IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pes/ierequ/v11y2016i1p159-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Vs. Organisational Perspective On Inter-Organisational Relations’ Analysis – Are Economists On The Dead-End Track?

Author

Listed:
  • Beata Stepien

    (Poznan University of Economics)

  • Monika Sulimowska-Formowicz

    (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)

Abstract

Inter-organizational relations (IORs), complex constructs existing on the verge of companies’ boundaries, are a popular area of managerial and academic investigation, due to their ability to create sustainable competitive advantage. The aim of the article is to show applicability, insights and limitations of economic perspective in IORs analysis. By reviewing advances of selected economic and organizational theories exploring IORs, we will try to answer the following questions: (1)Can economic thought add any novelty to IOR analysis in the era of dynamic global shifts in competitive environment? Are economic lenses still useful and applicable here? (2) Do organizational sciences’ academics take more practical, down to earth approach, or have they just moved forward (or blurred the clarity of) their theories by employing advances from social sciences, like sociology and psychology? (3) Are these two perspectives contradictory or supplementary? The article is divided into four parts. Firstly, we propose an analytical framework to study inter-organizational relations, secondly we analyze the theories focused on IORs as results of rational choices; thirdly, we move to theories exploring the reasons why IORs are built in a specific way, and then to concepts looking for conditions, methods and key drivers of IORs successful management. In conclusion, we give a brief summary of the main findings together with the limitations and areas open for further investigation of inter-organizational relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Beata Stepien & Monika Sulimowska-Formowicz, 2016. "Economic Vs. Organisational Perspective On Inter-Organisational Relations’ Analysis – Are Economists On The Dead-End Track?," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(1), pages 159-177, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:pes:ierequ:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:159-177
    DOI: 10.12775/EQUIL.2016.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/EQUIL.2016.008
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.12775/EQUIL.2016.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ostrom, Elinor, 2009. "An Agenda for the Study of Institutions," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 89-110, December.
    2. Ranjay Gulati & Maxim Sytch, 2008. "Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 165-190.
    3. Jean-Francois Hennart, 1993. "Explaining the Swollen Middle: Why Most Transactions Are a Mix of “Market” and “Hierarchy”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 529-547, November.
    4. McCarthy, Ian & Anagnostou, Angela, 2004. "The impact of outsourcing on the transaction costs and boundaries of manufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 61-71, March.
    5. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    6. 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.
    7. Douglass C, North, 1992. "Institutions, Ideology, and Economic Performance," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 11(3), pages 477-496, Winter.
    8. Riker, William H., 1980. "Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 432-446, June.
    9. Mark H. Hansen & Robert E. Hoskisson & Jay B. Barney, 2008. "Competitive advantage in alliance governance: resolving the opportunism minimization-gain maximization paradox," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 191-208.
    10. Hakansson, Hakan & Ford, David, 2002. "How should companies interact in business networks?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 133-139, February.
    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. Buitrago R., Ricardo E. & Barbosa Camargo, María Inés, 2021. "Institutions, institutional quality, and international competitiveness: Review and examination of future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 423-435.
    2. Schmidtchen, Dieter & Kirstein, Roland, 1999. "Ordnung," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 99-10, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
      • Dieter Schmidtchen & Roland Kirstein, 2012. "Ordnung," FEMM Working Papers 120001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    3. Justesen, Mogens K. & Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2007. "The constitution of economic growth: Testing the prosperity effects of a Madisonian model on a panel of countries 1980‐2000," MPRA Paper 36063, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Evelyn C. Fink, 1995. "Institutional Change as a Sophisticated Strategy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(4), pages 477-510, October.
    5. Coggins, Jay S., 1989. "On the Welfare Consequences of Political Activity," Bulletins 7463, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    6. Brian Kogelmann, 2020. "The future of political philosophy: Non-ideal and west of babel," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 237-252, March.
    7. Bernard Steunenberg & Dieter Schmidtchen & Christian Koboldt, 1999. "Strategic Power in the European Union," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 339-366, July.
    8. Itai Sened, 1991. "Contemporary Theory of Institutions in Perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(4), pages 379-402, October.
    9. Kenneth A. Shepsle, 1989. "Studying Institutions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 1(2), pages 131-147, April.
    10. Ayranci, Evren, 2010. "Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 3(3), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    12. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    13. Schmidt, Susanne K., 2002. "Die Folgen der europäischen Integration für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Wandel durch Verflechtung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    14. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    15. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Blind, Georg, 2015. "Behavioural rules: Veblen, Nelson-Winter, Oström and beyond," MPRA Paper 66866, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. White, Thomas A., 1992. "Landholder Cooperation For Sustainable Upland Watershed Management: A Theoretical Review Of The Problems And Prospects," Working Papers 11887, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Training Project.
    18. Fritz W. Scharpf, 1991. "Games Real Actors Could Play: The Challenge of Complexity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 277-304, July.
    19. Monique Borges & Eduardo Castro & João Marques, 2014. "Decision support methodologies in public policy formulation," ERSA conference papers ersa14p899, European Regional Science Association.
    20. Paul, Bénédique & Garrabé, Michel, 2011. "Le capital institutionnel dans l'analyse du développement : Prolongement théorique et premier test empirique [Institutional Capital in Economic Development Analysis: Theoretical Continuation and Fi," MPRA Paper 39016, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    inter-organizational relations theory; transaction costs theory; NEI; resource based view; relational view;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure

    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:pes:ierequ:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:159-177. 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: Adam P. Balcerzak (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibgtopl.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.