IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/por/fepwps/282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How is the relationship significance brought about? A critical realist approach

Author

Listed:
  • Filipe J. Sousa

    (Departamento de Gestão e Economia (DGE), Universidade da Madeira (UMa))

  • Luís M. de Castro

    (Faculdade de Economia do Porto (FEP))

Abstract

The markets-as-networks theorists contend, at least tacitly, the significance of business relationships for the focal firm – that is, business relationships contribute somewhat to the focal firm’s survival and growth. We do not deny the existence of significant business relationships but sustain, in contrast to the consensus within the Markets-as-Networks Theory, that relationship significance should not be a self-evident assumption. Significance cannot be a taken-for-granted property of each and every one of the focal firm’s business relationships. We adopt explicitly a critical realist position in this conceptual paper and claim that the relationship significance is an event of the business world, whose causes remain yet largely unidentified. Where the powers and liabilities of business relationships (i.e., their functions and dysfunctions) are put to work, inevitably under certain contingencies (namely the surrounding networks and markets), effects result for the focal firm (often benefits in excess of sacrifices, i.e., relationship value) and as a result the relationship significance is likely to be brought about. In addition, the relationship significance can result from the dual influence that business relationships have on a great part of the structure and powers and liabilities of the focal firm, i.e., its nature and scope respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Filipe J. Sousa & Luís M. de Castro, 2008. "How is the relationship significance brought about? A critical realist approach," FEP Working Papers 282, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
  • Handle: RePEc:por:fepwps:282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/08.07.04_wp282.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanson, Jan & Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar, 1987. "Interorganizational relations in industrial systems : a network approach compared with the transaction cost approach," Working Papers 1987:7, Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies.
    2. Mouzas, Stefanos & Ford, David, 2006. "Managing relationships in showery weather: The role of umbrella agreements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(12), pages 1248-1256, November.
    3. Brian J. Loasby, 2000. "Market institutions and economic evolution," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 297-309.
    4. Edward J. Zajac & Cyrus P. Olsen, 1993. "From Transaction Cost To Transactional Value Analysis: Implications For The Study Of Interorganizational Strategies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 131-145, January.
    5. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    6. Alajoutsijärvi, Kimmo & Eriksson, Päivi & Tikkanen, Henrikki, 2001. "Dominant metaphors in the IMP network discourse: 'the network as a marriage' and 'the network as a business system'," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 91-107, February.
    7. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    8. Richardson, G B, 1972. "The Organisation of Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 82(327), pages 883-896, September.
    9. Hakansson, Hakan & Ford, David, 2002. "How should companies interact in business networks?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 133-139, February.
    10. Hart, Oliver & Moore, John, 1990. "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1119-1158, December.
    11. Michael Reed, 2005. "Reflections on the ‘Realist Turn’ in Organization and Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1621-1644, December.
    12. Alessia Contu & Hugh Willmott, 2005. "You Spin Me Round: The Realist Turn in Organization and Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1645-1662, December.
    13. Young, Allyn A., 1928. "Increasing Returns and Economic Progress," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 38, pages 527-542.
    14. McLoughlin, Damien & Horan, Conor, 2002. "Markets-as-networks: notes on a unique understanding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 535-543, July.
    15. Steve Fleetwood, 2001. "Causal Laws, Functional Relations and Tendencies," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 201-220.
    16. Joao Mota & Luis M. de Castro, 2004. "A Capabilities Perspective on the Evolution of Firm Boundaries: A Comparative Case Example from the Portuguese Moulds Industry," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 295-316, March.
    17. Mouzas, Stefanos, 2006. "Efficiency versus effectiveness in business networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1124-1132, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Filipe J. Sousa & Luís M. de Castro, 2005. "Relationship significance: is it sufficiently explained?," FEP Working Papers 183, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    2. Nicholas S. Argyres & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Firm Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1643-1657, December.
    3. Pitelis, Christos, 2009. "Edith Penrose’s ‘The Theory of the Growth of the Firm’ Fifty Years Later," MPRA Paper 23180, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    5. Vittorio Bassi & Raffaela Muoio & Tommaso Porzio & Ritwika Sen & Esau Tugume, 2022. "Achieving Scale Collectively," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2937-2978, November.
    6. Jolink, Albert & Niesten, Eva, 2012. "Recent qualitative advances on hybrid organizations: Taking stock, looking ahead," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 149-161.
    7. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269, June.
    8. Cézanne, Cécile & Rubinstein, Marianne, 2012. "La RSE comme instrument de gouvernance d’entreprise : une application à l’industrie française des télécommunications," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 12.
    9. Gindis, David & Hodgson, Geoffrey M. & Huang, Kainan & Pistor, Katharina, 2017. "Legal institutionalism: Capitalism and the constitutive role of lawAuthor-Name: Deakin, Simon," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 188-200.
    10. Mark Casson & Nigel Wadeson, 2012. "Internationalisation Theory," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Foss, Nicolai J., 2003. "Bounded rationality in the economics of organization: "Much cited and little used"," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 245-264, April.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & Pol Antràs & Elhanan Helpman, 2005. "Contracts and the Division of Labor," NBER Working Papers 11356, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Alex Rialp & Josep Rialp & Lluís Sanatmaria, 2001. "Collaboration strategies and technological innovation: a contractual perspective of the relationship between firms and technological centers," Working Papers 0101, Departament Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, revised Mar 2001.
    14. Leiponen, Aija, . "Essays in the Economics of Knowledge: Innovation, Collaboration, and Organizational Complementarities," ETLA A, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, number 31.
    15. Silvia Sacchetti & Roger Sugden, 2003. "The Governance of Networks and Economic Power: The Nature and Impact of Subcontracting Relationships," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 669-692, December.
    16. Jongwook Kim & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2002. "Resource-based and property rights perspectives on value creation: the case of oil field unitization," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 225-245.
    17. Gibbons, Robert, 2005. "Four forma(lizable) theories of the firm?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 200-245, October.
    18. Paul Walker, 2008. "The (non)Theory of the Knowledge Firm," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    19. Li, Ke, 2007. "Transaction cost, corporate governance and division of labor--A general equilibrium analysis of professional managers and its implication to China's practice," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 447-468, September.
    20. Thomas N Hubbard & Luis Garicano, 2003. "Specialization, Firms, and Markets: The Division of Labor Within and Between Law Firms," Working Papers 03-13, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Markets-as-Networks Theory; relationship significance; business relationships; focal firm; resources; competences; activities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:por:fepwps:282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fepuppt.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.