Taiwan is an export-oriented country, her economic growth relies on foreign capital accumulation heavily. Many economists describe this economic growth pattern as a “shallow dish economy”. Therefore, how to attract inward FDI is the major task for Taiwan economic agency. Even though Taiwan government has provide many tax incentives and industry facilities to attract foreign direct investment, however, unilateral policies can never be a guarantee for successfully attracting inward FDI. The rationale is that MNEs have their own considerations while investing abroad. It is not possible for them to endeavor FDI activities merely according to host country’s incentive measures.
For exploring the determinants of Japanese MNEs to invest in Taiwan, this study employs a hybrid model that combines DEMATEL and ANP as an analysis methodology.
On the basis of Dunning (1993), sixteen FDI determinants of Japanese MNEs are collected and classified into five motives. Especially, a newly Network seeking motive is created in this study to catch the special Taiwan-Japan historical ties.
A self-structured questionnaire is designed in this study for the pairwise comparison of each determinant in each motive. Seven Japanese MNEs are chosen and the respondents are the senior managers of who are all in charge in FDI affairs in Taiwan.
Research results show that Efficiency seeking has the most relationship with other motives and is located in the central role among motives. Network seeking, dispatches the strongest influence on the other motives, is called the “main cause-factor” among the motives; while Strategic-asset seeking, receives the strongest influence from the other motives, is called the “main effect-factor” among the motives. Only Efficiency
45
seeking motive exists weak inner dependency.
Among the overall 16 determinants, this study list and discuss the first five determinants attracting Japanese MNEs to invest in Taiwan. Many Japanese MNEs regard Step stone determinant as the first priority. It means, Taiwan plays the role of midway that most Japanese MNEs will expand to other countries in the future instead of to invest in Taiwan permanently. Especially, many respondents expressed in the interview that their companies plan to or had already formed joint venture with Taiwanese company to invest in China. Infrastructure determinant is in the second place. Infrastructure can be ranked in high priority is account for its ability to provide convenient water, electric, traffic, communication, etc. for Japanese MNEs compared to adjacent Asia countries. The third is Geography. Geographic distance among Taiwan and adjacent Asia countries is much shorter, and can significantly reduce transportation costs of raw materials and final products and the costs of acquiring information from the home country. The fourth determinant is History. Since Japan had ruled Taiwan for fifty years before WWII, many Taiwanese entrepreneurs can speak Japanese fluently and can also fully understand Japanese culture and lifestyle. Therefore, Japanese MNEs may easily communicate with Taiwanese and perceive their friendship. The fifth determinant is Political risk. The political situation in Taiwan is relative stable. No hostile political turbulence or terroristic attack happened in Taiwan.
Most of the 5 unimportant determinants are concentrated in the Market seeking motive. For example, Market size, Population, and Market potential indicate that Taiwan’s population and market size is relative smaller and her market potential is also lower. The least important determinant is Raw materials. Because Taiwan doesn’t possess an abundance of raw minerals, few of foreign companies (including Japanese
46
MNEs) will invest in Taiwan for raw materials. Especially, foreign investors seldom come to Taiwan to create an agglomerate production group. Naturally, Cluster is ranked the latter position.
47
Reference
Alonso, J.A. and M.T. Lamata, 2006, Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based
Systems, 14(4), 445-59.
Alsalini, W., K. Wikström, J. Kiiras, 2004, Proactive schedule management of industrial turnkey projects in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 22 (1), 75-85.
Bakar, N.A., S.H. Che-Mat, and M. Harun, 2012, The impact of infrastructure on foreign direct investment: The case of Malaysia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65(3), 205-11.
Bartels, F.-L., F. Napolitano., and N.-E. Tissi, 2014, FDI in Sub-Saharan Africa: A longitudinal perspective on location-specific factors (2003–2010). International
Business Review ,
23 (3), 516-29.Bellak, C., M. Leibrecht, and A. Riedl, 2008, Labour costs and FDI flows into Central and Eastern European Countries: A survey of the literature and empirical evidence.
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19(1), 17-37.
Binns, R. and B. Driscoll, 1998, Intellectual property issues in R&D contracts.
Pharmaceutical Science & Technology Today, 1(3), 95-99.
Buckey, P.J., L.J. Clegg, and A.R. Adam, 2007, The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 499-518.
Busse, M. and C. Hefeker, 2007, Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment.
European Journal of Political Economy, 23(2), 397-415.
Castro, P.G., E.A. Fernandes, and A.C. Camposc, 2013, The determinants of foreign direct investment in Brazil and Mexico: An empirical analysis. Economics and Finance, 5, 231-40.
Chan, M.-W., K. Hou, X. Li, and D.-C.Mountain, 2014, Foreign direct investment and its determinants: A regional panel causality analysis,
The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance ,
54(4), 579-89.Chang, C.-H. and W.-H. Chang, 1992, The political economy of tax reform. In: Ito, T. and A.O. Krueger, (Eds), Tax Policy and Foreign Direct Invest Taiwan. Chicago, America.
48
Chen, F.-H., T.-S. Hsu, and G.-H. Tzeng, 2011, A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 30, 908-32.
Chen, H. and T.-J. Chen, 1998, Network linkages and location choice in foreign direct investment, Journal of International Business Studies
,
29(3), 445-67.Chen, T.-J., H. Chen, and Y.-H. Ku, 2004, Foreign direct investment and local linkages,
Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 320-33.
Chen, Y., 2009, Agglomeration and location of foreign direct investment: The case of China. China Economic Review, 20(3), 549-57.
Deng, P., 2004, Outward investment by Chinese MNCs: Motivations and implications.
Business Horizons, 47(3), 8-16.
Dunning, J.H., 1993, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK.
Fontela, E. and A. Gabus, 1976, The DEMETAL observer, DEMETAL Report. Battelle Geneve Research Centre, Switzerland Geneva.
Gillis, W.E. and J.G. Combs, 2009, Franchisor strategy and firm performance: Making the most of strategic resource investments. Business Horizons, 52(6), 553-61.
Goetz, S.J. and D. Hu, 1996, Economic growth and human capital accumulation:
Simultaneity and expanded convergence tests. Department of Agricultural Economics, 51, 355-62.
Herzer, D., S. Klasen, and F. Nowak-Lehmann, 2008, In search of FDI-led growth in developing countries: The way forward. Economic Modelling, 25(5), 793-810.
Hazing, A.W., 2002, Acquisitions versus greenfield investments: Strategy and management of entry modes. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 211–27.
Hill, C.W.L., 2007, International business: Competing in the global marketplace (6e), McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Hsu, C.-H., T.-C. Kuo, S.-H.Chen, and A.-H.Hu, 2013, Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 56(1), 164-72.
49
Ito, S., 2007, Japan-Taiwan joint ventures in China: Why have Japan companies been using “Trinational international joint venture” which have been regarded as most
“unstable”? Sato, Y. and M. Kawakami (eds.), Competition and Cooperation among
Asian Enterprises in China, Chosakenkyu-Hokusho, IDE-JETRO.
Jean, R.-J.B., D. Tan, and R.R. Sinkovics, 2011, Ethnic ties, location choice, and firm performance in foreign direct investment: A study of Taiwanese business groups FDI in China. International Business Review, 20(6), 627-35.
Kahouli, B. and S. Maktouf, 2014, The determinants of FDI and the impact of the economic crisis on the implementation of RTAs: A static and dynamic gravity model,
International Business Review, 34, 279-99.
Kolstad, I. and A. Wiig, 2012, What determines Chinese outward FDI? Journal of World
Business, 47(1), 26-34.
Kowalewski, O. and M.-J. Radło, 2014, Determinants of foreign direct investment and entry modes of Polish multinational enterprises: A new perspective on
internationalization, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 3(4), 365-74.
Köksalan, M., J. Wallenius, and Z. Stanley, 2011, Multiple Criteria Decision Making:
From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific, Singapore.
Kubny, J. and H. Voss, 2014, Benefitting from Chinese FDI? An assessment of vertical linkages with Vietnamese manufacturing firms,
International Business Review, 23(4),
731-40.Li, J. and J. Zhong, 2003, Explaining the growth of international R&D alliances in China.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2-3), 101-15.
Lin, T.-R., Y.-C. Shen, and J. Chou, 2010, National innovation policy and performance:
Comparing the small island countries of Taiwan and Ireland. Technology in Society, 32(2), 161-72.
Liou, J.J.H., L. Yen, and G.H. Tzeng, 2008, Building an effective safety management system for airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(1), 20-6.
Loungani, P., A. Mody, and A. Razin, 2002, The global disconnect: The role of
transactional distance and scale economies in gravity equations. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy, 49(5), 526-43.
Luo, Y. and R.-L. Tung, 2007, International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A
50
springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 1–18.
Makino,S., C.-M. Lau, and R.-S. Yeh, 2002, Asset-exploitation versus asset-seeking:
Implications for location choice of foreign direct investment from newly industrialized economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 403-21.
Millet, I. and T.L. Saaty, 2000, On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational
Research, 121(1), 205-12.
Milner, C. and G. Reed, 2006, Vertical linkages and agglomeration effects in Japanese FDI in Thailand. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 20(2), 193-208.
Minin, A.D., J. Zhang, and P. Gammeltoft, 2012, Chinese foreign direct investment in R&D in Europe: A new model of R&D internationalization. European Management, 30(3), 189-203.
Mukhtar, A., M. Ahmad, M. Waheed, R.-H. Ullah, and H. Inam, 2014, Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment flow in developing countries, International Journal of
Academic Research in Applied Science, 3(3), 26-36.
Nielsen, B.B. and S. Nielsen, 2011, The role of top management team international orientation in international strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 185-93.
Ou-Yang, Y.-P., H.-M. Shieh, J.-D. Leu, and G.-H. Tzeng, 2008, A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of
Operations Research, 5(3), 160-68.
Ozawa, T., 2005, Institutions, Industrial Upgrading, and Economic Performance in Japan:
The ‘Flying Geese’ Paradigm of Catch-up Growth, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing, USA.Pan, Y.-G. and D.-K. Tse, 2000, The hierarchical model of market entry modes. Journal of
International Business Studies, 31(4), 535-54.
Pangarkar, N. and H. Lim, 2003, Performance of foreign direct investment from Singapore, International Business Review, 12(5), 601-24.
Qiu, L.D., 2010, Cross-border mergers and strategic alliances, European Economic
Review, 54(6), 818-31.
51
Ramasamy, B., M. Yeung, and S. Laforet, 2012, China's outward foreign direct investment: Location choice and firm ownership. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 17-25.
Saaty, T.L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
_________, 1993, What is relative measurement? The ratio scale phantom.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5), 1-12.
_________, 1996, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: Analytic Network
Process, Publications: Pittsburgh, RWS.
_________, 2006, Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process. Springer Science+Business Media, Boston.
Sun, Q., W. Tong, and Q. Yu, 2002, Determinants of foreign direct investment across China. Journal of International Money and Finance, 21(1), 79-113.
Tamura, M., H. Nagata, and K. Akazawa, 2002, Extraction and systems analysis of factors that prevent safety and security by structural models, Proceedings of the 41st
SICE Annual Conference, Osaka, Japan, 1752-59.
Tuan, C. and F.Y. Linda, 2004, Manufacturing agglomeration as incentives to Asian FDI in China after WTO. Journal of Asian Economics, 15(4), 673-93.
Tzeng, G.-H., C.-H. Cheng, and C.-W. Li, 2007, Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-44.
UNCTAD, 2006, UNCTAD World Investment Report 2006: FDI from Developing and
Transition Economies-Implications for Development. United Nations, New York and
Geneva.Wu, W.-W., 2008, Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 828-35.
Xiao, Z., S. Xia., K. Gong, and D. Li, 2012, The trapezoidal fuzzy soft set and its application in MCDM. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 32(12), 5844-55.
Yamin, M. and R. Sinkovics, 2009, Infrastructure or foreign direct investment? An examination of the implications of MNE strategy for economic development. Journal of
World Business, 44(2), 144-57.
52
Zaheer, S., A. Lamin, and M. Subramani, 2009, Cluster capabilities or ethnic ties location choice by foreign and domestic entrants in the services offshoring industry in India.
Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 944–68.
Zhang, H.-L., 2005, Why does so much FDI from Hong Kong and Taiwan go to Mainland China? China Economic Review, 16(3), 293–307.
53
Appendix The Questionnaire
This questionnaire is divided into four parts:
A. Determinants description;
B. DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) questionnaire;
C. ANP (Analytic Network Process) questionnaire; and D. Personal Profile.
54
A. Determinants description
Motives Categories Determinants Description
A. Market Seeking
a1 Population The number of domestic residents in Taiwan a2 Market size The domestic market capacity in Taiwan
a3 GDP The gross domestic product (GDP) in Taiwan
a4 Market potential The possibility to expand sales amount in Taiwan in the near future
B. Resource Seeking b1 Raw material Domestic natural resource: agriculture, forest, fishery, pasture, and mineral products, etc.
in Taiwan
b2 Human resource The supply of domestic skilled labors and knowledge workers in Taiwan
C. Efficiency Seeking
c1 Geography distance The distance from Taiwan to ASEAN nations, China, South Korea, and Japan
c2 Infrastructure The level of domestic infrastructure: water supply, electricity, traffic, communication, etc.
in Taiwan
c3 Cluster The level of similar industries centered at a specific area in Taiwan
c4 Tax Tax incentives provided by Taiwan government
c5 Political risk The possibility of political turbulence in Taiwan
D. Strategic-asset Seeking
d1 Technology The level of domestic technology in Taiwan d2 Protection of
intellectual property right The level of enforcement for protecting intellectual property right in Taiwan
E. Network seeking
e1 Ethnic ties The ethnic relationship perceived by Taiwanese and Japanese e2 History The historical relationship between Taiwan and Japan
e3 Step stone The strategic thinking to invest in Taiwan as a prelude for expanding to a third county
55
B. DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) questionnaire
The questionnaires of 5-point Likert scale (0 ~ 4) : (0) equaling “No influence”, (1) “Low influence”, (2) “Medium influence”, (3) “High influence” and (4) “Very high influence”.
A B C D E
A 4
B
1. Example of how to fill the comparison of the impact of the five motives categories
effect Cause
A. Market Seeking
B. Resource Seeking
C. Efficiency Seeking
D. Strategic-asset Seeking
E. Network Seeking
A. Market Seeking 3 2 1 0
B. Resource Seeking 4 2 0 0
C. Efficiency Seeking 3 2 0 2
D. Strategic-asset Seeking 1 4 2 2
E. Network Seeking 3 4 1 1
56
2. Comparison of the impact of the five motives categories
※Please fill out the compared level of the five motives categories in the following table
effect Cause
A. Market Seeking
B. Resource Seeking
C. Efficiency Seeking
D. Strategic-asset Seeking
E. Network Seeking A. Market Seeking
B. Resource Seeking C. Efficiency Seeking D. Strategic-asset Seeking E. Network Seeking
57
C. ANP (Analytic Network Process) questionnaire
1. Example of how to fill the comparison of the relative importance of the 16 determinants
※Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
a1 Population
✓
a2 Market size
✓
a3 GDP
…………
✓
b1 Raw material
1 = “Equally Important”, 3 = “Moderately Important”, 5 = “Strongly Important”, 7 = “Very Strongly Important”, and 9 = “Extremely Important”.
2, 4, 5, and 6 indicate intermediate preferences.
58
2. Comparison of the relative importance of the 16 determinants
(1) ”a1 Population” Considering the importance of thedeterminants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i
pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
a1 Population
a2 Market size a3 GDP
a4 Market potential b1 Raw material b2 Human resource c1 Geography distance c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
59
(2) ”a2 Market size” Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
a2 Market size
a3 GDP
a4 Market potential b1 Raw material b2 Human resource c1 Geography distance c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
60
(3) ”a3 GDP” Considering the importance of thedeterminants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
a3 GDP
a4 Market potential b1 Raw material b2 Human resource c1 Geography distance c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
61
(4) ”a4 Market potential” Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
a4 Market potential
b1 Raw material b2 Human resource c1 Geography distance c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
62
(5) “b1 Raw material“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
b1 Raw material
b2 Human resource c1 Geography distance c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
63
(6) “b2 Human resource“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9) Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
b2 Human resource
c1 Geography distance c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
64
(7) “c1 Geography distance“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
c1 Geography distance
c2 Infrastructure c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
65
(8) “c2 Infrastructure“ Considering the importance of thedeterminants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
c2 Infrastructure
c3 Cluster c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
66
(9) “c3 Cluster“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
c3 c3 Cluster
c4 Tax
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
67
(10) “c4 Tax“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
c4 Tax
c5 Political risk d1 Technology d2 Protection Patent e1 Ethnic ties e2 History e3 Step stone
(11) “Political risk“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
c5 Political risk
d1 Technology
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
68
(12) “d1 Technology“ Considering the importance of the Determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
d1
Technology
d2 Protection Patent e1 Ethnic ties e2 History e3 Step stone
(13) “d2 Protection Patent“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
d2 Protection Patent
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History
e3 Step stone
69
(14) “e1 Ethnic ties“ Considering the importance of the determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9
Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
e1 Ethnic ties
e2 History e3 Step stone
(15) “e2
History“ Considering the importance of the
determinants, fill in 9:1 to 1:9Determinant i pairwise comparison (minimum 1 and maximum 9)
Determinant j
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
e2 History
e3 Step stone70
D. Personal Profile
1. Gender: □ Male □ Female
2. Educational background: □ University □ Master □ Ph.D 3. The type of industry:
4. Position:
5. Age: □ less than 30 years □ 30～40 years □ 40～50 years □ 50～60 years □ over 60 years old 6.