Search results

Societies highly value economic growth because economic growth results in increase in societal standards of living. This paper addresses the issue of why economies grow and what public policy makers should favor in order to increase economic growth.

This paper reviews and contrasts the two major, rival ways to account for economic growth: the neoclassical model, which maintains that growth results from increases in investment, and the dynamic competition model, which maintains that growth results from the innovations that stem from the process of competition.

The paper finds that the dynamic‐competition model, as represented by resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory, best explains economic growth.

Public policy should focus on promoting R‐A competition in order to foster economic growth.

This issue of which approach best accounts for economic growth is important because the two approaches imply very different decisions in the public policy arena.

Provides an introduction to the Special Issue by discussing the nature of marketing science in a postmodern world. Argues that science needs marketing more than marketing needs science. (Look folks, I didn’t want to include a review of my own book, but the regular journal editor insisted ‐ honest! ‐ and, anyway, Thompson was desperate for the publication. I’m just too soft, that’s my problem. Please excuse my unacademic behaviour. Pretty please.)

Confirms the empirical test of Hunt and Vitell’s general theory of marketing ethics by Mayo and Marks across four cultures. Uses path analysis to show the core relationships of the general theory of marketing ethics were successfully replicated using over 1,500 students from seven universities in the USA, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. States that tomorrow’s managers appeared to use a more deontological approach to making ethical judgements about personal selling. Extends its original research by confirming the positive relationship between the probability and the desirability of consequences. Concludes that, although the model was originally intended to explain management ethical decision making, the study shows that it may be possible to generalize as to how individuals make ethical life decisions.

The authors propose to reply to the comment by Mario Rese on the article “The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory.”

This paper provides a critical analysis.

The comment of Rese has misspecified the major problems facing those firms adopting relationship marketing‐based strategies.

In order to find the answers as to why some relationship marketing efforts are successful and others are not, marketing managers must look at more than one research tradition.

This paper clarifies the eight types of factors that influence relationship marketing‐based strategy success.

The purpose of this paper is to respond to the criticism O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy made of service‐dominant logic in EJM, on behalf of both the paper and the worldwide community of scholars that have embraced S‐D logic as historically informed, integrative, transcending and rich in its potential to generate theoretical and practical contributions.

The paper is a critical, conceptual analysis of the fallacious arguments that O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy developed to argue against the emerging and rapidly developing service‐dominant logic.

The paper shows that, contrary to the claims of O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy, S‐D logic: is neither regressive nor intended to displace all other marketing perspectives; is not advocating technology at the expense of explanatory theory; and is pre‐theoretic and intended to be soundly grounded in a manner to assist theory construction.

Theory advancement is critical to marketing and S‐D logic puts special emphasis on the development of theory. It begins to do this by proposing ten foundational premises, which some may wish to refer to as axioms. From these axioms, considerable theoretical work and related empirical research can develop.

O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy wish to prevent marketing scholars from adopting, advocating, and supporting service‐dominant logic and, as they suggest, taking a backward step. They view the S‐D logic movement as primarily USA‐dominated (which it is not) and are firmly anti‐S‐D logic. The available evidence from around the world suggests that the S‐D logic movement has profound implications for the advancement of both marketing science and marketing practice.

It is critical that S‐D logic should not be viewed as being represented by a single paper but as a body of work that Lusch and Vargo have developed since their initial publication and also the work of a community of scholars working collaboratively to co‐create S‐D logic.