Firm and Industry effects within Strategic Management: An empirical Examination TORIo Alfredo J. Mauri: Max P. michaels Strategic Management Journal, Vol 19, No. 3(Mar, 1998), 211-219. Stable url: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0143-2095%028199803%02919%03a3%03c211%03afaiews%03e2.0.co%3b2-x trategic Management Journal is currently published by John Wiley Sons Your use of the jStOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR,'s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlJstOr'sTermsandConditionsofUseprovidesinpartthatunlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://wwwjstor.org/journals/jwiley.html Each copy of any part of a STOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission jStOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor. org http://www」]stor.org Wed nov211:59:36200
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, 211-219(1998) FIRM AND INDUSTRY EFFECTS WITHIN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION ALFREDo J. MAURIand MAX P MICHAELS2 "Baruch College, University of New York, New York, U.S.A Mckinsey Co New York U.s.A his study brings out the complementarities between resource-based and industrial organizati schools within strategic management through an empirical examination of firm and industry effects. A variance component analysis of 264 single-business compa 69 industries using 5-and 15-year periods suggests that firm effects are more important than industry effects on firm performance, but not on core strategies such as technology and marketing. The finding also point to the need to study core strategies at lower levels of aggregation to understand the sources of competitive advantage, o 1998 John Wiley Sons, Ltd Srat.Mgmt.J,vol.19,211-219,1998 INTRODUCTION bert, Phillips, and Westfall, 1996), and eported contradictory findings. None of the Firm effects and industry effects capture the studies has examined the firm effects on strategies degree of heterogeneity within an industry. They though it would help us understand why firms underlie several important concepts in strategic differ'( Carroll, 1993; Nelson, 1991 management such as distinctive competence and This study seeks to bring out the complemen Yet two schools with nificant influence in strategic management have industrial organization through an empirical been at odds with one another regarding the analysis. We estimate the firm and industry magnitude and persistence of firm effects. The effects on core strategies as well as performance dominat anizavo ant an argues that firm heteroge- using a sample of nondiversified companies over neity Is ersistent, whereas indus- 5-year and 15-year periods. The results show the suggests that industry effects predominance of firm effects on performance but not on core strategies such as technology and Not only is there conflicting theoretical guid- marketing ance, but there have also been few empirical studies. These empirical studies have focused on the performance variation among firms and indus- DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON tries(Schmalensee, 1985; Rumelt, 1991; Roque- FIRM AND INDUSTRY EFFECTS Firm effects capture the unique firm character- istics which influence the variation in strategies *Correspondence to: Alfredo J. Mauri, Baruch College, and performance outcomes across industries and f New York, 17 Lexington Ave, New York, firms, and indr ffects refer to attributes *This research was undertaken while the author was a student mon to an industry. The dominance of firm eff suggests heterogeneity because of barriers to CCC0143-2095/98/030211-09$1750 Received 3 May 1995 e 1998 John Wiley Sons, Ltd Final revision received 6 May 1997
212 A.. Mauri and M. P. Michaels tation(Rumelt, 1991)and the inability of firms achieve the long-term goals and objectives of the to change their resource endowments over time enterprise( Chandler, 1962: 383 ). These resource (Carroll, 1993). In contrast, the dominance of allocation patterns(Mintzberg, 1978)underscore dustry effects over time shows the similarities the concept of strategic choice( Child, 1972) in response to industry conditions and the imi- Resources can be classified as financial, physi tation of successful strategies cal, human, technological, and organizati The emerging resource-based view of the firm (Grant, 1991). The proponents of the resource- (Wernerfelt, 1984: Barney, 1991; Conner, 1991; based view have concentrated on unique resources Grant, 1991; Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Pet- from which companies may derive sustainable eraf, 1993)focuses on firm effects as the basis competitive advantage. According to them, only for sustainable competitive advantage. In this per- those resources that are valuable, rare, nonsubsti spective, unique resource and idiosyncratic proc- tutable, and difficult to imitate would provide esses drive heterogeneity among firms. Such competitive advantage and become the source of unique resources can provide competitive advan- economic rents(Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) tage when protected from imitation and effective We term these key resources core resources, and 1982).Thus, the resource-based view suggests Interestingly, both the resource-based strategies isolating mechanisms (Lippman and Rumelt, the strategies based on them as core that firm-specific attributes drive both strategies industrial organization consider core and performance outcomes, which stands in sharp based on technological and marke contrast to the predominance of market structure tiation as determinants of performance(Dierickx in the industrial organization literature. and Cool, 1989; Scherer and Ross, 1990). The proponent of industry effects on following sections distinguish between firm- and strategies and performance is industrial organi- industry-level drivers of these strategies and per zation. Several schools within industrial organi- formance outcomes zation have proposed market structure as the prin- cipal explanation for the emergence of common Firm-level drivers terms of behavior and similar performance out- omes for firms in the same industry. However, The resource-based view inherently offers an some of its schools differ regarding the dynamics explanation for the firm effects on strategies and f industry structure. The traditional school performance outcomes within the same industry Bain/Mason)views market structure as exogen- The key dimension of differences in strategies ous and stable(Bain, 1972; Caves, 1980; Porter, and performance levels among competitors within 1981), while the Schumpeterian and Chicago an industry is the existence of unique firm charac- schools view market structure as dynamic and teristics capable of producing core resources that nstantly evolving. The Schumpeterian school are difficult to imitate(Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, focuses on revolutionary innovations that make 1986: Peteraf, 1993). These core resources are rivals' positions obsolete and change industry developed internally (Dierickx and Cool, 1989) structure. Similarly, the Chicago school (Stigler, through sustained investments in difficult-to-copy 1968: Demsetz, 1973)believes in the convergence attributes( Barney, 1986) by managers commit- of competitive patterns over the long term when ting to irreversible strategic actions( Ghemawat, the less successful firms imitate the strategies of 1991). When acquired from the market, core more successful ones(Demsetz, 1973). Despite resource endowments fully captialize their rents these differences, the literature in industrial in the market price(Barney, 1986). Similarly, organization treats the industry as the unit of core strategies are characterized by lock-in, lock that firms with are homogeneous. imply unique decision-making conditions due to complexity, uncertainty, and conflict(Amit and Schoemaker, 1993 ). RELATIVE EFFECTS ON CORE These unique strategies and resources, in con STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE junction with causal ambiguity, create isolating mechanisms that protect the competitive positions lopment of new ones to 1982: Reed and DeFillipi, 1990). This heterogen- O 1998 John Wiley Sons, Ltd. Srat.MgmJ.vol.19,2-219(1998)
Firm and Industry Effects within Strategic Management 213 eity in turn leads to systematic differences in firm (Andrews, 1971; Ansoff, 1965), based on the performance within the same industry. Hence: industrial organization paradigm, are consistent with the structural determinants of competition Hypothesis 1: Core strategies and perform- discussed above. According to this perspective, ance within industries vary systematically with companies must develop strengths based on Key differences in firm-level characteristics Success Factors (KsF)that are stable and exter nally determined by the industry environment Industry-level drivers (Vasconcellos and Hambrick, 1989). Thi approach implies that firms in an industry con- Industrial organization researchers have argued verge towards competitive parity, thus enhancing that strategy and performance are primarily deter- their chances of survival( Barney, 1991) mined by the membership of an industry, and are When there is no clear understanding of the sustained through entry barriers. In this perspec- means-end relationship, firms should imitate the tive, the common structural elements of an indus- more observable aspects of successful strategies ry lead its members to share competitive charac- Managers pursuing the Ksf approach practice teristics. In a more dynamic context, as successful strategic benchmarking aimed at decreasing firms develop resources producing competitive petitive gaps(Colmen, 1993; Bogan and English dvantage, other firms are able to reduce competi- 1994). The practitioners collect competitive infor tive gaps by imitating these valuable resources. mation for imitation from different sources such As a result, convergent patterns of competition as reverse engineering, patent applications, indus- can become common industry characteristics try journals and magazines, financial statements, over time consultants, and ex-employees (Winter, 1987) Previous research has studied these convergent The industrial organization literature prescribes patterns for core strategies in technological and this approach marketing differentiation. For instance, in tech- Thus, shared industry characteristics such as nology development, firms share several charac- market structure and imitation of strategies lead teristics of the industry: direct competitors face to convergence of core strategies and performance similar technological opportunities for innovation among firms in the same industry and differences (Klevorich et aL., 1995: Cohen and Klepper, across industries. Therefore 1992), use a common protection mechanism for profiting from their technological investments Hypothesis 2: Core strategies and perform (Levin et aL., 1987),and share innovative ance vary systematically with differences in ditions derived from the underlying technolog life cycle(Utterback and Abernathy, 1975).L industry-level characteristics The behavioral explanation for homogeneity of strategies is more obvious for marketing expendi- COMPLEMENTARITY OF THE tures. They are easily observable and imitable- SCHOOLS ompetitors expenditures can be easily dupli cated Marketing expenditures may reach compa- This study argues that the above two hypotheses rable levels among competitors in an industry underlying resource-based view and the industrial because of similar conditions which determine organization schools within strategic management product differentiability Comanor and wilson, are complementary. Industry-level drivers that 1974), buyer characteristics(consumer or indus- promote homogeneity coexist with firm-level dri trial products ), stage in product life cycle, or vers that generate heterogeneity, just as various close rivalry(Kotler, 1994). Firms use advertising forms of competition coexist within the same to inform individuals about the quality of their industry. Firms invest upfront in resources that brand is better than those offered by rivals. In However, as industries evolve, imitation reduces such cases, advertising rather than price can the gaps and differences in resources between become the way in which competitors interact firms(Demsetz, 1973). The common nature of with each other (Scherer and Ross, 1990) customers,suppliers, products, technologies, and Prescriptions from early strategy literature competitive conditions leads to similarities with G 1998 John Wiley Sons, Ltd. sra:.Mgm.J,vol.19.2l-219(1998)
214 A.J. Mauri and M. p. Michaels an industry (Barney, 1991). While industrial we design and carry out an empirical test which organization has been primarily concerned with examines this complementarity the similarities among firms, the resource-based view has focused on the differences as the basis to develop sustainable competitive advantage METHODOLOGY (Wernerfelt, 1995 However,empirical studies within industrial Statistical test and measures organization and resource-based view have not The empirical analysis was conducted using the addressed this complementarity. This has been variance components methodology. Unlike partially because of the difficulty in operationaliz. regression techniques using fixed-effects models, ing the theoretical constructs. Researchers within variance components assume a random model industrial organization have relied on proxies of that does not require direct measurement of the structure such as entry barriers, concen- independent variables. Using variance compo- ratios, and industry dummy variables to nents, the unique firm characteristics are modeled strategy and performance. They have as latent factors, captured using individual latent reported a significant effect on r&d and advertis- variables for each firm; while industry attributes ing intensities, as well as performance(see are captured using a common latent variabl Scherer and Ross, 1990, Chs. ll, 16, and 17 for shared by members of the same industry. By a review ) On the other hand, several resource- assuming that the latent factors are selected ran- based studies (Jacobson, 1988; Hansen and Wer- domly from a population of firms and industries, nerfelt, 1989: Powell, 1996) have reported evi- variance components are capable of estimating dence supporting the influence of firm factors on the portion of the total variance derived from performance outcomes despite the difficulties in firm- and industry-specific sources. As rec measuring unobservable firm-specific character- ommended by Searle, Casella and McCulloch istics( Godfrey and Hill, 1995). (1992), the variance component tests were est Even those studies that used more sophisticated mated using the maximum-likelihood method techniques to overcome the measurement prob- The dependent variables for core strategies lems of industry structure and firm-specific were developed for technology and marketing characteristics reported findings that confirmed resources. Several researchers have suggested that he polar perspectives. Both Schmalensee(1985) these intangible resources are a potential source and Rumelt (1991) used variance component of competitive advantage. Dierickx and Cool analysis to study differences in performance (1989) argue that the accumulation process for derived from industry and firm effects. However, generating brand loyalty and technological exper their results are in confict due to methodological tise provides uniqueness and reduces imitation differences. Schmalensee found dominance of because of resource mass efficiencies, resource industry effects as he selected latent variables to erosion, resource interrelationships, time capture industry effects and market share for firm- compression diseconomies and causal ambiguity. level effects; Rumelt found dominance of firm R&d expenditure captures an enterprises endow effects because latent variables were used to cap- ment of unique knowledge possessed by individ ture both the industry and firm-specific effects. uals and teams within organizations( Caves, 1982 In addition, Hill and Deeds(1996)argue that the MacDonald, 1985), and these investments require 3-year time series used by Rumelt is too short periods from 4 to 6 years to provide a return to allow equilibrium to be reached, and Powell ( Cohen and Levin, 1989). Similarly, advertising (1996)questions the validity of the FtC data expenditure captures a firms intangible assets base used. The above discussion brings out the such as brand name and reputation (Stewart, need for more empirical research to test the com- Harris, and Carleton, 1984 ). Because of the high plementarity between the industrial organization uncertainty, high asset specificity and high sunk and resource-based view. In the following section costs associated with R&D and advertising, these expenditures are core strategies financed with equity (Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993), or with 如m时 mo chaure mr galrdgts the mueller9. d r&d and advertisin e 1998 John wiley Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgm.J,vol.19.211-219(199
Firm and industry Efects within Strategic Management 215 ntensities as measures of core strategies by divid- of business was classified as being in the same ing the annual expenditures in each variable by segment by independent raters. We used 4-digit sales(Bettis, 1981; Chatterjee and Wernerfelt, SiC classific from compustat and com pact Disclosure data bases. This procedure Like previous studies (Schmalensee, 1985; allowed identification of companies whose port Rumelt, 1991; Roquebert et aL., 1996), we used folio of businesses clearly belongs to the same return on assets as the measure of business per- industry segment. Broader 4-digit SIC codes that formance. This variable was constructed by divid- group other segments, such as those ending in ng the annual income before extraordinary items 00, 0, and 99 were eliminated from the sample by the total assets Finally, only companies with 1992 sales larger than $100 million were selected Sample selection s the validity of the sampling tech nique to produce a nonbiased set representative Our sample consists of 264 companies in 69 4of other companies in the same industry, the digit SIC industries. For each company, financial strategies of single-business firms(sampled)were data were collected for the period 1978-92. The tested for statistical differences with strategies companies selected in the sample comply with from the population of firms in that industry three criteria. First, they are nondiversified com- for the period 1988-90. The results showed no panies. Since companies do not disclose resource significant statistical differences. In addition, the SiC classifications for sample of nondiversified firms from manufactur- panies sampled were screened for the ng industries(Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993)was 1987-92. This procedure showed a stable pa selected from COMPUSTAT. These companies for the main business segment orrespond to Rumelt's(1974)single-and domi nant-diversification categories for which revenues from the largest company segment( defined at the RESULtS 4-digit SIC code) are greater than 70 percent of total revenues. This procedure permits the use of Table I presents the results of the random effect the companys consolidated financial statements model using a 5-and a 15-year period (1988 as a proxy for the information of the most 92, 1978-92, respectively). For each variable and important segment, and allows us to control for period presented in the table, the columns show multiplicity of industry effects in diversified com- the variance component estimate derived from firm-level factors, from industry factors, and the dustry groups were selected by iden- random error, respectively. Each estimate is also tifying single-business companies whose portfolio presented as a fraction of the total variance Table 1. Variance components results Variable Period Firm Industry Error Total R&D Intensity 1988-92 6.61** 1.51**率 21.47 30.8% 7.0% 978-92 687*** 12.64** 31* 22.83 30.1% 14.5% dvertising intensit 1988-92 4.10*** 2251 0.97**率 16.55 1978-9 水率 24.1% ROA 29.84**率 x 8083 369% 569% 100.0% 1978-92 50.13** 254% 688% *p<0.05,**P<0.01;*p<0.001 e 1998 John wiley Sons, Ltd. Srat.Mgmt.J.vol.19.211-219(1998)
216 A.. Mauri and M. P. Michaels As can be seen in Table 1, core strategies on DISCUSSION &D and advertising are principally influenced by industry-level factors. In particular for the 5- Our results support the complementarity between year period, 62 percent of the variation in R&d resource-based and industrial organizations per strategy is caused by industry factors, which is spectives. The results from core strategies support about double the size of the firm effect. The the strong influence of industry-level drivers on esults for the longer period are of similar magni- R&D and advertising investments, whereas the de. For advertising strategy, the influence of results for performance confirm the strong effect industry factors is larger for both periods(68- of firm-level drivers 69 percent ), which is also larger in magnitude The findings suggest that firms competing than the firm effect(24-25 percent). In addition, the same industry tend to develop homogeneous for both of the core strategy variables the error competitive strategies for investing in technology percent of the total variance. This shows that consistent with institutional theory. Manage so term is of a small magnitude, between 6 and 15 and marketing resources. The results are both industry and firm factors consistently explain to reduce the strategic gaps with relevant com- the variation of these resource strategies across petitors to gain legitimacy in the eyes of insti- companies, and over time. Companies in the same tutional investors and other important stakeholders industry present a homogeneous pattern in their (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, R&D and advertising investments to develop core 1983). Under causal ambiguity, firms choose to resources. The results for ROA are similar to imitate the observable aspects of core strategies those presented by Rumelt(1991), though our For instance, the uncertainty inherent in the ample is very differently chosen, and the periods relation between the investments in specialized are longer. Using a 3-year period, Rumelt found resources and competitive advantage leads other that 46.4 per cent of variation was derived from firms to imitate the behavior of the more success firm factors and 8.3 percent from industry factors. ful ones(Alchain, 1950 The results in Table 1 confirm the predominant These findings also support the resource-based effects of firm-specific factors on performance. It view. Barriers to imitation depend on the degree interesting to note that there is a clear trend of observability of a resource( Godfrey and Hill toward reduction in firm effects as the time period 1995 ). Firms dedicate enormous attention to the of the study is increased. The magnitude of firm study of competitive moves on core resources effects for a 5-year period is 37 percent, whereas because of their potential impact on performance for the 15-year period it is only 25 percent. 2.3 However, easily implementable strategies such as the allocation of funds for R&D and advertising ted by selecting companies competing in more and Jacobson, 1992). The existence of conver precise industry segments, rathet sample was selected b observe variables confirms the competitive value usiness files data base. this data base collects of the difficult-to-observe resources as collis companies identified in the original sample were screened for and montgomery (1995)recently observed: sus the competition topic in financial analysts'reports. Industry tainable competitive advantage can be gained only by leveraging and combining competitively dis- lected in the original sample competing in the same segment. tinctive resources that exist at lower levels of total of 103 single-business companies in 35 segments aggregation ere identified following this procedure. The results using The results are also consistent with the exist- in Table 1. Due to the more hor ults sh nature of the ence of unique resource endowments for firms in le levels of vanance effects increased from almost 62 percent (as reported in R&D and advertising expenditures with rates of 10 and 10/3. modified performance variable. This try effects. This additi by modifyng the asset base of ROa by capitalizing the annual anonymous reviewer o 1998 John wiley Sons, Ltd. Srar.Mgmt.J.vol.19.211-219(1998
Firm and Industry Effects within Strategic Management 217 allocation for the development of similar types tures do not capture idiosyncratic resources that of resources by two firms in the same industry provide competitive advantage. Although it is do not lead to possession of the same resources. irreversible investments in resource development is as ered and ad ert ngos ynctratc resources the basis e f competive advanta s cdis rick and Our findings support RumeIt's (1991)con- Cool, 1989), these resource development strate- clusion that firms' unique resource endowments, gies are easy to observe and easy to imitate and not the participation in a particular industry, Hence, firm-level proxies like R&D and advertis are the cause of differences in performance. The ing expenditures capture broad classes of higher magnitude of firm effects on performance resources, not the idiosyncratic firm resources or than on strategy may be explained by the idea resource development processes that form the of'multifinality'reported by Lawless, Bergh, and basis of competitive advantage. Thus models of wilsted (1989): even when firms follow similar competitive advantage within the resource-based strategies, the idiosyncrasy in their resources leads view are applicable only at low levels of analysis, to heterogeneous performance outcomes unobservable to the competition. The challenge A comparison of the 5-and 15-year periods is to carry out empirical research at an appropriate for all three variables shows a decrease in the level of aggregation and develop normative guid industry effects and the reduction in the pro- ance on leveraging the four drivers of competitive portion of variance explained jointly by industry advantage within the resource-based view and firm effects. This trend could be the net resources, routines, replication, and rents result of an interaction between long periods of (winter, 1995) convergence and punctuated reorientations Only fine-grained analysis of resource hier (Tushman and romanelli, 1985). As predicted by archies at lower levels of aggregation can help industrial organization, longer periods increase managers identify the true sources of competitive the chances of competition settling down, and advantage. Attempts to generalize the value of allow a long-term equilibrium to be reached unique resource-product-market positions would within the industry: this explains an increase in undermine the basic premises of strategic man industry effects. However, an increasing time pe- agement. Strategy is about differentiating a firm riod increases the chances of ha Schumpet- from its competitors, and the task of the general erian revolution that changes the nature of compe- management is to adjust and renew firm resources tition as well; this explains the decrease in the as time, competition, and change erode their value proportion of variance explained by industry (Rumelt, 1987). Hence strategy researchers should focus on differences and not similarities Together, firm and industry effects explain in resources(Hatten and Hatten, 1987; Werner- between 74 percent and 94 percent of the total flet, 1985) variance in strategy variables. The low level of error(ranging from 6 percent to 15 percent)for core strategies offers support to the concept of REFerENCES strategy as a pattern. Once a strategy is chosen whether it is deliberate or emergent, and whether Alchain, A (1950).'Uncertainty, evolution, and eco- nomic theory, Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), it is followed by competitors or unique, strategIc pp. 2 11-221 positioning tends to be maintained over time Amit, R. and P. J. H. Schoemaker(1993). ' Strategic assets and organizational rent, Strategic manage IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE Andrews, K.(1971). The Concept of Corporate Strat RESEARCH Ansoff 1965). Corporate Strategy, McGraw- Our results suggest that models of competitive Bain, J. S.(1972). Essays on Price Theory and Indus- advantage within the resource-based view could bride rmnizanton. Har improve their prescription value by measuring Balakrishnan, S. and I. Fox(1993). 'Asset specificity, resources at lower levels of aggregation. Firm- firm heterogeneity and capital structure, Strategic level proxies like R&D and advertising expendi- Management Journal, 14(1), pp 3-16 e 1998 John wiley Sons, Ltd. stran.Mgmt.J,vol.19.211-219(1998)
218 AJ Mauri and m. p. Michaels Barney, J.(1986).' Strategic factor markets: E Erickson. G. and R. ) "Gaining business strategy petitive advantage tures: The returns vertising Barney, J(1991). 'Firm resources and sustained com- gement Science, 1264-1279 petitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1), Ghemawat, P.(1991). Commitment: The Dynamic of pp.99120 Strategy. Free Press, New York Bettis, R.(1981). 'Performance differences in related Godfrey, P. C. and C. W. L. Hill(1995).The and unrelated diversified firms', Strategic Manage problem of unobservables in strategic man ment Jouma agement research,, Strategic Management Jour- Bogan, C. and M. J 519-534. for Best Practices: Winning Through Competitive Grabowsky, H G. and D, C. Mueller(1978).'Industrial nnovation. Mcgraw-Hill. New York research and development, intangible capital, stocks Carroll, G. R.(1993). A sociological view on why and firm profits rates, Bell Journal of economics, firms differ,, Strategic Management Journal, 14(4), 328-343 pp.237-2 Grant, R. B(1991)'A resource base theory of nomic Literature, 18(1), pp. 64-9=E Caves, R. E(1980). 'Industrial organization, corporate tive ad for strategy strategy, and structure: A survey,, Journal of Eco- lation, California Management Review, pp.114-135 Caves, R. E.(1982). Multinational Enterprise and Hansen, G. S and B. Wernerfelt (1989).Determinants Economic Analysis. Harvard University Press, Cam- of firm performance: The relative importance of bridge, MA economic and organizational factors, Strategic Man Chandler, A.(1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters agement Journal, 10(5), pp 399-411 in the History of the American Industrial Enterpl groups, asymmetrical mobility barriers and hatterjee, S. and B. Wernerfelt (1991).The link testability,, Strategic Management Journal, between resources and the type pp.329-342 Theory and evidence, Strategic gement Jour- Hill, C. w. L and D. L Deeds(1996). The importance nal,12(1),pp.3-48. Id, J. (1972). 'Organizational structure, environment profitability: A neo-Austrian perspectve, Joumal of Soci- Management Studies, 33(4),pp. 429-452. ology, 6(1), pp. 1-22 Jacobson, R.(1988).The persistence of abnorma Cohen, W. and S. Klepper (1992).The anatomy of returns, Strategic Management Jou industry R&d intensity distributions, American pp.4l5-430 Cohen, w. and R. Levin(1989). 'Empirical studies in S.G. winter (1995).On the sources and sig- innovation and market structure. In R. schmalensee. nificance of interindustry differences in techno (ed ) Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 2 logical opportunities, Research Policy, 2 Elsevier, New York, pp. 1059-1101 CollisD.J.andC.A.Montgomery(1995).compet-Kotler,P.(1994).marketingManagement(8thed.): tall ing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s, Harvard Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clif Business Review, 73(4), pp. 118-128 993).'Benchmarking the delivery of (1989). 'Performance variations among strategi group members: An examination of individual fin ment,36(5),pp.32-37 Comanor, W. and T. wilson (1974). Advertising and Market Power. Harvard University Press, Cam- Levin, R.,A. K. Klevorick, R. R. Nelson and s bridge, MA G. Winter(1987). 'Appropriating the returns from Conner, K.R.(1991).'A historical comparison of industrial research and development, Brooking 783-83l within industrial organization economics: Do we Lippman, S. A. and R. P, Rumelt(1982).Uncertain have a new theory of the firm? Journal of manage imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences efficiency under competition, Bell Journal of eco- Demsetz, H. (1973). 'Industry structure, market rivalry nomics, 13(2), pp 418-438 ane y, Journal of Law and Economics, MacDonald, J M.(1985). 'R&D and the dire Dierickx,iand K. Cool (1989). 'Asset stock accumu- 67, pp 583-590 teview of Economics and Statistics, l6(1) diversifica on an Mahone age, Management Science, 35(2), pp. 1504-1511. resource-based view within DiMaggio, P. J. and w. w. Powell(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collec ),pp.363-380 tive rationality in organizational fields, American J. and B. Rowan (1977). 'Institutionalized Sociological Review, 48, pp 147-160 organizations: Formal structure as myth and cer e 1998 John wiley Sons, Ltd. sra,Mgm.J,vol.19.211-21901998)
Firm and industry Effects within Strategic Management 219 emony, American Journal of Sociology, 83, Schmalensee, R.(1985).Do markets differ much? pp.340-363 American Economic Review. 75(3), pp 341-3 Mintzberg H.(1978).'Patterns in strategy formation, Searle, S.R., G. Casella and C. E. McCulloch(1992). 934_948 Variance Components. Wiley, New York Montgomery, C. A and B. Wernerfelt(1988). 'Diversi- Stewart, J.F., R. S. Harris and w. T Carleton fication, Ricardian rents, and Tobins q, RAND The role of market structure in merger Joumal of economics, 19(4), pp. 623-632 Journal of industrial Economics, 32, pp Nelson, R.R(1991).Why do firms differ and how Stigler, G. J.(1968). The Organization of does it matter?, Strategic Management Journal, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. winter Special Issue. 12, pp 61-74 Tushman, M. L and E. Romanelli (1985 ). ' Organiza- Peteraf, M. A(1993). The cornerstones of competitive tional evolution: A metamorphosis model of conver advangage: A resource-based view,, Strategic garment Journal, 14(3), pp 179-191 Cummings(eds ) Research in Organization Porter, M.(1981).The contributions of industrial Vol 7. JAI Press. Greenwich, CT organization to strategic management,, Academy of Management Review, 6(4), pp. 609-620 Unp171-2 d w. al Powell, T C.(1996)How much does industry matter An alternative empirical test, Strategic management ournal,17(4),pp.323-333 odel of process and product innovation, Omega, oncellos, J. A and D. C. Hambrick(1989). Key Reed, R. and R. DeFillipi(1990). 'Causal ambiguity, success factors: Test of a general framework in barrier to imitation and sustainable competitive the industrial-product sector,, Strategic Management advantage,, Academy of management Review, 15 Journal, 10(4), pp. 36 Wernerfelt, B (1984).'A resource-base of the Roquebert, J. A.,R. L. Philli 5(2), (1996).Markets vs. mana pp.l71-180 profitability?, Strategic Wermerfelt, B (1995).The resource based view 17(8),pp.653-664 firm: Ten years after, Strategic Managemeni Rumelt, R. P(1974) Strategy, Structure and Per nal,16(3),pp.171-174 ance in Large Industrial Corporations. Harvard Uni- Winter, S. G.(1987). ' Knowledge and competence as versity Press, Boston, M Rumelt, R. P.(1987).Theory, entrepreneurship. In D. Teece(ed ) 以单mDm已得 ompeti. Winter, S. G.(1995). 'Four Rs of profitability esources, routines, and repli 137-158 ry(ed ) Resource-based and Evolutionary Rumelt, R(1991). ' How much does industry matter?, of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis. Kluwer, Boston, Strategic Management Journal, 12(3), pp 167-185 MA,pp.l47-178 Scherer, F.M. and D. Ross (1990). Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (3rd ed Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA o 1998 John Wiley Sons, Ltd. rar.Mgmt.J,vol.19,211-219(1998)