The Dynamics of Influence in Corporate Co‐Evolution

Abstract

This paper aims to offer new theoretical and empirical insights into co‐evolutionary development. Theoretically, it advances a political perspective which focuses on the role of power and how this can be translated into influence as an evolutionary driver through the relational framework between an organization and external parties. Empirically, the paper elaborates this perspective by reference to how China's largest container terminal evolved within a changing environment, and how its evolution in turn impacted on the evolution of its sector. In this case, the key relational framework was that between the organization and government institutions. Application of a political perspective to the case study suggests a theoretical model that can inform future research and practice.

International business responses to institutional voids

“…Potential options for nonmarket strategies include the exercise of political influence to change the form and content of regulations (Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994;Ramamurti, 2005), coupling of interests between the state and firms (Child, Rodrigues, & Tse, 2012;Li, Peng, & Macaulay, 2013;Musacchio & Lazzarini, 2014), and formation of partnerships to create and legitimize new standards in emerging markets (Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004). Narayanan and Fahey (2005) also suggest that greater reliance on interpersonal trust and networks serve as strategies to reduce risks of opportunism when formal institutions are underdeveloped.…”

Co-evolution of Industry Strategies and Government Policies: The Case of the Brazilian Automotive Industry

“…Other studies have sought to extend our understanding of the dynamics of co-evolution between organizations (micro) and institutions (macro) (Child et al, 2012(Child et al, , 2013Dieleman & Sachs, 2008;Rodrigues & Child, 2003) and between industries (meso) and institutions (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010;Breznitz, 2007;Flier et al, 2003;Funk, 2009;Hoffman, 1999;Jain & Sharma, 2013;Murmann, 2013). Both approaches appreciate the value of environments, historical legacies, institutional contexts of countries in shaping organizations' trajectories, and their structural evolution over time (Djelic & Ainamo, 1999).…”

“…Co-evolution has opened avenues to explore how interdependent actors -organizations, industries, and institutions -mutually influence each other and to understand how these economic entities develop interactively over time (Child, Rodrigues, & Tse, 2012;Rodrigues & Child, 2008). Coevolutionary analysis requires an examination of the interaction between organizations (micro level) and their immediate (meso level) or broader (macro level) environments.…”

Coping with Autocracy: Corporate Political Activity, Institutional Duality, and MNE Local Firm Rivalry During 'Institutional Backsliding'

“…In particular, in emerging market economies institutions can change rapidly and radically Young et al 2008;Peng, 2003). Therefore, institutional pressures are not a constant, but a permanently changing environmental element to which businesses strategically adapt (see Child et al, 2012;Cantwell et al, 2010;Meyer and Peng, 2016;Peng, 2003;Peng & Heath, 1996;Young et al, 2008;). We go beyond existing studies, by conceiving of institutional duality as a time-dependent phenomenon, rather than a fixed contextual element.…”

“…We go beyond existing studies, by conceiving of institutional duality as a time-dependent phenomenon, rather than a fixed contextual element. We therefore focus on the co-evolution (Child et al, 2012;Cantwell et al, 2010), of institutions and firm capabilities. This leads us to adopt a longitudinal case study approach (Carney et al, 2016, Boddewyn & Dieleman, 2012Dieleman & Sachs, 2008).…”