全球价值链、商业网络、战略与国际商业:融合

J. Humphrey, E. Todeva, Eduardo Armando, Ernesto Giglio
{"title":"全球价值链、商业网络、战略与国际商业:融合","authors":"J. Humphrey, E. Todeva, Eduardo Armando, Ernesto Giglio","doi":"10.7819/rbgn.v21i4.4014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify the distinction between the Global Value Chains and selected strands of the business literature; business networks, strategy, and international business. These four research areas have starting questions that are often different and the audiences they address also differ. There have been attempts to establish links across these theories, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. Design/methodology/approach – The basic principles and concepts of the four areas are identified. The results are used to develop a summary matrix of the approaches. The methodological path is inductive and inferential, as the task involves searching for similarities, complementarities, and overlaps across the four social science disciplines. Findings – Literature of the studied fields overlap on the issues they are trying to understand, even if they do not use identical terminology. The four areas advocate the same principle in understanding the organizational field: complexity. Firms are triggered to enter into exchange with other companies. Originality/value – The theoretical contribution of this article is based on the idea that although the four research fields – GVC, Business Networks, Strategy, and International Business - advance independently from each other, common origins can be observed, allowing a set of common propositions.","PeriodicalId":112052,"journal":{"name":"Organizations & Markets: Formal & Informal Structures eJournal","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global Value Chains, Business Networks, Strategy, and International Business: Convergences\",\"authors\":\"J. Humphrey, E. Todeva, Eduardo Armando, Ernesto Giglio\",\"doi\":\"10.7819/rbgn.v21i4.4014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify the distinction between the Global Value Chains and selected strands of the business literature; business networks, strategy, and international business. These four research areas have starting questions that are often different and the audiences they address also differ. There have been attempts to establish links across these theories, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. Design/methodology/approach – The basic principles and concepts of the four areas are identified. The results are used to develop a summary matrix of the approaches. The methodological path is inductive and inferential, as the task involves searching for similarities, complementarities, and overlaps across the four social science disciplines. Findings – Literature of the studied fields overlap on the issues they are trying to understand, even if they do not use identical terminology. The four areas advocate the same principle in understanding the organizational field: complexity. Firms are triggered to enter into exchange with other companies. Originality/value – The theoretical contribution of this article is based on the idea that although the four research fields – GVC, Business Networks, Strategy, and International Business - advance independently from each other, common origins can be observed, allowing a set of common propositions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":112052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizations & Markets: Formal & Informal Structures eJournal\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizations & Markets: Formal & Informal Structures eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v21i4.4014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizations & Markets: Formal & Informal Structures eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v21i4.4014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的-本文的目的是澄清全球价值链和选定的商业文献之间的区别;商业网络,战略和国际业务。这四个研究领域的起始问题往往不同,它们的受众也不同。有人试图在这些理论之间建立联系,但这些都是例外,而不是规则。设计/方法论/方法-确定了四个领域的基本原则和概念。这些结果被用来建立一个方法的总结矩阵。方法路径是归纳和推理的,因为这项任务涉及在四个社会科学学科之间寻找相似性、互补性和重叠。研究发现-研究领域的文献在他们试图理解的问题上重叠,即使他们不使用相同的术语。这四个领域在理解组织领域时倡导相同的原则:复杂性。公司被触发与其他公司进行交易。原创性/价值——本文的理论贡献是基于这样一种观点,即尽管四个研究领域——全球价值链、商业网络、战略和国际商业——彼此独立发展,但可以观察到共同的起源,从而得出一系列共同的命题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Global Value Chains, Business Networks, Strategy, and International Business: Convergences
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to clarify the distinction between the Global Value Chains and selected strands of the business literature; business networks, strategy, and international business. These four research areas have starting questions that are often different and the audiences they address also differ. There have been attempts to establish links across these theories, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. Design/methodology/approach – The basic principles and concepts of the four areas are identified. The results are used to develop a summary matrix of the approaches. The methodological path is inductive and inferential, as the task involves searching for similarities, complementarities, and overlaps across the four social science disciplines. Findings – Literature of the studied fields overlap on the issues they are trying to understand, even if they do not use identical terminology. The four areas advocate the same principle in understanding the organizational field: complexity. Firms are triggered to enter into exchange with other companies. Originality/value – The theoretical contribution of this article is based on the idea that although the four research fields – GVC, Business Networks, Strategy, and International Business - advance independently from each other, common origins can be observed, allowing a set of common propositions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Origins of Common Identity: Evidence from Alsace-Lorraine The Important Role of Time Limits when Consumers Choose their Time in Service Employment as a Relational Obligation to Work Information System Development Plan for APC Laundry House Subjective Beliefs about Contract Enforceability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1