Kurum Temelli Görüş ve Stratejinin Üçayağı Perspektifi: Yazın Taraması

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, 2000 yılı itibariyle uluslararası yazınında önemli bir yer edinen kurum-temelli görüş ve beraberinde gelişen stratejinin üçayağı perspektifinin kuramsal olarak incelenmesidir. Bu çerçevede çalışmada öncelikle kurum-temelli görüş ve stratejinin üçayağı perspektifi kavramsal olarak ele alınmış, daha sonra da stratejik yönetim yazınındaki gelişimine dair bir yazın taraması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kronolojik inceleme ile yapılan yazın taraması, görüşün kavramsal olarak nasıl ortaya çıktığına, hangi aşamalardan geçerek kuramsal özelliklerini kazandığına, günümüz stratejik yönetim yazınında nerede konumlandığına ve gelecekte nasıl bir çalışma alanı olabileceğine ışık tutmaktadır. Peng’in 2000 yılındaki çalışması ile kavramsal olarak ortaya çıkan görüş, yine Peng’in öncülüğünü yaptığı araştırmacılar sayesinde geçen yirmi yıllık süreçte önemli bir gelişim göstermiş ve özellikle firma stratejisi ile performansını açıklama noktasında kaynak-temelli görüş ve konumlanma okulunu tamamlayıcı bir yer edinmiştir. Yazındaki çalışmalar, görüşün, birlikte anıldığı stratejinin üçayağı perspektifinden ayrılıp başlı başına bir stratejik yönetim yaklaşımı olmaya doğru gittiğini göstermektedir. Bununla beraber metodolojik olarak jenerik bir anlayışın ortaya çıkmadığı da görülmektedir. Fakat arka planındaki kurumsal kuramın ve kurumsal iktisadın sahip olduğu kuramsal gücün ortaya koyduğu varsayımlar ve yapılan ampirik çalışmalar neticesinde edindiği perspektif dolayısıyla ileride önemli bir kuramsal argüman olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurum Temelli Görüş
• Stratejinin Üçayağı Perspektifi
• Kaynak Temelli Görüş
• Endüstri Temelli Görüş

Institution-Based View and Strategy Tripod Perspective: A Literature Review

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine theoretically institution-based view and strategy tripod perspective that has gained an important place in the international literature as of 2000. In this context, first of all, the strategy tripod perspective and institution-based view are conceptually discussed and then a literature review about the development of view in the strategic management literature was conducted. The literature review through chronological analysis sheds light on how the view conceptually emerged, how it gained theoretical properties, where it is located in today's strategic management literature, and how it could be a research field in the future. The view that emerged conceptually with Peng's work in 2000 has taken a complementary place to the resource-based view and positioning school at the point of explaining the firm strategy and performance. Thanks to the researchers pioneered by Peng, the view has made significant progress over the past two decades. Studies in the literature demonstrate that view is now beginning to detach from the strategy tripod perspective. And the view gains ground to be a strategic management approach in itself. However, it is observed that a methodologically generic understanding does not arise. However, I believe that view will be an important theoretical argument in the future due to the theoretical strength of the institutional theory and institutional economics behind it, the assumptions it puts forward and the perspective gained as a result of the empirical studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institution-Based View
• Strategy Tripod Perspective
• Resource-Based View
• Industry-Based View

Kaynakça

1. Ingram, P. ve Silverman, B. S. (2002). Introduction: The New Institutionalism in Strategic Management. in (Paul Ingram ve Brian S. Silverman Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Strategic Management, Elsevier.
2. North, D. C., (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, USA.
3. Peng, M. W. (2009). Global Strategy, (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South–Western Cengage Learning.
4. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York.
5. Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith and M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Ahmed, F. U. & Brennan, L., (2019). An institution-based view of firms’ early internationalization: Effectiveness of national export promotion policies, International Marketing Review, 36(6), 911-954.
7. Ahn, M. J. & York, A. S. (2011). Resource–based and institution–based approaches to biotechnology industry development in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2), 257–275.
8. Ahuja, G. & Yayavaram, S. (2011). Explaining influence rents: The case for an Institutions–Based View of strategy. Organization Science, 22, 1631–1652.

9. Bağış, M. & Hızıroğlu, M. (2017). Stratejinin Kaynaklara Dayalı Yaklaşımına Yönelik Eleştirilere Dair Kategorik Bir İnceleme. Yorum–Yönetim–Yöntem Uluslararası Yönetim–Ekonomi ve Felsefe Dergisi, 5(1), 1–27.
10. Banalieva, E. R. (2014). Embracing the second best? Synchronization of reform speeds, excess high discretion slack, and performance of transition economy firms. Global Strategy Journal, 4(2), 104–126.
11. Banalieva, E. R., Eddleston, K. A. & Thomas M. Zellweger, (2015). When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution–based view. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1358–1377.
12. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 998–120.
13. Cruz, L. B., Boehe, D. M. & Ogasavara, M. H. (2015). CSR–based differentiation strategy of export firms from developing countries: An exploratory study of the strategy tripod. Business & Society, 54(6), 723–762.
14. Eryılmaz, M., (2004). Stratejik seçim ve kurumsalcı bakış açılarının birlikteliği üzerine eğitim sektöründe bir araştırma, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 25-48.
15. Ferreira, M. P., Li, D. & Suk, J. Y. (2009). Foreign entry strategies: Strategic adaptation to various facets of the institutional environments. Development and Society, 38(1), 27–55.
16. Gao, G. Y., Murray, J. Y., Kotabe, M. & Lu, J. (2010). A "strategy tripod" perspective on export behaviors: Evidence from domestic and foreign firms based in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3), 377–396.
17. Gao, Q, Li, Z. & Huang, X., (2019). How EMNEs choose location for strategic asset seeking in internationalization? Based on strategy tripod framework, Chinese Management Studies, 13(3), 687-705.
18. Garrido, E., Gomez, J., Maicas, J. P. & Orcos, R. (2014). The institution–based view of strategy: How to measure it? BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17(2), 82–101.
19. Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V. & Singh, D. (2014). Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 12–20.
20. Han, X., Liu, X., Xia, T. & Gao, L. (2018). Home–country government support, interstate relations and the subsidiary performance of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 93, 160-172.
21. Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V. & Verdin, P. (2003). Is performance driven by industry‐or firm‐specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 1–16.
22. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan W. P. & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417–456.
23. Ju, M., Zhao, H. & Wang, T. (2014). The boundary conditions of export relational governance: A “strategy tripod” perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 22(2), 89–106.
24. Ketteni, E & Kottaridi, C., (2019). The impact of regulations on the FDI-growth nexus within the institution-based view: A nonlinear specification with varying coefficients, International Business Review, 28, 415–427.
25. Kim, H., Kim, H. & Hoskisson, R. E. (2010). Does market–oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business–group affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution–based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1141–1160.
26. Kostova, T. & Hult, T. M. (2016). Meyer and Peng’s 2005 article as a foundation for an expanded and refined international business research agenda: Context, organizations, and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 23–32.
27. Krull, E., Smith, P. & Ge, G. L. (2012). The internationalization of engineering consulting from a strategy tripod perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 32(7), 1097–1119.
28. Lamb, N. H. & Roundy, P. T. (2018). Institutional, stakeholder, and cultural influences on corporate social performance: An institution–based view. International Journal of Comparative Management, 1(1), 4–18.
29. Lee, M., Yin, X., Lee, S. Weng, D. H. & Peng, M. (2015). The impact of home country institutions on new venture export: Examining new ventures in transition economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 823–848.
30. Lien, Y. C., Teng, C. C. & Li, S. (2016). Institutional reforms and the effects of family control on corporate governance. Family Business Review, 29(2), 174 –188.
31. Liu, W., Yang, H. & Zhang, G. (2012). Does family business excel in firm performance? An institution–based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4), 965–987.
32. Mahlich, J. C., (2010). Patents and performance in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry: An institution–based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 99–113.
33. Maksimov, V., Wang, S. L. & Yadong L. (2017). Institutional imprinting, entrepreneurial agency, and private firm innovation in transition economies. Journal of World Business, 52(6), 854–865.
34. Martin, L. Á. G., Madhok, A. & Sánche, Á. M. (2014). The evolution of strategic management research: Recent trends and current directions. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17(2), 69–76.
35. Martin, X. (2014). Institutional Advantage. Global Strategy Journal, 4, 55–69.
36. Meyer, K. E. & Peng, M. W. (2005). Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 600–621.
37. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik S. K. & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), 61–80.
38. Meyer, K. E. & Peng, M. W. (2016). Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 3–22.
39. Monticelli, J. M., Calixto, C. V. Vasconcellos, S. L. & Garrido, I. L. (2017). The influence of formal institutions on the internationalization of companies in an emerging country. Review of Business Management, 19(65), 358-374.
40. Ngo, V. D., Janssen, F., Leonidou, L. C. & Christodoulides, P. (2016). Domestic institutional attributes as drivers of export performance in an emerging and transition economy. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2911–2922.
41. Nguyen, T. V., Le, N. T. B. & Bryant, S. E. (2013). Sub–national institutions, firm strategies, and firm performance: A multilevel study of private manufacturing firms in Vietnam. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 68–76.
42. Oliver, C., (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management, 16(1), 145–179.
43. Oliver, C., (1997a). Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Combining Institutional and Resource–Based Views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.
44. Oliver, C., (1997b). The Influence of Institutional and Task Environment Relationships on Organizational Performance: The Canadian Construction Industry. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 99–124.
45. Peng, M. W. & Heath, P. S. (1996). The Growth of the Firm in Planned Economies in Transition: Institutions, Organizations, and Strategic Choice. Academy of Management, 21(2), 492–528.
46. Peng, M. W. (2002). Towards an institution–based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 251–267.
47. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L. & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution–based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 920-936.
48. Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B. & Chen, H. (2009). The institution–based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81.
49. Peng, M. W. (2014). New research directions in the institution–based view. Multidisciplinary Insights from New AIB Fellows, (Research in Global Strategic Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 16, 59-78.
50. Peng, M. W., Sun, W., Vlas, C., Minichilli, A. & Corbetta, G. (2018). An institution–based view of large family firms: A recap and overview. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(2), 187 – 205.
51. Ruef, M. & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 877–904.
52. Scott, W. R. (2003). Institutional carriers: Reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 879–894.
53. Shinkle, G. A. & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2010). Institutions, size and age in transition economies: Implications for export growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 267–286.
54. Steidlmeier, P., (1993). Institutional Approaches in Strategic Management. Journal of Economic Issues, 27(1), 189–211.
55. Stoian, C. & Mohr, A. (2016). Outward foreign direct investment from emerging economies: Escaping home country regulative voids. International Business Review, 25(5), 1124–1135.
56. Su, Z., Peng, M. W. & Xie, E. (2015). A strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability. British Journal of Management, 27, 58-76.
57. Sun, S. L., Peng, M. W., Lee, R. P. & Tan, W. (2015). Institutional open access at home and outward internationalization. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 234–246.
58. Taş, A. & Cevrioğlu, E. (2015). Stratejik yönetimin temel sorularına kurumsalcı perspektiften bakış: Kurumsal temelli görüşün argümanları stratejik yönetim disiplini için ne anlam ifade ediyor? Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(3), 397–415.
59. Thome, K. M. & Medeiros, J. J. (2016). Drivers of successful international business strategy. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 11(1), 89 – 110.
60. Vecchi, A., Piana, B. D. & Vivacqua, E. (2015). An institutional–based view of innovation—an explorative comparison of business groups in China and India. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(5), 1-30.
61. Wang, Y., Cao, W., Zhou, Z. & Ning, L. (2013). Does external technology acquisition determine export performance? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. International Business Review, 22, 1079–1091.
62. Xie, Y. H., Zhao, H. J., Xie, Q. J. & Arnold, M. (2011). On the determinants of post–entry strategic positioning of foreign firms in a host market: A ‘‘strategy tripod’’ perspective. International Business Review, 20(4), 477–490.
63. Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M, W. & Deeds, D. L. (2008). What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 59–82.
64. Yaprak, A., Yosun, T. & Cetindamar, D. (2018). The influence of firm–specific and country–specific advantages in the internationalization of emerging market firms: Evidence from Turkey. International Business Review, 27(1), 198–207.
65. Young, M. N., Tsai, T., Wang X., Liu, S. & Ahlstrom, D. (2014). Strategy in emerging economies and the theory of the firm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 331–354.
66. Zhang, S., Wang, Z., Zhao, X. & Zhang, M. (2017). Effects of institutional support on innovation and performance: Roles of dysfunctional competition. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 11(1), 50–67.
67. Zhou, J. W. L. & Tang, Y. (2016). The value of institutional shareholders: Evidence from cross–border acquisitions by Chinese listed firms. Management Decision, 54(1), 44 – 65.