Search results

This chapter aims to discuss the challenges facing these countries building productive capacity for development. This chapter makes use of data published by international organizations as indicators for measuring the state of development in the Arab region. Several indicators are presented to compare Arab countries with other world regions. The use of data identifies some of the gaps that countries in the Arab region need to close to strengthen capacity building for development and fostering economic growth. The findings from the data presented reveal that the productive structure in most Arab countries remains weak to generate production linkages and provide incentives for investment in nonenergy sectors. The failure of the export-led growth model to diversify output and promote development in energy producing countries has increased the dependence of these countries on global trade. Fluctuations in commodity prices and uncertainty about global demand for energy have influenced the ability of the state to construct strategies for rapid transformation. Except for the energy sector, the productivity of nonoil sectors remains low reflecting inadequate incentives and ineffective entrepreneurial capabilities. The study examines the challenges for building productive capacity in the Arab world. It illustrates the failure of the led-export model and its inability to prompted economic diversification, especially in the Gulf countries. The study contributes to the literature on capacity building in the Arab world so that to encourage researchers and students of development conducting studies concerning the main development challenges facing these countries.

Research on diversification has produced insights into possible linkages between organizational scale and scope and firm performance. However, the paucity of research on strategy implementation has hindered our understanding of the broader performance implications of diversification. We extend the resource-based view and diversification research by examining how firms can exploit diversifying investments designed to achieve scale and scope economies. Successful firms more effectively structure their resource portfolio, bundle resources into capabilities, and leverage these capabilities when implementing a diversification strategy. We develop a model linking strategies by which firms expand product and geographic market scope to the actions they take to manage resources. We examine three actions – internal development, acquisitions, and strategic alliances – and discuss the implications of these actions using the resource management framework.

The authors study the relation between a firm’s combinative capability and value creation in the context of technological scope expansion. On a sample of Compustat firms that applied for US patents between 1980 and 2001, the authors find that firm value, measured using Tobin’s q, decreases with increases in technological scope (measured as the number of unique patent classes). However, when firms expand by combining different classes into a single patent, the authors find that this negative effect is significantly diminished. These findings indicate that increasing technological scope likely creates value only when the firm is able to integrate the components into a single technology; simply maintaining different technological components within the firm boundary without integration appears to subject the firm to a discount.

Strategy researchers have become fascinated with the possibilities for developing theoretical perspectives rooted in knowledge and intellectual assets as drivers of superior performance. However, there have been many different schools of thought, each with its own conceptualization lenses and operationalization approaches. In this chapter, we focus on three schools of thought: (1) knowledge as stocks; (2) knowledge as flow; and (3) knowledge as a driver of an organizational capability. We use them to: (a) lay out the distinct approaches to conceptualization and operationalization of strategy-related concepts; and (b) identify specific ways to enhance theory-method correspondence. We believe that considerable progress could be made towards developing a knowledge-based view of strategy but only when accompanied by serious attention to measurement and methodological issues.

This paper offers a discussion of the key multilevel issues pertaining to the multinationality–performance (M–P) relationship. Arguably, one of the most important areas of research in international business, firm internationalization and its consequences are multilevel phenomena, influenced by forces at different managerial and structural levels: from the executive, subsidiary and firm, to the country and industry. We suggest that accounting for important factors at each level and for their cross-level interactions may help reconcile inconsistent findings and advance our understanding of the M–P relationship. Based on a critical review of the literature, we offer recommendations regarding the appropriate levels of theory, measurement, and analysis to guide future research.

Our study proposes a resource environment view (REV) of competitive advantage by unpacking the environmental origins of a firm’s competitive advantage. The key tenet of the REV is that the heterogeneity and imperfect mobility of strategic factor markets and institutions across countries explain how firms based in different countries would likely both create and sustain a competitive advantage. In particular, our study introduces the notion of “the paradox of environmental embeddedness.” The paradox lies in the fact that the same environmental conditions – in terms of strategic factor markets and institutions – that enable firms to create a competitive advantage can paradoxically also create a situation in which it is more difficult for these firms to sustain an advantage. Another important aspect of our study is that, to enhance our understanding of how firms manage the paradox of environmental embeddedness, our study specifies the resource environmental conditions under which firms’ internal and external resource-oriented strategies – that is, the development of dynamic capabilities and interventions in the country resource environment – are more beneficial when managing the environmental paradox. Overall, our theorizing has important implications for strategic management theory and practice.

The central organizing principle for this volume – the industry life cycle model – is so widely accepted and its basic premises so taken for granted that it has become conventional wisdom in business. Executives in a range of industries use the model to guide their thinking about when and how to invest in various industries. Diversification decisions, for example, are often made on the basis of life cycle logic, especially as large, established companies seek high-growth opportunities for investment.

The financial services industry is experiencing rapid consolidation globally. Consolidation has proceeded not only in the same market but also across different market segments and across national boundaries. In this paper, we (a) outline the general trend of the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and consolidation of the financial service industry in the U.S. and in the global economy; (b) identify and analyze the reasons that contribute to the consolidation of the financial service industry; (c) examine some cases of successful and unsuccessful financial service M&As; and (d) arrive at some strategic implications.

Regardless of its relevance for economic development, the influence of strategic orientation by innovation orientation, and strategic marketing by marketing capability on firm performance, this interesting study focused on firms with strategic industries (defense and security) in Indonesia. It approached the gap in three ways. Initially, the examination was conducted on the role of innovation orientation, marketing capability, the interaction of innovation orientation and marketing capability on firm performance. The next step was considering the contribution of state-owned enterprise (SOE) and non-SOE. Finally, this relationship was studied in strategic industries of firms in Indonesia. The firm performance in this study, which we chose, was operational performance. The proposed conceptual model would be tested by distributing questionnaires to 41 firms in Indonesia. This study gave insight into the matters, which should be the companies’ focus, to improve their operations’ performance. By using PLS-based structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, the results of the relationship between innovation orientation, marketing capability, and the interaction between innovation orientation and marketing capability on operational performance were identified. The findings could be clarified via the variations in the characteristics of enterprises (SOE and non-SOE). Moreover, there were clear variations in the findings, which were recognized among the firms’ relatively different characteristics. The main finding was a challenge to generalize the relationship from strategic orientation and strategic marketing to performance. The results of firm characteristics also had considerable managerial relevance. The authors recommend strategic industries (defense and security) in Indonesia in achieving operational performance excellence. Management’s importance is paying attention to the relationship between innovation orientation, marketing capability, and dynamic capability in running a company organization.

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in firms entering the international market at increasingly early age. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that more than a quarter of the world's small manufacturing firms enter international markets within 10 years of their founding and derive a substantial percentage of their revenue from foreign sources (OECD, 1997). In addition, between 1 and 2% of small manufacturing firms are estimated to be international at inception – that is, within 2 years of their founding (OECD, 1997). Being new and proactively international at the same time, international entrepreneurial firms seem to contradict prevailing theories that see internationalization as a gradual process (McDougall, Shane, & Oviatt, 1994).