Global Value Chains, Business Networks, Strategy, and International Business: Convergences.
| Autor | Humphrey, John |
1 Introduction
Over the past three decades, global trade has grown and many new exporting countries, particularly in Asia, have been incorporated into the global economy. This growth has been accompanied by two important structural transformations. The first is the expansion of what Baldwin and Lopez-Gonzalez (2015) call supply-chain trade. Production has become more fragmented and the share of trade in finished products declined in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, while the share of trade in parts has increased (Baldwin & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2015). Second, even in sectors in which the activity of trading final products continues to dominate (for example, food, clothing, and shoes), the shift of production to developing and emerging economies has been accompanied by increased outsourcing and the role of firms specializing in design, marketing, and retail in structuring international trade. This trend has been described with terms such as "manufacturers without factories" (Gereffi, 1999, p. 46) and "factoryless goods producing firms" (Bernard & Fort, 2015, p. 518).
Various theoretical approaches have attempted to understand these changes in terms of what they imply for both businesses and countries. The Global Value Chain (GVC) literature emerged as an attempt to understand these questions and identify their implications for developing countries. Equally, however, some strands of the business and management literature, notably the research on business networks, strategy, and international business, have addressed these issues. For example, the international business literature has used the concept of the "global factory" to describe how multinational firms have integrated production activities in Asia into their global strategies and what the consequences might be for the newly-integrated economies (Buckley, 2009).
These differing approaches have much in common. They are all concerned with fragmentation across borders (offshoring); fragmentation across businesses (outsourcing); and strategies for coordinating in the presence of fragmentation. Equally, they tend to draw on similar theoretical foundations, including transaction cost economics and knowledge-based and resource-based theories of the firm, and are concerned with how firms try to remain competitive in the global economy.
Nevertheless, the four research areas do not engage with each other as much as they should. Their starting questions are often different, as recent research has recognized (Strange & Humphrey, 2018), and the audiences they address also differ. It is certainly true that there have been attempts to establish links across the theories, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. For this reason, this special issue of the RBGN has been devoted to the interface between GVC theory and three strands of the business literature that have also developed theory in the areas of globalization, competitiveness, and how businesses manage links with other firms. Thus, this collection of papers is a further attempt to promote dialogue and develop theory in these four research areas.
This overview frames the papers in the special issue through an analysis of the areas of interaction between the four themes: GVCs, business networks, strategy, and international business. In both the special issue and this paper, in general terms, the following questions are addressed: (1) What is the intersection of the literature on GVCs, strategy, business networks, and international business, and where has conceptual clarity and consensus already emerged? (2) In what ways might emergent research themes--for example, the circular economy, multi-stakeholder governance, and internationalization of knowledge and technology--use common knowledge across the four areas as an analytical tool to sharpen the understanding of these phenomena? (3) How might GVC analysis in issues such as innovation make effective use of concepts developed by business networks, strategy, and international business literature?
Specifically, in this paper, we focus on answering the question that follows: What is the distinction between the GVC literature and the selected strands of the business literature, i.e. on business networks, strategy, and international business? Although there is a variety of business literature, we chose only these three strands for consideration. By answering this question and developing a theoretical synthesis, the basic principles and concepts of the four areas are identified. The results are used to develop a summary matrix of the approaches (Tables 1 and 2).
The paper is divided into four sections. The following section explains the logic behind the theoretical development. The main contribution of the paper lies in evidencing the convergences between the four fields studied, showing what they aim to explain, the scope of analysis of each field, as well as identifying the most investigated topics. We also make a methodological contribution by unveiling aspects that are common to the four fields.
Section three, the literature review, examines the most frequently referenced articles relating to each of the four approaches and the attempts to link them. The section concludes with a table that provides an interdisciplinary synthesis covering each of the approaches investigated.
The fourth section presents the theoretical outcomes of this article, its foundations, justifications, internal logic, theoretical coherence, and explanatory competence, which are compared with other efforts. The conclusion revisits the initial questions, presents the results, comments on the limitations of the theoretical enquiry, and examines the contributions of the article.
2 Logic behind the Theoretical Development
When writing a theoretical article it is important to explain the starting points of the analysis and the principles used for a critical review of the literature. Our methodological path is inductive and inferential, as the task involves searching for similarities, complementarities, and overlaps across the four social science disciplines referred to above.
The inductive classification is the result of searching for evidence and the convergence of indicators among the four research fields, presenting conclusions on the overlaps and similarities for analysis and the treatment of empirical observations. The inferential approach comes from bringing together ideas encapsulated in the concepts of the four academic disciplines, based on the content put forward by the relevant literature. For example, the concepts of dynamic competencies in the strategy field and social capital in relation to business networks show significant conceptual similarity. From the conceptual definitions, it is possible to infer that both categories refer to the creation of resources in a collective action and through learning feedback loops, therefore no existing actors, persons, or organizations act in isolation.
In order to apply this inferential approach systematically, we adopted a scientific categorization framework based on the paradigmatic theory raised by Kuhn (1962) and Popper and Hansen (2014) for the analysis of distinctive scientific fields. This framework is composed of eight categories that describe the contributions from each scientific discipline. These eight categories enable a systematic comparison across an interdisciplinary field:
* What are the dominant assumptions?--This is an enquiry into basic assumptions that are accepted without discussion by the scientific community. For example, in both GVC and network theory it is assumed that the human being is social and needs to live in a group. Assumptions give direction to scientific enquiry and facilitate researchers in identifying the objects of their enquiry and the direction of argumentation, asking questions that are different from their assumptions.
* What are the dominant theories?--Particularly in relation to other social theories such as economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or communications. For example, game theory applies to both economics and strategy. Dominant theories already cut across multidisciplinary social enquiries and bring with them a portfolio of research questions.
* What are the variants of contemporary theories?--The current development of basic theoretical frameworks and explanatory models within a discipline. For example, within network theory are hypotheses relating to social capital, governance, and group management. The proliferation of theoretical frameworks within an academic discipline as a field of enquiry shows new emergent discourses that give rise to new concepts and methodological tools.
* What is the phenomenon to be explained?--Refers to the object of analysis in an academic field of enquiry. For example, within networks one of the core investigative concepts is the structure of ties. The definition of the phenomenon that constitutes the objects of scientific enquiry influences much of the following methodologies and scientific practices.
* What is the scope of analysis?--Indicates the level of enquiry, whether the scope is people, groups, organizations, regions, states, or nations. For example, within networks, there are three distinctive levels of analysis--the actors, the relationships, and the whole network. The same analytical reasoning can be applied to the GVC field. Some disciplines and scientific fields of enquiry are broader in scope, connect multiple theories, and examine multiple objects of enquiry.
* What are the most frequent search topics?--Concerned with specific investigative categories and whether they refer to behaviors, processes, decisions, relationships, cost analysis, modes of production and sales, modes of competition, the analysis of social groups, or other core concepts. For example, core concepts and investigative questions related to networks include structure, relationships, strategies, results, and benefits.
* What is the dominant...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
