Dark network tensions and illicit forbearance: Exploring paradox and instability in illegal cartels

Pressey, Andrew D.; Vanharanta, Markus

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.02.009

Cited by 32 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, trust complements contractual complexity and dependency (Ratzmann et al, 2016) facilitating the implementation of plural governance, which has found to favour coopetition and improve innovation performance (Bouncken et al, 2016). Additionally, although it has been suggested that constructive synergies can be derived from the dialogue between trust and distrust (Guo et al, 2017), only one paper discusses that a balance between trust and distrust is needed for successful management of coopetition (Pressey & Vanharanta, 2016). Finally, the findings of Grafton and Mundy (2016) that trust does not play a significant role in light of risks stemming from network coopetition and of Idrees, Vasconcelos, and Ellis (2018) that, 'trust is not a pre-requisite to cooperation nor to related knowledge sharing' (p. 1369), suggest that a normative perspective on the role of trust in coopetition needs to be avoided.…”

Section: Chiambaretto Et Al (2019)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Kostis

Näsholm

2019

Journal of Trust Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect of interorganizational relationships. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the importance of trust in the light of coopetitive interactions, i.e. simultaneously cooperating and competing. Research on trust has started to acknowledge that more trust may not always be better, and that trust and distrust are separate and distinct phenomena. Whilst coopetition research has mentioned the important role of trust, the potential role of distrust is even less acknowledged, although it may be particularly relevant due to the tensions, risks, and uncertainties involved. The purpose of this paper is to identify limitations and gaps in the extant literature on trust in coopetition, bring promising research opportunities into light, and create an agenda for future research focused on the roles of both trust and distrust in coopetition. By means of a systematic literature review, we find that the importance of trust in different phases of coopetition has been acknowledged by prior research, yet deeper explanations of how, when, and why different aspects of trust and distrust matter to coopetition are missing. A normative view on trust prevails and the potential fruitfulness of distrust is neglected. Based on these limitations, an agenda including six promising research avenues is constructed.

show abstract

Section: Chiambaretto Et Al (2019)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Kostis

Näsholm

2019

Journal of Trust Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Building on calls to extend the firm as a unit of analysis (Pressey, Gilchrist, & Lenney, 2015;Yang & Su, 2014), our paper extends the industrial marketing literature in relation to an institutional understanding of R&D project implementation gaps (Blomquist & Wilson, 2007;Cova & Salle, 2007;Mele, 2011;Canhoto, Quinton, Jackson, & Dibb, 2016). As such we extends the industrial cartel research on symbolic policy adoption gaps (Pressey & Vanharanta, 2016;Pressey et al, 2014;Pressey & Ashton, 2009) as well as Newton, Ewing, and Collier's (2014) research on loose coupling. Overall, we shed light on micro-level rather macro-level institutional factors and on means-ends decoupling rather than policy-practice decoupling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…In this paper, an institutional perspective is adopted to provide insights into how the work of network actors purposefully stretches existing institutional arrangements in order to support their work, while also accommodating different, sometimes competing or contradictory, pressures and goals (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Strambach, 2010). In industrial marketing study, increasing recognition of how such pressures and goals are managed through decoupling work is emerging (Pressey & Vanharanta, 2016;Newton, Ewing & Collier, 2014;Yang & Su, 2014). Prior research on industrial cartels focuses mostly on symbolic policy decoupling, however (Pressey & Vanharanta, 2016;Pressey et al, 2014;Pressey & Ashton, 2009), while alternative types of decoupling in business markets remain unexplored and under researched.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In industrial marketing study, increasing recognition of how such pressures and goals are managed through decoupling work is emerging (Pressey & Vanharanta, 2016;Newton, Ewing & Collier, 2014;Yang & Su, 2014). Prior research on industrial cartels focuses mostly on symbolic policy decoupling, however (Pressey & Vanharanta, 2016;Pressey et al, 2014;Pressey & Ashton, 2009), while alternative types of decoupling in business markets remain unexplored and under researched.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutional means-ends decoupling work in industrial R&D project implementation

Jabbouri¹,

Truong²,

Schneckenberg³

et al. 2019

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing goals is a key network management function and is critical in the implementation of industrial R&D projects. In this paper, we explore the implementation of an industrial R&D project, focusing in particular upon the role of means-ends decoupling work to understand how the goals are managed. We combine several data sources in our case research to explore project implementation through an understanding of means-ends decoupling work. We collected indepth interviews, archival records and field observations within the R&D research setting of an industrial R&D project in the period of 2015 to 2017. Our findings identify three types of means-ends decoupling work in R&D project implementation: 'work on' causal complexity, 'work at' behavioural invisibility, and 'work with' practice multiplicity. In addition, we uncover six dynamic micro-mechanisms that collectively influence the making and nature of meansends decoupling work and therefore serve to allow for the fluid switching of work as the institutional conditions permit. Overall, our findings have significant implications for understanding means-ends decoupling as a highly skilled network competence for managing R&D project implementation goals.

show abstract

“…ezen a ponton az a kérdés merül fel, hogy ha a hálózati együttműködés során valóban mindig összejátszás alakul ki -ahogyan azt néhány tanulmány sugallja (Afuah [2000], Campbell [2016], Pressey-Vanharanta [2016], Walley [2007]) -, akkor ez az új vállalatközi partnerség végső soron rontja a piaci egyensúlyt és a versenypiaci mechanizmusok eredményességét. ez a cikk empirikus hálózati adatbázis felhasználásával hozzájárul az együttműködés és az összejátszás közötti kapcsolat tisztázásához, valamint ok-okozati összefüggéseinek feltárásához.…”

Section: áBra a Kollúzió Fajtáiunclassified

Versengő együttműködés versus összejátszás, avagy hálózati szintű csalás?

Jóna¹

2020

Közgazdasági Szemle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jóna györgy Versengő együttműködés versus összejátszás, avagy hálózati szintű csalás? A cikk arra keresi a választ, hogy kialakulhat-e koopetitív hálózatban (riválisok hálózatszerű együttműködésében) a kollúzió (a piaci versenyre káros összejátszás). A kérdés megválaszolására húsz rivális pékségből álló, informálisan működő gdański koopetitív hálózatot vizsgáltunk 40 héten át. A longitudinális vizsgálat legfontosabb kérdése az volt, hogy kollúzió vagy koopetíció hatására módosult a kenyér átlagos eladási ára a hálózatban. A primer, idősoros adatbázist hálózatgazdaságtani és ökonometriai módszerek szintetizálásával dolgoztuk fel. Az eredmények szerint a gdański pékségek hálózatában nem jött létre összejátszás, így a piaci verseny és automatizmusok nem torzultak. Fontos, hogy a hálózat szereplői kiadásaikat és nyereségüket stagnáló árrés, ám növekvő haszonkulcs mellett tudták optimalizálni, ami a fogyasztói és eladói oldal hasznosságát egyaránt javítja.* Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: D22, D85, L1, L14, P13. * a cikk a bolyai János kutatási ösztöndíj támogatásával készült.

show abstract

Dark network tensions and illicit forbearance: Exploring paradox and instability in illegal cartels

Cited by 32 publications

References 80 publications

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Institutional means-ends decoupling work in industrial R&D project implementation

Versengő együttműködés versus összejátszás, avagy hálózati szintű csalás?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About