehavior of individuals and groups. Our find-ings show the significance of social and culturalinfluence on Singaporean investment in Hainan.It is also evident that the investment strategiesand practices of Singaporean Hainanese are


strongly embedded in social and cultural insti-tutions of Chinese societies.

An understanding of the institutional differ-ences between the two countries has importantimplications for Singaporean businesspersonsas well as state agencies. For instance, one dis-tinct institutional difference between the twocountries is the strong embeddedness of busi-ness transactions in their respective institu-tional contexts. In a Chinese society, it is com-mon for businesspersons or political figures tocontract businesses through unwritten verbalagreements based on guanxi and xinyong ortrustworthiness. However, in the Singaporeancontext, the governance structure of transac-tions is based on a set of highly effective legalcodes and bureaucratic procedures. A numberof interviewees responded that one has to fol-low the Chinese style of working when doingbusiness in China. Hence, foreign businessper-sons as well as government officers from Sin-gapore should take into consideration theseinstitutional differences in their business nego-tiating processes in order to ensure more suc-cessful business ventures in China.

This study also has implications for under-standing the impact of the recent Asian eco-nomic crisis on Singaporean firms operating inthe region. As the dominant form of capitalismin Asian countries, the Chinese business systemis equally affected by the crisis (Yeung 1999c,2000b). The increasing flow of “overseas Chi-nese” capital into China has brought great ben-efits and growth for its economy. The issuehere is whether it is feasible for ethnic Chineseto take temporary shelter under the rather in-sulated Chinese capital market. From this study,lower factor costs (in all industries) in Hainanseem to offer a good option for tight-beltedSingaporean firms that intend to expand andstay competitive throughout this regional cri-sis. As one of the respondents, Mr. Han, noted:

In 1984, the shipping engineering trade wasbadly hit by the economic recession then. A lotof companies closed down. My company was al-most going to wind up. Since 1984, my USfriends helped me with a large sum of US dol-lars. They loaned it to me. I calculated themoney. Since Singapore’s economy is bad at thattime, I decided to invest in China in 1984. (In-terview in Singapore, 14 January 1998)11

China’s large domestic market also offers an al-ternative outlet for Singaporean firms to stay in

production in the midst of declining demand inother Asian markets.

At the more conceptual level, the institu-tional framework in this study identifies andabstracts the distinctive features of the Chinesebusiness system in Singapore and China. Oneimplication is the extent of applicability of thisinstitutional approach to the study of othergeographical phenomena. The general logicbehind this approach is that social and eco-nomic action is highly place-dependent and in-stitutionalized through embeddedness in net-works of ongoing relationships in society andspace. Different geographical contexts, culturaland social processes (in this case, investmentflows from Singapore to Hainan) place differentconstraints on our everyday social and economicbehavior. In addition, a multidimensional anal-ysis of both observable and underlying struc-tures is possible within this framework. An in-stitutional framework is thus useful in the studyof outward investments from different econo-mies because it allows an analysis to go beyondconventional economistic explanations of in-ternational production (Yeung 1994b). As ex-emplified so well in Thrift and Olds this insti-tutional perspective helps us to reconfigure the“economic” in economic geography by “‘stretch-ing’ its own definition so as to make itself moreinclusive and more able to mix in company”(1996, 313).

Notes

1 The idea of bringing Singaporean style and experi-ence of managing industrial estates to China wasfirst discussed during a visit by the late senior Chi-nese leader, Deng Xiaoping, to Singapore in 1978.After numerous exploratory visits by Singapore’stop leaders to China, including Senior Minister LeeKuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong,Suzhou in Jiangsu was selected in 1993 as a site forthe transfer of Singapore’s economic developmentsoftware (see Yeung 2000c).

2 We used a qualitative personal interview method tocollect information and a case study approach to an-alyze empirical data (Schoenberger 1991; Yin 1994;Yeung 1995; Clark 1998a). Our institutional frame-work requires a multilevel analysis that examinesboth macro- and micro-level phenomena. We se-lected multiple case studies for a comparative analy-sis of Singaporean investments in Hainan. Eachcase was carefully analyzed and those cases showingsimilar results or reasons were grouped together todraw meaningful conclusions. Specifically, all Sin-gaporean firms having investments in Hainan were


selected as potential study subjects. In the prelimi-nary selection, a list of 23 firms was compiled froma commercial directory (Singapore-China Trade andInvestment Directory 97/98 1998), various newspaperarticles, the Internet, and personal contacts. Aftertelephone surveys were conducted to verify the au-thority of these firms, 17 firms were identified(along with their relevant person-in-charge). Sixother firms were eliminated because their opera-tions were no longer in existence in Hainan or theywere unable to be contacted due to inaccurate oroutdated information. Personal interviews wereconducted with top executives from parent firms inSingapore (and in Hainan if the key executives werepersonally managing the operations there). Duringthe interviews, a tape recorder was used wheneverpossible with the permission of the respondents. Atotal of 10 transcripts was completed. At the end ofthe interview, permission was sought from the in-terviewees to visit their business sites and to inter-view their local managers in Hainan by one of theauthors in February 1998. From the initial list of 17firms, all except three granted personal interviews.During the interviewing process, three further con-tacts were recommended and all were granted inter-views. In total, 16 interviews were conducted. Theremaining sampled firms used in this study weredrawn from information collated through the localsand personal observations during the Hainan fieldtrip and other printed materials such as newspapersand annual reports.

3 A branch of the Bank of China started operation inSingapore as early as 1936.

4 In 1995, the Singapore dollar’s exchange rate wasS$1.42 to US$1.

5 The lineage consists of a group of males all descend-ing from one common ancestor, all living togetherin one settlement, owning some property in com-mon, and all nominally under the leadership of theman most senior in terms of generation and age(Baker 1979, 49).

6 Multilineage settlements are also commonly foundin southeastern China, where lineage organizationis strongest (Baker 1979, 65).

7 A normal visa for a Singaporean is only valid for sixmonths. These elders can renew their visa inHainan for another three months, but only up to amaximum of two renewals. Thus, they usually haveto return to Singapore after a year of residence inHainan before they can apply again to return toHainan.

8 These accounts were gathered from the local Hain-anese during the field research in Hainan and fromone of the authors’ own relatives in Singapore.

9 Friendship is a synonym for guanxi.10 It was only random individuals from within a fam-ily, lineage, village or county that emigrated abroad.Hence, there were often no families, no lineage, andno clans in the host countries.

11 Today, Mr. Han’s shipping engineering company inSingapore is still in business. Due to his early entryinto Hainan, he established a great deal of guanxi or

connections. Currently, he owns several propertiesand a sack-making factory in Hainan.

Literature Cited

Amin, Ash, and Patrick Cohendet. 1999. Learningand adaptation in decentralized business net-works. Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace 17:87–104.

Amin, Ash, and Nigel Thrift, eds. 1994. Globaliza-tion, Institutions, and Regional Development in Eu-rope. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Asian Intelligence. 1993. 1 December 1993:400.Baker, Hugh D.R. 1979. Chinese Family and Kinship.

New York: Columbia University Press.Brown, Rajeswary Ampalavana, ed. 1995. Chinese

Business Enterprise in Asia. London: Routledge.Cadario, Paul M., Kazuko Ogawa, and Yin-Kann

Wen. 1992. A Chinese Province as a Reform Experi-ment: The Case of Hainan. Washington, DC: TheWorld Bank.

Cartier, Carolyn L. 1995. Singaporean investment inChina: Installing the Singapore model in Sunan.Chinese Environment and Development 6:117–44.

Caves, Richard E. 1996. Multinational Enterprise andEconomic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Chan, Kwok Bun, and See-Ngoh Claire Chiang.1994. Stepping Out: The Making of Chinese Entre-preneurs. Singapore: Simon and Schuster.

Cheng, Lim Keak. 1985. Social Change and the Chinesein Singapore: A Socio-Economic Geography with Spe-cial Reference to Bang Structure. Singapore: Sin-gapore University Press.

———. 1990. Reflections on the changing roles ofChinese clan associations in Singapore. In AsianCulture 14: Special Issue on Ethnic Chinese Abroad,ed. Ching Hwang Yen, 57–71. Singapore: Sin-gapore Society of Asian Studies.

Chin, Kin Wah. 1988. A new phase in Singapore’s re-lations with China. In ASEAN and China: AnEvolving Relationship, ed. Joyce K. Kallgren, Noor-din Sopiee, and Soedjati Djiwandono, 274–91.Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, Univer-sity of California.

Clark, Gordon L. 1997. Rogues and regulation inglobal finance: Maxwell, Leeson and the City ofLondon. Regional Studies 31:221–36.

———. 1998a. Stylized facts and close dialogue:methodology in economic geography. Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers 88:73–87.

———. 1998b. Why convention dominates pensionfund trustee investment decisionmaking. Environ-ment and Planning A 30:997–1015.

Cooke, Philip N., and Kevin Morgan. 1998. The As-sociational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dangdai Zhongguo de Hainan [Hainan Today]. 1993.


Beijing: Dangdai zhongguo chubanshe [HainanToday Publishing].

Davies, H., T.K.P. Leung, S.T.K. Luk, and Yiu-hingWong. 1995. The benefits of “guanxi”: The valueof relationships in developing the Chinese market.Industrial Marketing Management 24:207–14.

Department of Statistics, Singapore 1991. SingaporeCensus 1990. Singapore: Department of Statistics.

———. 1997. Singapore’s Direct Investment Abroad.Singapore: Department of Statistics.

———. 1998. Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 1998.Singapore: Department of Statistics.

Dicken, Peter. 1998. Global Shift: Transforming theWorld Economy. London: Paul Chapman.

Dicken, Peter, Philip Kelly, Kris Olds, and HenryWai-chung Yeung. 1998. Chains and Networks, Ter-ritories and Scales: Towards an Analytical Frameworkfor the Global Economy. Paper presented at the An-nual Meeting of the Association of American Ge-ographers, Boston, 25–29 March 1998.

Dicken, Peter, and Nigel Thrift. 1992. The organi-zation of production and the production of orga-nization: Why business enterprises matter in thestudy of geographical industrialization. Transac-tions, Institute of British Geographers 17:279–91.

Dunning, John H. 1993. Multinational Enterprises andthe Global Economy. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

East Asia Analytical Unit. 1995. Overseas ChineseBusiness Networks in Asia. Canberra, Australia: De-partment of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Economist. 1992. The overseas Chinese. July18:21–3.

Feng, Chongyi, and David S.G. Goodman. 1995.China’s Hainan Province: Economic Development andInvestment Environment. Western Australia: Uni-versity of Western Australia Press.

———. 1997. Hainan: Communal politics and thestruggle for identity. In China’s Provinces in Reform:Class, Community and Political Culture, ed. DavidS.G. Goodman, 53–87. London: Routledge.

Fung, Yu-lan. 1948. A Short History of Chinese Philos-ophy. New York: The Free Press.

Gertler, Meric. 1995. “Being there”: Proximity, or-ganization, and culture in the development andadoption of advanced manufacturing technolo-gies. Economic Geography 71:1–26.

Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic action and so-cial structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology 91:481–510.

Granovetter, Mark, and Richard Swedberg, eds.1992. The Sociology of Economic Life. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Guthrie, Douglas. 1998. The declining significanceof guanxi in China’s economic transition. TheChina Quarterly 154:254–82.

Hainan Jingji Nianjian [Hainan Yearbook] 1989–1997. Hainan: Hainan Nianjianshe.

Haley, George T., Chin-Tiong Tan, and Usha C.V.Haley. 1998. The New Asian Emperors: The Overseas

Chinese, Their Strategies and Competitive Advan-tages. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hamilton, Gary G., ed. 1991. Business Networks andEconomic Development in East and South East Asia.Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, Universityof Hong Kong.

Hayter, Roger, and Sun Sheng Han. 1998. Reflec-tions on China’s open policy towards direct for-eign investment. Regional Studies 32:1–16.

Hodder, Rupert. 1996. Merchant Princes of the East:Cultural Delusions, Economic Success and the OverseasChinese in Southeast Asia. Chichester: John Wiley& Sons.

Hsing, You-tien. 1998. Making Capitalism in China:The Taiwan Connection. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Huang, Yasheng. 1998. FDI in China: An Asian Per-spective. Singapore: Institute of Southeast AsianStudies.

Hudson, Alan C. 1998. Placing trust, trusting place:On the social construction of offshore financialcentres. Political Geography 17:915–37.

Jamann, Wolfgang. 1994a. Chinese Traders in Sin-gapore: Business Practices and Organisational Dynam-ics. Saarbrücken: Verlag für EntwicklungspolitickBreitenbach GmbH.

———. 1994b. Chinese trading firms in transition.In The Moral Economy of Trade: Ethnicity and Devel-oping Markets, ed. Hans-Dieter Evers and HeikoSchrader, 126–47. London: Routledge.

Kanai, Takao. 1993. Singapore’s new focus on re-gional business expansion. NRI Quarterly 2:18–41.

Kao, John. 1993. The worldwide web of Chinesebusiness. Harvard Business Review March-April:24–36.

Lasserre, Philippe, and Hellmut Schütte. 1995.Strategies for Asia Pacific. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Lee, Roger, and Jane Wills, eds. 1997. Geographies ofEconomies. London: Arnold.

Lee, Tsao Yuan. 1994. Overseas Investment: Experienceof Singapore Manufacturing Companies. Singapore:McGraw-Hill Book.

Lim, W.S. 1990. Pragmatic partners: Stable tradeand expanding investment link China and Sin-gapore. The China Business Review 17:22–29.

Limlingan, Victor S. 1986. The Overseas Chinese inASEAN: Business Strategies and Management Prac-tices. Manila: Vita Development Corporation.

Lin, George C.S. 1997. Red Capitalism in SouthChina: Growth and Development of the Pearl RiverDelta. Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaPress.

Liu, Hong. 1998. Old linkages, new networks: Theglobalization of overseas Chinese voluntary asso-ciations and its implications. The China Quarterly155:582–609.

Lu, Ding, and Gangti Zhu. 1995. Singapore foreigndirect investment in China: Features and implica-tions. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 12:53–63.


Luo, Yadong, and Min Chen. 1997. Does guanxi in-fluence firm performance? Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement 14:1–16.

McDowell, Linda. 1997. Capital Culture: Gender atWork in the City. Oxford: Blackwell.

McDowell, Linda, and Gill Court. 1994. Performingwork: Bodily representations in merchant banks.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space12:727–50.

Menkhoff, Thomas. 1994. Trade routes, trust andtactics. In The Moral Economy of Trade: Ethnicityand Developing Markets, ed. Hans-Dieter Eversand Heiko Schrader, 104–25. London: Routledge.

Olds, Kris. 1998. Globalization and urban change:Tales from Vancouver via Hong Kong. Urban Ge-ography 19:360–85.

Olds, Kris, and Henry Wai-chung Yeung. 1999.(Re)shaping “Chinese” business networks in a glo-balising era. Environment and Planning D: Societyand Space 17:535–55.

Orrù, Marco, Nicole Biggart, and Gary G. Hamil-ton. 1997. The Economic Organization of East AsianCapitalism. London: Sage.

Pang, Eng Fong. 1994. Chinese business enterprisein Singapore and Southeast Asia: Adjusting to newchallenges at home and abroad. In Culture, Politics,and Economic Growth: Experiences in East Asia, ed.Raj H. Brown, 171–83. Williamsburg: Departmentof Anthropology, College of William and Mary.

———. 1995. Staying global and going regional:Singapore’s inward and outward direct invest-ments. In The New Wave of Foreign Direct Invest-ment in Asia, 111–29. Singapore: Nomura Re-search Institute and Institute of Southeast AsianStudies.

Pang, Eng Fong, and Rajah V. Komaran. 1985. Sin-gapore firms in China. Singapore Business 9:12–5.

Pauly, Louis W., and Simon Reich. 1997. Nationalstructures and multinational corporate behavior:Enduring differences in the age of globalization.International Organization 51:1–30.

Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. 1991.The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Redding, S. Gordon. 1990. The Spirit of Chinese Cap-italism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Schoenberger, Erica. 1991. The corporate interviewsas a research method in economic geography. TheProfessional Geographer 43:180–9.

———. 1994. Corporate strategy and corporatestrategists: Power, identity, and knowledge withinthe firm. Environment and Planning A 26:435–51.

———. 1997. The Cultural Crisis of the Firm. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Sender, H. 1991. Inside the overseas Chinese net-work. Institutional Investor August:29–45.

Singapore-China Trade and Investment Directory 1997/1998. 3rd ed. 1998. Singapore: Longkin Consult-ants & Publishers Pte Ltd.

Smart, Josephine, and Alan Smart. 1991. Personal re-lations and divergent economies: A case study ofHong Kong investment in South China. Interna-tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research15:216–33.

Smelser, Neil, and Richard Swedberg, eds. 1994. TheHandbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Sun, Haishun. 1998. Macroeconomic impact of di-rect foreign investment in China: 1976–96. WorldEconomy 21:675–94.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. Economics and Sociology: OnRedefining Their Boundaries. Princeton, NJ: Prince-ton University Press.

Tan, Chee Huat. 1995. Venturing overseas: Singapore’sExternal Wing. Singapore: McGrawHill.

The Straits Times. Singapore. 17 November 1998.Thrift, Nigel. 1994. On the social and cultural deter-

minants of international financial centres: Thecase of the City of London. In Money, Power andSpace, ed. Stuart Corbridge, Ron Martin, and Ni-gel Thrift, 327–55. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

———. 1998. The rise of soft capitalism. In An Un-ruly World: Globalization, Governance and Geogra-phy, ed. Andrew Herod, Gearóid Ó Tuathail, andSusan M. Roberts, 25–71. London: Routledge.

Thrift, Nigel, and Kris Olds. 1996. Refiguring theeconomic in economic geography. Progress in Hu-man Geography 20:311–37.

Tickell, Adam T. 1996. Making a melodrama out of acrisis: Reinterpreting the collapse of Barings Bank.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14:5–33.

Tong, Chee Kiong, and Pit Kee Yong. 1998. Guanxibases, xinyong and Chinese business networks.British Journal of Sociology 49:75–96.

Tracy, Noel, and David Ip. 1995. The role of theoverseas Chinese in the transformation of China.In Doing Business in China, ed. J. Withey, 267–87.Ontario:McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Tsang, Eric W.K. 1998. Can guanxi be a source ofsustained competitive advantage for doing busi-ness in China? Academy of Management Executive12:64–73.

Wang, Gungwu. 1991. China and the Chinese Over-seas. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Weidenbaum, Murray, and Samuel Hughes. 1996.The Bamboo Network: How Expatriate Chinese En-trepreneurs Are Creating a New Economic Superpowerin Asia. New York: The Free Press.

Westney, D. Eleanor. 1993. Institutionalization the-ory and the multinational corporation. In Organi-sation Theory and the Multinational Corporation, ed.Sumantra Ghoshal and D. Eleanor Westney, 53–75. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Westney, D. Eleanor, ed. 1996. Special issue in Asianbusiness systems. Journal of Asian Business 12:1–112.

Whitley, Richard. 1992. Business Systems in East Asia:Firms, Markets and Societies. London: Sage.


———. 1998. Internationalization and varieties ofcapitalism: The limited effects of cross-nationalcoordination of economic activities on the natureof business systems. Review of International PoliticalEconomy 5:445–81.

Xing, Y.S., Q.Y. Han, and L.J. Huang. 1991. Ups andDowns of Overseas Hainanese. Hainan: Nanhai chu-ban gongsi.

Yen, Ching Hwang. 1995. Studies in Modern OverseasChinese History. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Yeung, Henry Wai-chung. 1994a. Critical reviews ofgeographical perspectives on business organisa-tions and the organisation of production: Towardsa network approach. Progress in Human Geography18:460–90.

———. 1994b. Third World multinationals revis-ited: A research critique and future agenda. ThirdWorld Quarterly 15:297–317.

———. 1995. Qualitative personal interviews in in-ternational business research. International Busi-ness Review 4:313–39.

———. 1997. Business networks and transnationalcorporations: A study of Hong Kong firms in theASEAN region. Economic Geography 73:1–25.

———. 1998a. The political economy of transna-tional corporations: A study of the regionalisationof Singaporean firms. Political Geography 17:389–416.

———. 1998b. The social-spatial constitution ofbusiness organisations: A geographical perspec-tive. Organization 5:101–28.

———. 1998c. Transnational Corporations and BusinessNetworks: Hong Kong Firms in the ASEAN Region.London: Routledge.

———. 1998d. Capital, state and space: Contestingthe borderless world. Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers 23:291–309.

———. 1998e. Transnational economic synergy andbusiness networks: The case of two-way invest-ment between Malaysia and Singapore. RegionalStudies 32:687–706.

———. 1999a. Regulating investment abroad? Thepolitical economy of the regionalisation of Sin-gaporean firms. Antipode 318:245–73.

———. 1999b. The internationalization of ethnicChinese business firms from Southeast Asia: Strat-egies, processes and competitive advantage. Inter-national Journal of Urban and Regional Research23:103–27.

———. 1999c. Under siege? Economic globalisation

and Chinese business in Southeast Asia. Economyand Society 28:1–29.

———. 2000a. Organising “the firm” in industrialgeography I: Networks, institutions and regionaldevelopment. Progress in Human Geography 24:301–15.

———. 2000b. State intervention and neoliberalismin the globalising world economy: Lessons fromSingapore’s regionalisation programme. The Pa-cific Review 13:133–62.

———. 2000c. Local politics and foreign ventures inChina’s transitional economy: The political econ-omy of Sinaporean investments in China. PoliticalGeography 19: forthcoming.

Yeung, Henry Wai-chung, and Olds, Kris, eds. 2000.The Globalisation of Chinese Business Firms. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press.

Yeung, I.Y.M., and R.L. Tung. 1996. Achieving busi-ness success in Confucian societies: The impor-tance of guanxi (connections). Organizational Dy-namics 25:54–65.

Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yong, Pow Ang. 1995. Singapore’s investment inChina. In Southeast Asian Chinese and China: ThePolitico-Economic Dimension, ed. Leo Suryadinata,249–54. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

CHIA-ZHI TAN graduated from the National Uni-versity of Singapore with a B.A. Honors degree (ma-joring in Geography). His main research interestscover broadly ethnic Chinese investment in China,the geography of transnational corporations, andGeographical Information System. During his re-search fieldwork in Hainan, China, in 1998, he inves-tigated the motivations of Singaporean investmentthere. E-mail: [email protected].

HENRY WAI-CHUNG YEUNG, Ph.D., is Assis-tant Professor at the Department of Geography, Na-tional University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, Sin-gapore 117570. E-mail: [email protected]. Hisresearch interests cover broadly theories and the ge-ography of transnational corporations, Asian firmsand their overseas operations, and Chinese businessnetworks in the Asia-Pacific region. He has con-ducted extensive research into Hong Kong firms inSoutheast Asia and the regionalization of Sin-gaporean companies.

Documents

The Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks: A Study of … · 2000-09-12 · The Regionalization of Chinese Business Networks: A Study of Singaporean Firms in Hainan, China*