The Effectiveness of Macroeconomic Commitment in Weak(er) Institutional Environments

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Quintyn ◽  
Sophia Gollwitzer
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Environments

Transactions in science in comparative perspective

2018 ◽  
pp. 52-69
Author(s):  
A. N. Oleinik
Keyword(s):  
Transaction Costs ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
North American ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Institutional Environments ◽  
Academic Administrator ◽  
The North ◽  
American Case ◽  
Transactional Approach

The article develops a transactional approach to studying science. Two concepts play a particularly important role: the institutional environment of science and scientific transaction. As an example, the North-American and Russian institutional environments of science are compared. It is shown that structures of scientific transactions (between peers, between the scholar and the academic administrator, between the professor and the student), transaction costs and the scope of academic freedom differ in these two cases. Transaction costs are non-zero in both cases, however. At the same time, it is hypothesized that a greater scope of academic freedom in the North American case may be a factor contributing to a higher scientific productivity.

Influence of genetic factors and institutional environment on entrepreneurial activity: evidence from a twin study in Italy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Zunino
Keyword(s):  
Twin Study ◽  
Genetic Factors ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Behavioral Genetics ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activity ◽  
Alternative Theory ◽  
Environment Interaction ◽  
Institutional Environments ◽  
Gene Environment Interaction ◽  
Gene Environment

Abstract Genetic factors influence entrepreneurial activity, but we know little about how genetic factors influence entrepreneurial activity when the institutional environment is favorable. Two theories from behavioral genetics explain the gene–environment interaction. One theory argues that a favorable environment favors the development of genetic factors and their influence. An alternative theory posits that unfavorable environment triggers the development of genetic factors and their influence. I test these two competing theories with a twin study based in Italy. I compare the influence of genetic factors in provinces where the institutional environment favors entrepreneurial activity with provinces where the institutional environment is unfavorable to entrepreneurial activity. I found consistent evidence that genetic factors exert a larger influence in favorable institutional environments, suggesting that favorable institutional environments complement genetic factors.

The contingent effects of coopetition on new product development under dual institutional interactions: evidence from China

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Shen ◽  
Yu Gao ◽  
Chuan Liu ◽  
Xiangru Chen
Keyword(s):  
Product Development ◽  
New Product Development ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
New Product ◽  
Government Support ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Institutional Environments ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Business Context

Purpose Integrating the coopetition perspective with institutional theory, this study aims to determine how balanced patterns (BPs) and combinative patterns (CPs) of coopetition impact firms’ new product development (NPD) and how these effects are contingent on the various types of interactions between firms and the institutional environments in which they are embedded. Design/methodology/approach To test the hypotheses, 303 firms in China were surveyed. Based on the responses, the proposed model was estimated using structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression analysis. Findings The findings indicate that CP of coopetition enhances NPD but a BP of coopetition impedes NPD. Further, the results suggest that obtaining government support positively moderates the effect of the CP on NPD but negatively moderates the effect of the BP. Conversely, influencing government policy negatively moderates the effect of the CP but positively moderates that of the BP on NPD. Research limitations/implications The findings indicate that different patterns of inter-firm coopetition may have different effects on NPD, thus, providing a holistic and dynamic understanding of the contingent value of coopetition for NPD. The findings also suggest that the complex effects of coopetition on NPD are influenced by institutional interactions, introducing further contingencies to the process of coopetition-based innovation. Practical implications This study provides guidelines for managers seeking to fully understand and capitalize on the dual nature of coopetition: they should be cautious about the different patterns of competition – cooperation interaction and manage their interactions with institutional environments to increase the benefits and avoid the potential damage that different types of coopetition may bring. Originality/value This study offers direct insights into the balanced nature of coopetition and opens up an avenue for further exploration of the specific effects of cooperation dominance and competition dominance on firm performance in the business-to-business context. Moreover, the proposed contingency model offers a potential interface between institutional and coopetition research on NPD in marketing and strategic fields.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document