Power‐base Research in Marketing Channels: A Narrative Review

Abstract

This paper provides a contemporary and comprehensive review of work in the marketing channel field that is based on French and Raven's power‐base theory. It traces the development of theoretic, conceptual and methodological orthodoxies from the 1970s. Mirroring the movement towards the relationship marketing paradigm, the paper considers the theory's empirical contribution to knowledge of power, conflict, trust and commitment in marketing channels. Limitations relating to inconsistency of treatment, contradictory findings and the simplification of complex phenomena are identified. Nevertheless, current work extends power‐base theory to other cultures, other styles of research and to the area of supply chains. The review raises questions about the value of contribution made using this theory and notes the surprising absence within the channels literature of the broader, current debate about power. To illustrate, the paper shows how Clegg's (1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage) circuits of power framework, if applied to channel contexts, could address forms of power that are invisible, anonymous and not necessarily negative. Applications and methods are discussed, opening a space wherein a broadened understanding of power is integrated within a focus upon cooperative channels.

The dynamics of networked power in a concentrated business network

“…-Please insert Table 1 about here Power is discussed in a variety of ways at the inter-organizational level Brown, Johnson, and Koenig, 1995;Gaski, 1984;Hopkinson and Blois, 2013). Some see power as something that can be held as a property of an entity (Pfeffer, 1981).…”

“…At the inter-organizational level, the strong focus on power base theory remains Hopkinson and Blois, 2013). …”

“…One result is that the IMP approach has disguarded research on power as irrelevant due to its strong association to coercion and compliance Morgan and Hunt, 1994;Hopkinson and Blois, 2013). But this disinterest is also difficult because power incorporates more than conflict, coercion and compliance.…”

Network graffiti: Interaction as sensemaking

“…Turning to resistance, an idea well developed within discourse theory, Kragh and Andersen (2009) explain that negotiation involves the power to bring change and resist it. Clegg's model of three power circuits, explained and applied to network contexts in Hopkinson and Blois (2014), appears helpful to extend conceptualisation of power in business markets via the graffiti metaphor. Power is realised in episodes, practices and meaning and the three are interlinked.…”

Procedural Justice in Procurement Management and Inclusive Interorganizational Relations: An Institutional Perspective

“…However, relatively little is known about the justice approaches of LPOs in procurement for inclusive interorganizational relationships with EMSs. Procedural Justice in Procurement Management Power-based logics (Hopkinson and Blois, 2014) have limitations, and small firms in some cases may be able to rebalance power asymmetries in their relationship with a LPO by exploiting their specialist core competencies (Gulati and Sytch, 2007;Mesquita and Brush, 2008;Subramani and Venkatraman, 2003). Nonetheless, LPOs tend to be the 'rule makers' because of the pronounced power/dependence asymmetries they enjoy in such relational contexts (Ram, Woldesenbet and Jones, 2011;Woldesenbet, Ram and Jones, 2012).…”