Search results

The objective of this paper is to survey the recent developments in economic theories of buyer power and using the theories as a guide to discuss how antitrust cases involving buyer power can be analysed. An important conclusion that emerges from this survey is that the competition effects of buyer power are quite different depending on whether it is monopsony power against powerless suppliers or countervailing buyer power against large suppliers with market power. A proposed framework of antitrust analysis is presented, and issues related to market definitions and determination of buyer power are discussed.

Economists usually shy away from talking about power. They assume an economy comprised of many small and medium-sized firms, each competing for consumer dollars. This circumvents the problem of economic power. John Kenneth Galbraith, however, refused to ignore power. It stood at the center of his economics, and he saw it as a key reason the US economy thrived in the years following World War II (WWII). This chapter examines Galbraith’s changing views regarding economic power. American Capitalism explains how countervailing power, or power on the other side of the market, solves the problem of economic power. In The New Industrial State, scientists and educated managers within the firm (the technostructure) mitigate the negative consequences of economic power wielded by large firms. The Affluent Society and Economics and the Public Purpose look to the government as the main check on corporate power. It does this through labor legislation or programs such as the New Deal and Fair Deal. This chapter then evaluates the different solutions Galbraith proffered to the problem of economic power. It contends that Galbraith got three things right when analyzing economic power. First, we no longer live in a world of scarcity due to oligopolistic firms. Second, capitalism was different in the post-WWII era because the US economy thrived and gains were shared widely. Third, Galbraith understood that power was unequally distributed – both between the public and private sectors and within the private sector itself. On the other hand, Galbraith was overly optimistic in believing the market economy or the public sector could counter corporate power.

Aims to discuss virgin ground in marketing — channel exploitation. Briefly reviews the role of power in channel conflict and public policy recommendations are made. Discusses channel conflict and gives thoughts on how to resolve it with three proposed solutions. Pinpoints Galbraith's power concepts of countervailing power which asserts most markets start as competitive. Explains though, that competition is not required for regulatory purposes, as countervailing power will usually exist, especially in retail goods. Looks at franchising and potential areas of exploitation and closes with public policy recommendations that have the advantage of being in the interest of both small business and consumers.

The author sets out to achieve a better measurement of interorganisational power in distribution channels.

The paper seeks to answer the question: why is John Kenneth Galbraith a radical economist? The purpose of this paper is to show how he contributed to the development of economic theory and how this contribution differs radically from mainstream economics.

In concentrating on Galbraith's theory of power – certainly his most radical contribution to economics – the paper begins to provide an overview of his conceptual work. This overview includes Galbraith's theory of consumption, the firm and financial crisis and ends with his vision for the future. To demonstrate the radical nature of Galbraith's frameworks, they are compared to other heterodox economic theories – namely Institutional and Post Keynesian economics and to a number of randomly chosen standard economics textbook.

This comparative and interpretive exercise clearly demonstrates links of Galbraithian with other heterodox economic theories and very little mentioning and uptake of these concepts in widely used economics textbooks. Galbraith's ideas do seem to fit in well with Institutional and Post Keynesian economics, but not with standard economics.

Galbraithian economics is a clear example of a set of heterodox economic ideas that can be taught probably best as a separate and alternative framework of analysis to the mainstream. To familiarize students with Galbraith's economics will certainly strengthen their analytical abilities and provide them with radically different and particularly useful insights in this time of financial crisis.

The paper demonstrates the explanatory value of Galbraith's economics and the origin of the radical nature of his concepts which lies in his theory of power.

In late 1973 and early 1974, in the run‐up to the most traumatic general election of modern times, a democratically elected government was humiliated and brought down by carefully orchestrated industrial action. It is my belief that this event will come, in time, to be seen as a major turning point in our society, after which certain aspects of our national life will never be the same again. It was the start of a rapidly‐developing movement which surged through 1974 to 1977 when the steam was eventually taken out of it by the Labour Party losing its overall majority in Parliament. But it has, by now, already produced basic and irreversible shifts in Britain in respect of that complex area made up of work, employment and the way the country earns its living. Only recently has it begun to sink in how deep‐seated these changes are. One result, among many others, is that nowadays, except on very rare occasions, only the left, the trade unions and the TUC publicly express any opinion about this topic; alternative voices have been gradually silenced, not because of any deep‐laid plot but because those on whom the duty of advancing an alternative view would normally fall have opted out and lapsed into a punch‐drunk state, directly caused by the events of 1973–4. To say the least they have lost their nerve; some are somewhat petulant at the turn events have taken; others have just got nothing to say; and yet another group think it diplomatic to keep quiet and hope for things to improve.

This exposition explains how Elementary Theory works and how it has been developed over the last two-and-a-half decades. Both increased scope and heightened precision are covered.

Theoretic methodology is explained. Using that method formal models are constructed analogous to empirical events. Those models predict events, design experiments, and guide applications in the field.

There is a widely held belief in sociology that theory becomes more vague and imprecise as its scope broadens. Whereas broader generalizations are more vague than narrower ones, this exposition shows that abstract theory becomes more precise as its scope broadens.

Here implications and limitations are closely connected. Regarding implications, this exposition shows that scientific explanations and predictions are viable today in sociology but only when exact theory is employed. Regarding limitations, the theory and research included in this exposition make clear why the empiricist search for regularities that dominates sociological research is so very limited in its results.

This exposition demonstrates that theory is the method of all the sciences and in particular the science of sociology.

This paper aims to focus on resistance strategies in distribution channels. The concept of resistance has received much attention in organization theory, but it has been rather neglected in corporate strategy. Only a few works dedicated to distribution channels explicitly use the notion of resistance strategy. These works provide a view of resistance as an inter-organizational phenomenon between companies (i.e. buyers and suppliers) but limit resistance strategies to merely confrontation strategies between channel members. This paper studies resistance strategies in a more open perspective considering that resistance can coexist with collaborative relationships, as part of a specific societal reality.

To capture the deep variety of resistance strategies, from the most active to the most passive, a qualitative research was carried out in France in the context of the book trade, based on 15 semi-structured interviews. The discourse analysis provides insights into the social reality of an organization and also the reality of changes in inter-organizational relationships. The interviews were conducted with 15 different companies representing a significant share of the French market.

The paper shows that channel members successfully develop resistance strategies of logistical nature, based on the efficient monitoring of flows, both inside the company (logistics rationalization) and within the supply chain (control of interfaces). Channel members who implement a logistics rationalization and a control of interfaces succeed not only in containing the power of their powerful partners but also in benefitting from new sources of profitability and improvement of customer service.

The French book trade is an illustration of the role played by logistical aspects in the power exercised by a supplier and resistance strategies that buyers develop in response as part of buyer-supplier relationships. Indeed, it is because they have a strong logistical expertise that dominant actors are capable, step by step, to place dominated actors in a situation of strong dependency, by using for that purpose their logistical means. In turn, dominated actors seek to develop logistical responses to rebalance the buyer-supplier relationships in their favor.

The paper aims to present the case for a “paradigm shift” in current thinking about how to undertake category management and develop sourcing strategies using power positioning techniques. The case is made based on the growing evidence of a mismatch between currently dominant academic and consulting methodologies and the reality of professional managerial practice.

The paper provides a critique of the currently dominant thinking about how to conduct category management and strategic sourcing using the Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Analysis methodology and the more recent Purchasing Chessboard approach. The critique focuses on their lack of analytical rigour when segmenting categories of supply, and their lack of robustness when making practical recommendations for managers when developing sourcing strategies.

The paper demonstrates how (building on the initial power positioning approach outlined, but not fully developed, by Kraljic) a new approach to portfolio analysis can be developed. Sourcing Portfolio Analysis identifies over 30 strategic sourcing strategies for managers to utilise. Using a simple case study, the power of this new methodology to provide managers with more comprehensive and effective sourcing strategies is demonstrated.

Because of the power of this new approach, and the need to challenge existing methodologies, researchers are encouraged to utilise it and try help to generate a “paradigm shift” in current thinking within the profession.

The paper provides the basis for a future more strategic supply management, rather than the currently tactical spend management, approach to sourcing.

This paper provides a new approach to portfolio analysis.