Introduction to the special issue: changing paradigms in competition and competitiveness

Citation

Bengtsson, M. and Wilson, T.L. (2010), "Introduction to the special issue: changing paradigms in competition and competitiveness", Competitiveness Review, Vol. 20 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/cr.2010.34720baa.001

Introduction to the special issue: changing paradigms in competition and competitiveness

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Volume 20, Issue 2

We cannot claim originality in selecting the topic for this special issue. In fact, it is essentially the same topic covered in the International Conference on Emerging Competitiveness Paradigms, held January 2007, in Goa, India. We also drew from some words of our Editor-in-Chief. In the initial offering of Competitiveness Review, under Emerald as a publisher, Abbas Ali wrote, “The changing landscape of competition in the last three decades underscores the fact that in today’s global business environment neither competitors nor customers are passive players.” When approached with our idea of a special issue, both Abbas Ali and our Managing Editor, Prashanth Nagendra Bharadwaj, essentially said, “Go for it.”

We were not quite sure what we would be getting. In our call we suggested that analyzing competition and competitiveness today calls for new theoretical lenses. Therefore, the aim of the special issue would be to feature contributions that enhanced and broadened our views. We noted that Emerald publications carry a philosophy of theory and practice. Theoretical and empirical papers, thus, were welcomed and case studies were certainly to be considered. The one stipulation that we had was that all papers in this special issue must be related to paradigm changes. It was suggested that suitable topics might relate to changes at the industry, country, or global level.

In fact, we were fortunate in the variety of papers received for this special issue. In other words, individual papers did relate to changes not only at the industry, country, and global level, but at the firm and regional level as well. We have attempted to reflect that order in the appearance in this issue. That is, after a literature search that reflects a need for the special issue, papers wind their way through specific company, industry, regional, country, and global settings.

Further, we also had the good luck to draw papers from different countries and thus the flavor that geography gives to competition and competitiveness. Here, we are reminded of the preface in David Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom’s (1963) book, A Strategy of Decision, where it was suggested that no theory or comprehensive analysis could make a convincing argument for American policy over Swiss cartel policy. In our case, papers came not only from Europe and the USA, we also received a very insightful paper from two Pakistanis that reflects on the competitive situation in developing countries. We trust that some of the underlying appreciation for national policy enhances the richness of the special issue.

In assembling these papers, we have held fast to two criteria. First, the authors had to establish the paradigm level that they were using. We thought that important because the word “paradigm” through trendy usage has suffered from its original meaning established largely by T.J. Kuhn (1962) as a set of accepted beliefs about a field, particularly of a scientific nature. Insofar as Kuhn himself in his second and third editions of his book allowed that a second definition might be used – instead of the entire constellation of beliefs, it might refer to an element of belief in the constellation. It is likely that it is this second usage of the term that is present in these papers, but it should be evident to the reader. Thus, we may not be moving the constellation, but some elements in the constellation of competition and competitiveness. Second, we insisted that authors relate their observed shift to specific changes in competition and competitiveness. We think these authors conscientiously worked to do that.

The first paper is a literature survey by two collaborators – Aseem Kinra from the Copenhagen Business School and Imoh Antai from the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki. We were impressed by this paper when it first came in because the authors were the only ones to reference Kuhn’s treatise on paradigms. We were disappointed, however, insofar as they found virtually no references to paradigm shifts in the literature on competition. Consequently, we were tempted to send it back with orders to get positive results or suffer serious consequences. After consideration, however, it dawned on us that this paper set up the very need for a special issue. Thus, it went from potential reject to the paper that leads off this special issue. They conclude:

[…] we can say that a paradigm shift in competitiveness research has not yet taken place based on the results and discussion presented here. […] On the other hand, while one can hardly conclude from our single study whether a shift in paradigm has taken place or not, it may however be established that the process of the paradigm shift has begun. The process of a paradigm shift does not happen over night but as a series of intellectual revolutions, this is well emphasized by Kuhn (1962). While these shifts do not happen by accident, they are pioneered by certain communities of scientists who are sitting on the sidelines, and in times of crisis. The fact that we are seeing changes in one area or one community of researchers or scientists (e.g. the SCM and IMP domain), allows us to conclude that thinking is beginning to change in order to reflect constantly changing economic realities.

We can only hope/anticipate that this special issue can help in establishing those realities. At any rate, this paper is a nice way to start off this special issue and we appreciate the authors’ contribution.

In paper two, Sören Kock, Johanna Nisuls and Anette Söderqvist expose us to a variety of issues in their paper, “Co-opetition: a source of international opportunities in Finnish SMEs.” They indicate this paper is an extension of earlier research. In previous studies they focused on the internationalization process of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from a business network perspective. Focus was on cooperative relationships and more specifically social relationships. Another area of research dealt with earlier is how companies find opportunities to explore and exploit. In this current paper, they indicate a desire to combine these two, namely the business network approach and opportunity seeking. Moreover, within the business network approach, a more unorthodox unit of analysis, co-opetitive relationships with a dimension of strength, i.e. strong or weak, was chosen. The results show that international opportunities can be found in strong and weak cooperation-dominated relations as well as in equal relations between competitors. However, the different levels of co-opetition influence the characteristics of the international opportunities in terms of continuity and scope.

In the third paper, Roxana Wright writes about embeddedness of Romanian firms. She tells us she is native Romanian and this paper comes from research done during a visit there in which she spoke with a number of executives and government representatives. The topic of embedding into the local environment came up in almost every interview. She realized that the corporate as well as the local managers were confused about their connections with local organizations and were trying to figure out how to go about networking. A few companies agreed to be analyzed as case studies. Each of these firms’ managers believed that their respective company benefited largely from their network of local links. The findings proved differently. Direct relationships with the government, for instance, were found to be potentially detrimental, even if they may have been important at market entry.

Peter Zackariasson and Timothy L. Wilson look at developments in the video game industry in paper four. This topic has been of particular interest to Peter through his licentiate, a PhD dissertation, a number of journal articles, and now a book on the cyber economy. It is an interesting industry to study. They write, “To an extent, its development characterizes our generation – fast paced, technologically oriented and targeted toward the young and young at heart.” It also sees a lot of changes and from these changes an attempt is made to position events within a paradigm shift perspective. Perhaps, the two that shape the industry today are the entry of independent game-publishers that made the industry a two-tiered one (thus co-opetitive), and the development of MMOGs that changed the way games are played and the players themselves.

As background for paper five, Heléne Lundberg writes that she lives in a region that is sparsely populated and faces major economical challenges for the future. As a general approach, attempts to artificially establish clusters have not proven successful as a regional development strategy. In this instance, local planners have approached things a little differently. They have taken a networking paradigm to heart and have initiated several regional strategic networks (RSNs), mainly directed towards small and medium sized enterprises. Additionally, they have turned to the local university (Mid Sweden University) for help in evaluating and improving the RSN processes and a research team, specializing in these issues, has been formed at the university. The paper compares structural aspects of prosperous clusters, as identified in cluster theory, with characteristics of regional strategic networks. A theoretical discussion is supplemented with a study of two Swedish cases with structurally different settings. She concludes that some important changes were reported from these networks, indicating that RSN measures may contribute to bringing local business contexts in the direction of cluster conditions and thus improving competitiveness on the regional as well as on the firm level.

Paper six, written by Sulaman Hafeez Siddiqui and Hassan Mujtaba Nawaz Saleem, identifies the need to match existing policy to services in developing economies. The authors suggest that:

[…] developmental issues are more pronounced for developing countries like Pakistan. Despite economic openness, structural reforms and experiments with socialist policies, Pakistan like many other developing countries except East Asian ones is still stuck with a small and inefficient industrial sector having no international competitiveness. This paper is an attempt to address the issue in the context of domestic economics structure that is also shared by many other developing Asian economies as well.

The paper synthesizes the history of industrial policy to identify the major paradigm shifts, especially the structural reforms era of 1990s focusing on Pakistan. The evidence suggests that the reforms have proven to be the necessary but not sufficient condition for industrial competitiveness. Manufacturing-led growth without an integrated and competitive service sector can lead to severe external accounts deficits and unemployment. The traditional role of services as “driver of demand-growth” is extended to as “driver of productivity-competitiveness” through forward linkages with other sectors of economy. The services sector’s enabling role as the “software” of the economy and its impact on growth, diversification and inclusive growth is postulated. Consequently, balanced growth contributed by a capital-intensive manufacturing sector and human-capital intensive services sector is expected to boost growth rates and reduce unemployment simultaneously, while ensuring the competitive industrial structure in the post-reforms era.

Paper seven takes an interesting twist from some of the other papers in this special issue. Peter Hultén and Vladimir Vanyushyn present a research paradigm that they suggest can assist in preventing unethical behavior from strengthening its grip on the global economy. Drawing upon media reports of unethical behavior in Swedish companies and observations made when conducting field studies in Russia and the Ukraine, this paper identifies what is to be observed and analyzed at close range in companies with regard to corrupt acts. In addressing the background of this paper they wrote:

Basically our thinking was that in spite of all the efforts to combat corruption the problem is still there affecting the competitive landscape of the global economy. A new paradigm is thus needed to address the factors making corrupt behavior accepted in today’s companies. By addressing examples of unethical behavior inside organizations we draw attention to the fact that, just as corruption in developing countries, the disproportionate bonuses in Western companies drain resources from companies without adding values to other stakeholders.

By addressing the problems of abuse of power, alienation, subordinate actors’ fears, and structures with little (or no) transparency, the proposed research paradigm addresses factors making it possible for individuals to hide corrupt acts. Signs of alienation, abuse of power and threats of sanctions may thus be echoed in subordinate actors’ actions and statements. In other words, analyses of “fear factors” in relationships may provide a starting point for studies of the factors behind the rationality of unethical behavior and the socialization processes making corrupt acts accepted in organizations.

In the final paper, Maria Bengtsson, Jessica Eriksson, and Joakim Wincent suggest a research need in an important area of competition and competitiveness. The authors have for several years studied issues relating to cooperation as well as competition resulting in an interest in co-opetition, the simultaneous cooperation and competition between two or more actors. As the field of co-opetition developed, the authors noted how different definitions of what really constitutes co-opetition have developed. While this evolution is quite natural for an emerging paradigm, it is also problematic because in order to understand and systematically research and evaluate the dynamics so frequently attributed to co-opetition, the definition of what constitutes co-opetition must be clear-cut. A clear understanding of what the concept stands for is also crucial in order to be able to provide solid advice for how to manage co-opetitive relationships.

In pulling these papers together for this special issue, the reader should note that some submissions of course, were not used. That is the nature of the peer review system. In the final judgment, we attempted to convey the message to those authors that their submissions were not being rejected, they just did not fit the purpose of the special issue. We hope that we did that in a professional manner and expect to see those as at-large contributions in Competitiveness Review or other scholarly journals. Finally, we hope that this special issue serves as a start to number of publications in this journal, either as individual papers or a continuation of a special issue series. It is important that these world views be published and disseminated.

Maria Bengtsson, Timothy L. WilsonGuest Editors