Search results

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Strategy may not be the most dynamic word in the business lexicon, but reports of its death as a core discipline are premature. The analytical approach to strategy first put forward in 1980 by Professor Michael E. Porter of the Harvard Business School was a watershed in business analysis. Measuring Business Excellence revisits Competitive Strategy, Professor Porter's seminal work, and finds that it remains a powerful framework for understanding the competitive situation faced by today's organizations.

In this article which is based on a marketing analysis of Michael Porter′s definition of competitive strategies, the confusion present in marketing and strategic management texts as to the definitions of the three strategies of low cost, differentiation and focus is noted. The idea that using price to differentiate means a firm is using a low cost strategy is dismissed and the value of a definition of focus strategy as merely some degree of extreme differentiation is questioned. New definitions of the three strategies are proposed which are based upon the idea that firms react to, and take actions which influence, the structure of the market in which they operate. They influence market structure through determining the market′s proximity level ‐the minimum level of marketplace performance which a firm must reach in order to compete across the broad marketplace. If a firm has the ability to reach this level and go further to excel in the provision of one or more benefits, it can implement a differentiation strategy. Alternatively, it can attempt to lift the market′s proximity level or partake in imitative activity, which reduces the potential bases for differentiation in the market, a low cost strategy (only sensible for the firm with the lowest costs of production). If a firm lacks the ability to reach the proximity level, it must seek segments which do not require reaching proximity in order to serve them, a focus strategy.

The purpose of this study is to analyze how The Competitive Advantage of Nations project led by Professor Michael E. Porter has opened up new perspectives on competitiveness of nations and firms for scholars, practitioners and policymakers. With the publication of The Competitive Advantage of Nations (CAON) book in 1990, Professor Michael E. Porter opened up a whole new perspective on competitiveness and clusters, including both new research avenues and new perspectives for practitioners and politicians. By questioning the traditional, more static and macroeconomic, views on competitiveness, he opened up for a new model of microeconomic drivers of long-run firm competitiveness. The new conceptual model, the Diamond model, pointed to the importance of healthy rivalry and dynamic clusters, in the proximate firm environment, as central to our understanding of how firms build sustainable competitive advantages in global markets.

Literature review and conceptual.

To distinguish between short-term, more static, and long-term, more dynamic competitiveness of firms, and the competitiveness of nations and regions, the paper proposes a conceptualization into three interrelated concepts: competitiveness and innovativeness of firms, and attractiveness of nations and regions.

This paper summarizes 40 years of Professor Porter’s seminal research with a focus on the CAON project that began with the 1990 book on The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The paper proposes three interrelated concepts to cover issues of competitiveness: competitiveness (firm’s static advantages), innovativeness (firm’s dynamic advantages) and attractiveness (national/regional advantages).

Michael Porter, considered by corporate managers and business analysts to be one of strategic planning's leading theorists, is a professor of business policy at the Harvard Business School. Author of the recent bestseller Competitive Strategy and guest columnist for The Wall Street Journal, Professor Porter is noted for his heady stock of insightful planning theories. Here, in an interview conducted by Planning Review Senior Editor Malcolm W. Pennington and Managing Editor Steve M. Cohen, Professor Porter candidly discusses his entry into the field of strategic planning and the application of his theories to specific industries.

Competitiveness is one of the most misunderstood concepts of the 1990s. It has drawn substantial attention from the government and business communities during the last 25 years. Morrisson et al. (1988) noted that between 1983 and 1987, the term competitiveness appeared more than 5700 times in the titles of newspapers and magazine articles. The growth of importance and interest can also be observed from the increase in the bibliographical entries in ABI/Inform database. From 1981 to 1986, the topic “international competitiveness” increased by about 26 listings per year (a total of 159 in 6 years) and the rate increased to 45 listings per year from 1987 to 1993. Academic interest in the area has also increased and as a result, new developments contemplating conceptualization and understanding of competitiveness are taking place. However, to no one's surprise, writers from different disciplines offer a variation in perspective when describing the concept, understanding, and postulation of competitiveness.

Michael Porter's Five Forces Model provides an ideal mechanism and framework to study the Oman telecommunications industry's competitive structure. The purpose of this paper is to use this model to identify the competitive forces that affect it the most.

This paper is based on empirical research. The data were collected primarily from secondary sources such as published interviews of chief executive officers of the telecommunication companies in Oman, government reports, and Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Oman (TRA). The authors then used Michael Porter's five forces model to investigate the competitiveness of the telecommunication industry in Oman.

The analysis shows that the strongest competitive forces in the industry are rivalry among competitors and threat of substitutes. While the threat of entry and power of buyers also having a significant impact, the power of suppliers is of very limited impact. Hence, the five forces model impacts uniformly on all the players in Oman's telecommunication market and have important strategy implications for them all. The results of this analysis are then used as a critical tool to formulate effective strategies for industry players in the face of the changing dynamics of telecommunication services industry in Oman.

This study is one of the few papers that attempted to study the telecommunication industry in Oman in depth. However, this is the first research study that investigated the competitive landscape of this industry using an established framework such as Michael Porter's five forces model. As such, the study brought to light new insights and paradigms in competing in the telecommunication industry in Oman. This study also suggests new strategic directives to the incumbents, new entrants, buyers and suppliers.

This paper is a historical account of the process by which Michael Porter and INCAE Business School put together a regional competitiveness strategy for Central America that was officially adopted by the governments of five participating countries, and implemented through a series of Presidential Summits that occurred between 1995 and 1999. The paper provides a unique case study on the adoption of the concepts put forth by Porter in his book “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” (1990) at the highest level of government. The study arrives at a series of practical implications for policy makers that are particularly relevant for the implementation of supra-national regional strategies.

The authors conduct an extensive literature review of 190 policy papers produced by INCAE Business School, that are used to recreate the historical evolution of the regional competitiveness strategy. The effect of Porter’s intervention is also assessed by comparing the main economic indicators of each participating country with those of 2005-2010. One of the authors was the main protagonist in the successful implementation of the strategy, and the paper relies partially on his accounts of events.

This study describes how economic policy in Central America was profoundly influenced by Michael Porter’s thinking in the second half of the 1990s. These policy changes promoted international competition of Central American clusters and firms, and opened the region for international investment and tourism. The region experienced important increases in its economic integration, its international trade, foreign direct investment and tourist arrivals. Gross domestic product growth was accelerated in Honduras and Nicaragua.

Like all case studies, this study has limits related to the generalizability of its conclusions. Additionally, it is not possible to determine the precise nature of the relation between the implementation of the regional economic strategy, and the impact on economic growth, integration, FDI attraction and exports.

The paper has several practical implications that relate to the design of regional economic strategies. First, it identifies policy areas that are more effective as part of regional strategies, and distinguishes them from those that should be resolved at the national level. Second, it suggests a process that can facilitate execution. Finally, it provides an example of the coordinating role that can be assumed by an academic institution such as INCAE.

The Central American Competitiveness Initiative provides a unique setting to study the implementation of competitiveness policy for several reasons. First, in all countries in Central America, Michael Porter’s diamond framework (1990) and cluster theory were officially adopted at the highest level of government. Second, in addition to their individual competitiveness strategies, all countries adopted a regional strategy for cooperation and economic integration. Finally, the Central American Competitiveness Initiative was founded on one of the first competitiveness think tanks of the world.