Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether there is significant agreement on what constitutes the essential elements for building a general theory of the marketing system.

The method is an historical review of the various concepts, elements, sub-theories, axioms, components, explananda and ingredients proposed by marketing scholars over the past half century who contributed to the development of a general theory of the marketing system.

The main finding is that despite the diversity of terms and concepts found in the marketing literature, there is considerable agreement on the essential elements necessary to build a general theory.

The value of this work is in assembling and organizing the various concepts, elements, sub-theories, axioms, components, explananda and ingredients of a general theory. Scholars are encouraged to examine the pieces and re-join the quest to construct and empirically test a general theory of the marketing system.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

General theories have been criticized for their inability to explore the mechanics of more specific domain knowledge and understand how, when and where general theory applies to and extends domain knowledge in supply chain management (SCM). Middle-range theorizing (MRT) is a potential solution to this limitation. This paper aims to assist researchers in understanding the relationship between MRT and general theorizing (GT) and connecting MRT research findings to general theory.

This research provides a structured literature review of 518 articles, from eight journals in logistics, SCM and operations management. Theoretically based articles are analyzed by primary domain and SCM context.

There are frameworks for conducting MRT; however, the literature does not sufficiently assist researchers in understanding how middle-range (MR) theory should relate to general theory. Findings include a better understanding of underserved areas in SCM, guideline frameworks for understanding when to apply MRT, when to apply GT and how MRT knowledge can be connected to SCM domain knowledge.

This study provides a timely and appropriate compilation of theory research in SCM, including significant implications for both theory and practice, by helping to articulate the evolving philosophy of science in SCM.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

The purpose of this paper is to construct a general theory of the marketing system that addresses the fundamental question: why do marketing systems occur, survive and grow?

The approach integrates the concepts and constructs contained in special and mid-range theories, scattered throughout the history of marketing thought, into a logically coherent set of propositions (including definitions, axioms, theorems, scientific laws, bridge laws and hypotheses) that comprise a general theory of the marketing system.

The theoretical answer to why marketing systems arise, survive and grow is because marketing systems offer the most efficient mechanism for supplying products and services that people demand, thereby increasing economic growth, compared to the opportunity costs of alternative methods of acquisition. Based on just two (of several) marketing efficiency theorems, if the input costs of trading decline (law of reduced transaction costs) and/or the output value increases (law of bulk transactions), then marketing system efficiency rises. This creates an upward spiraling cycle: increasing the extent of the market (law of market size), proliferating opportunities for increasing aggregate production efficiency (through the law of comparative advantage and the law of division of labor), thereby further proliferating opportunities for aggregate marketing system efficiency (e.g. law of central markets, law of marketing specialists), thus fueling further aggregate economic growth (until limited by the law of diminishing returns, the law of the minimum resource or the law of market size). An empirically testable central hypothesis is derived from the propositions: increasing aggregate marketing system efficiency provides both the necessary and sufficient conditions for increasing aggregate economic growth in a society.

The value of developing a general theory of the marketing system is to advance the marketing discipline as a social science. Additionally, a general theory is likely to enhance academic thinking, improve business practice and facilitate interaction among academicians and practitioners. Further, a general theory could also reduce disciplinary fragmentation, avoid identity confusion and lessen the credibility crisis in marketing, among others.

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

For service research to develop as an applied social science there is the need to refresh the process of theorizing so it focuses not only on increasing new academic knowledge but also on knowledge that is managerially relevant. This paper aims to provide guidelines to achieve this.

A theorizing process that integrates general theoretic perspectives and contextual research to develop midrange theory is developed. The process is based on the philosophical foundations of pragmatism and abductive reasoning, which has the origins in the 1950s when the management sciences were being established.

A recent research stream that develops midrange theory about customer and actor engagement is used to illustrate the theorizing process.

Practicing managers, customers and other stakeholders in a service system use theory, so there is a need to focus on how theory is used in specific service contexts and how this research leads to academic knowledge that is managerially relevant. Thus, as applied social science, service research needs to explicitly focus on bridging the theory–praxis gap with midrange theory by incorporating a general theoretic perspective and contextual research.

The contribution comes from providing a broader framework to guide the theorizing process that integrates general theoretic perspectives and applied research to develop midrange theory. While general theories operate at the most abstract level of conceptualization, midrange theories are context-specific and applied theory (theories-in-use) is embedded in empirical research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of gender in white-collar crime. Directions for future research testing general and gender-specific theories are provided.

Prior research is reviewed and critiques of general and gender-specific explanations for offending in the workplace context are advanced.

Gender-specific explanations in other offending contexts (e.g. violent crime) appear to be less applicable to the understanding of white-collar crime, a finding that lends support to general theory.

This paper provides an outline for future research testing criminological theory in organizational settings.

This paper represents a unique attempt to apply general and gender-specific theories to a variety of financial crimes in the context of organizations.