IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tky/fseres/2001cf108.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Predictors of Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relations: A Contextual and Cultural Comparison of Japan and Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • S. Nazli Wasti

    (Department of Business Administration, Middle East Technical University)

Abstract

Trust is a dimension of buyer-supplier relations being researched widely, but studies have generally focused on developed economies. Developing countries, however, have contextual and cultural factors that may differentiate them from developed countries. This study attempts to apply a theoretical model developed for the US, Japan, and Korea to a developing country context, namely Turkey. While Turkey has cultural similarities to Japan in terms of collectivism and risk aversion, the results of the theoretical model show that is does not fit the Turkish case. Suggestions are made to extend the model theoretically and measurement-wise to help explain trust building factors in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Nazli Wasti, 2001. "Predictors of Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relations: A Contextual and Cultural Comparison of Japan and Turkey," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-108, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    • Handle: RePEc:tky:fseres:2001cf108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirje.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/research/dp/2001/2001cf108.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heitjan, D.F., 1997. "Annotation: what can be done about missing data? Approaches to imputation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(4), pages 548-550.
    2. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    3. Jonathan Morris & Rob Imrie, 1992. "Transforming Buyer-Supplier Relations," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-11200-5, March.
    4. Keith J. Blois, 1999. "Trust in Business to Business Relationships: An Evaluation of its Status," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 197-215, March.
    5. Burchell, Brendan & Wilkinson, Frank, 1997. "Trust, Business Relationships and the Contractual Environment," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 21(2), pages 217-237, March.
    6. John Humphrey & Hubert Schmitz, 1998. "Trust and inter-firm relations in developing and transition economies," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 32-61.
    7. Sako, Mari & Helper, Susan, 1998. "Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 387-417, March.
    8. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 300-301, July.
    9. Jeffrey H Dyer & Wujin Chu, 2000. "The Determinants of Trust in Supplier-Automaker Relationships in the U.S., Japan and Korea," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 31(2), pages 259-285, June.
    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. Karanja, Erastus & Zaveri, Jigish & Ahmed, Ashraf, 2013. "How do MIS researchers handle missing data in survey-based research: A content analysis approach," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 734-751.
    2. Olinsky, Alan & Chen, Shaw & Harlow, Lisa, 2003. "The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(1), pages 53-79, November.
    3. Pauline Ratnasingam, 2013. "A Generic Framework for Trust in the Innovation Process," Institutions and Economies (formerly known as International Journal of Institutions and Economies), Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, vol. 5(1), pages 71-90, April.
    4. Joost Ginkel & Pieter Kroonenberg, 2014. "Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Multiple Imputation in Principal Component Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 31(2), pages 242-269, July.
    5. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Wang, Chun-Ju & Wu, Lei-Yu, 2012. "Team member commitments and start-up competitiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 708-715.
    7. Gerko Vink & Laurence E. Frank & Jeroen Pannekoek & Stef Buuren, 2014. "Predictive mean matching imputation of semicontinuous variables," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 68(1), pages 61-90, February.
    8. Saeki, Yasuo & Horak, Sven, 2013. "The role of trust in cultivating relation-specific skills: The case of a multinational automotive supplier in Japan and Germany," Working Papers on East Asian Studies 95/2013, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of East Asian Studies IN-EAST.
    9. Martin, Eisele & Zhu, Junyi, 2013. "Multiple imputation in a complex household survey - the German Panel on Household Finances (PHF): challenges and solutions," MPRA Paper 57666, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Xiong, Ruoxuan & Pelger, Markus, 2023. "Large dimensional latent factor modeling with missing observations and applications to causal inference," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 271-301.
    11. Dang, Hai-Anh H & Carletto, Calogero, 2022. "Recall Bias Revisited: Measure Farm Labor Using Mixed-Mode Surveys and Multiple Imputation," IZA Discussion Papers 14997, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Daniel Schunk, 2007. "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Imputation Procedure for Dealing with Item Nonresponse in the German SAVE Survey," MEA discussion paper series 07121, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    13. Brownstone, David, 1997. "Multiple Imputation Methodology for Missing Data, Non-Random Response, and Panel Attrition," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2zd6w6hh, University of California Transportation Center.
    14. Zachary H. Seeskin, 2016. "Evaluating the Use of Commercial Data to Improve Survey Estimates of Property Taxes," CARRA Working Papers 2016-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    15. F. Di Lascio & Simone Giannerini & Alessandra Reale, 2015. "Exploring copulas for the imputation of complex dependent data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(1), pages 159-175, March.
    16. Ankita Patnaik & Jeffrey Hemmeter & Arif Mamun, "undated". "Promoting Readiness of Minors with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a74c93d9bdce40709ad81cdbc, Mathematica Policy Research.
    17. Westermeier, Christian & Grabka, Markus M., 2016. "Longitudinal Wealth Data and Multiple Imputation: An Evaluation Study," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 237-252.
    18. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    19. Ahfock, Daniel & Pyne, Saumyadipta & McLachlan, Geoffrey J., 2022. "Statistical file-matching of non-Gaussian data: A game theoretic approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    20. Yanqing Sun & Li Qi & Fei Heng & Peter B. Gilbert, 2020. "A hybrid approach for the stratified mark‐specific proportional hazards model with missing covariates and missing marks, with application to vaccine efficacy trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(4), pages 791-814, August.

    More about this item

    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:tky:fseres:2001cf108. 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: CIRJE administrative office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ritokjp.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.