Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T14:12:24.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Coopetition and Firm Survival in a Cluster: Insights from the Population Ecology on the Yacht Industry in an Emerging Economy, 1957–2010

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2019

Hsi-Mei Chung*
Affiliation:
I-Shou University, Taiwan
Li-Hsuan Cheng
Affiliation:
National Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan
*
Corresponding author: Hsi-Mei Chung (smchung@isu.edu.tw)

Abstract

Firms that are located in a cluster may confront cooperation and competition at the same time. The advantage of cooperation and the disadvantage of competition on a firm may need to examine the firm survival in a cluster as the cluster evolves. Employing the population ecology viewpoint, this study tries to address coopetition issues in a cluster to examine the impact of coopetition on firm survival rate. Analyzing yacht industry data in Taiwan from 1957–2010, this study indicates that the founding rate of yacht firms will be positively related with the cluster size. Additionally, during the competition period, those firms located inside the cluster may have a higher dissolution rate than those firms outside the cluster, indicating the disadvantage of competition on the firm. Finally, this study finds that those firms located inside the cluster will be more likely to become larger and have capabilities to survive. The results in this study provide insights on addressing coopetition issues in a cluster.

摘要

集群內的厂商通常会同时面临彼此之间既竞争又合作的关系。当集群随时间演进时,需要考查厂商的生存才能了解集群內厂商间合作所带来的优势以及集群内厂商间竞争所导致的缺点。采用人口生态学的观点,本文试图通过考查厂商之间的竞合关系对厂商生存几率的影响,从而探讨集群内的竞合问题。通过分析1957-2010年台湾游艇产业的长期数据,本文指出,游艇厂商的创立几率与游艇产业集群规模有显著的正相关;此外,在集群內厂商间竞争时期,集群内的厂商的死亡几率会显著高于集群外的厂商,表明厂商间的竞争的确不利于厂商的存活。最后本文发现,随着时间的推移,集群内的厂商的规模会显著大于集群外的厂商的规模,因而更有能力存活下来。本文的发现为集群内厂商竞合问题提供了具有洞察力的解释。

Аннотация

Компании в кластере могут одновременно сотрудничать и конкурировать. Преимущества сотрудничества и недостатки конкуренции могут влиять на выживание компании в кластере по мере развития кластера. Исходя из теории экологии популяции, данная работа посвящена проблеме сотрудничества конкурентов в кластере для того, чтобы изучить влияние сотрудничества конкурентов на выживаемость компании. На основании анализа данных из яхтенной отрасли на Тайване за период 1957-2010 годов, это исследование показывает, что скорость основания яхтенных компаний прямо пропорциональна размеру кластера. Кроме того, в период конкуренции, компании внутри кластера чаще прекращают свою деятельность, чем те компании, которые находятся за пределами кластера, что указывает на отрицательное влияние конкуренции на компании. Наконец, в этом исследовании делается вывод о том, что компании, которые работают внутри кластера, с большей вероятностью будут расти и смогут выжить. Результаты этого исследования дают представление о проблеме сотрудничества конкурентов в кластере.

Resumen

Las empresas que están ubicadas en un clúster pueden enfrentar la cooperación y la competencia al mismo tiempo. La ventaja de cooperación y la desventaja de la competencia en una empresa puede necesitar examinar la supervivencia empresarial en un clúster a medida que el clúster evoluciona. Usando el punto de vista de la ecología de población, este estudio trata de abordar los aspectos de la coopetición en un clúster para examinar el impacto de la coopetición en la tasa de supervivencia de una empresa. Analizando los datos de la industria de yates en Taiwán desde 1957 hasta el 2010, este estudio indica que la tasa de fundación de las empresas de yates será relacionada positivamente con el tamaño del clúster. Adicionalmente, durante el periodo de competencia, aquellas empresas ubicadas en un clúster pueden tener una tasa de disolución mayor que las empresas fuera del clúster, indicando las desventajas de la competencia en la empresa. Finalmente, este estudio encuentra que las empresas ubicadas en el clúster serán más propensas a hacerse más grandes y a tener capacidades para sobrevivir. Los resultados de este estudio proporcionan reflexiones sobre cómo abordar los asuntos de coopetición en un clúster.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The International Association for Chinese Management Research 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Guest Editor Giovanni Battista Dagnino

References

REFERENCES

Arikan, A. T. 2009. Inter-firm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 658676.Google Scholar
Audia, P. G., Freeman, J. H., & Reynolds, P. D. 2006. Organizational foundings in community context: Instruments manufacturers and their interrelationship with other organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 381419.Google Scholar
Barron, D. N. 1999. The structuring of organizational population. American Sociology Review, 64(3): 421445.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A. C. 1996. Organizational ecology. In Clegg, S., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizations: 77114. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A. C., & Mezias, S. J. 1992. Localized competition and organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 580604.Google Scholar
Bell, S. J., Tracey, P., & Heide, J. B. 2009. The organization of regional clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 623642.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. 1999. Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 14(3): 178194.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. 2000. Co-opetition in business networks–to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5): 411426.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. 2014. Coopetition–Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2): 180188.Google Scholar
Bigelow, L. S., Carroll, G. R., Seidel, M.-D., & Tsai, L. 1997. Legitimation, geographical scale, and organizational density: Regional patterns of foundings of American automobile producers, 1885–1981. Social Science Research, 26(4): 377398.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. 1996. Coopetition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 2000. The demography of corporation and industries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2008. Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4): 288304.Google Scholar
Cheng, L.-H. 2011. Flexible specialization as a strategy of industrial upgrading: The case of the yacht-making industry in Taiwan. Taiwanese Sociology, 22: 157196. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
Cheng, L.-H., & Chung, H.-M. 2012. Craftsmanship in Taiwan's yacht industry: Prospect in value-chain analysis. Industry and Management Forum, 14(1): 2051. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
Cooper, A., & Folta, T. 2000. Entrepreneurship and high-technology clusters. In Sexton, D. L. & Landstrom, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship: 349367. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Czakon, W., Fernandez, A. S., & Minà, A. 2014. Editorial–From paradox to practice: The rise of coopetition strategies. International Journal of Business Environment, 6(1):110.Google Scholar
Dagnino, G. B., Di Guardo, M. C., & Padula, G. 2012. Coopetition: Nature, challenges, and implications for firms’ strategic behavior and managerial mindset. In Dagnino, G. B. (Ed.), Handbook of research on competitive strategy: 492511. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, R. J. P. Jr., Meyer-Doyle, P., & Rawley, E. 2013. Inherited agglomeration effects in hedge fund spawns. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7): 843862.Google Scholar
Folta, T., Cooper, A. C., & Baik, Y.-S. 2006. Geographic cluster size and firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2): 217242.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. 2006. Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 337380.Google Scholar
Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. 2006. Impact of coopetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Management, 32(4): 507530.Google Scholar
Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. 2008. Coopetition: Promises and challenges. In Wankel, C. (Ed.), 21st century management: A reference handbook: 386398. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. 2001. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 431445.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., Carroll, G. R., Dundon, E. A., & Torres, J. C. 1995. Organizational evolution in multinational context: Entries of automobile manufacturers in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. American Sociology Review, 60(4): 509528.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Hendry, C., & Brown, J. 2006. Organizational networking in UK biotechnology clusters. British Journal of Management, 17(1): 5573.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249267.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. 2013. Emerging multinationals from midrange economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7): 12951321.Google Scholar
Hsu, D.-C. 2001. The development of medium-sized shipbuilding companies in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis in Executive Master of Business Administration Program, National Sun Yat-sen University. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
International Institute for Management Development. 2006. World competitiveness yearbook 2006. IMD: Lausanne.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3): 483499.Google Scholar
Kuah, A. T.-H. 2002. Cluster theory and practice: Advantages for the small business locating in a vibrant cluster. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 4(3): 202228.Google Scholar
Kukalis, S. 2010. Agglomeration economies and firm performance: The case of industry clusters. Journal of Management, 36(2): 453481.Google Scholar
Lasserre, P., & Schütte, H. 2006. Strategies for Asia Pacific: Meeting new challenges (3rd Ed.). London, UK: MacMillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Lomi, A. 1995. The population ecology of organizational founding: Location dependence and unobserved heterogeneity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1): 111144.Google Scholar
Lu, C.-Y., Chung, K.-C., & Tsai, I.-T. 2010. 2010 Taiwan ship industry yearbook. Taipei, United Ship Design & Development Center. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1920. Principles of economics (8th Ed.). London, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Maskell, P. 2001. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4): 921943.Google Scholar
Mathews, J. A. 2002. Dragon multinationals: A new model of global growth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathews, J. A. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1): 527.Google Scholar
McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. 2008. Location matters: Where we have been and where we might go in agglomeration research. Journal of Management, 34(3): 532565.Google Scholar
Oliver, A. L. 2004. On the duality of competition and collaboration: Network-based knowledge relations in the biotechnology industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(1/2): 151171.Google Scholar
Padula, G., & Dagnino, G. B. 2007. Untangling the rise of coopetition: The intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(2): 3252.Google Scholar
Park, B.-J., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. 2014. Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2): 210221.Google Scholar
Piore, M., & Sable, C. 1984. The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Book.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 2000. Location, clusters and economic strategy. In Clark, G. L., Feldman, M., & Gertler, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic geography: 253274. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pouder, R., & St. John, C. H. 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 11921225.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. 2009. Emerging multinationals in emerging markets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. 2014. The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2): 189198.Google Scholar
Ritala, P., & Tidström, A. 2014. Untangling the value-creation and value-appropriation elements of coopetition strategy: A longitudinal analysis on the firm and relational levels. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4): 498515.Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): S71S102.Google Scholar
Ruan, J., & Zhang, X. 2009. Finance and cluster-based industrial development in China. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(4): 143164.Google Scholar
Ruef, M. 2000. The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3): 658714.Google Scholar
Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shaver, J. M., & Flyer, F. 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12): 11751193.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381403.Google Scholar
Sonobe, T., & Otsuka, K. 2006. Cluster-based industrial development: An East Asia model. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sorenson, O., & Audia, P. 2000. The social structure of entrepreneurial activity: Geographic concentration of footwear production in the United States, 1940–1989. American Journal of Sociology, 106(2): 424461.Google Scholar
St. John, C. H., & Pouder, R. W. 2006. Technology clusters versus industry cluster: Resources, networks, and regional advantages. Growth and Change, 37(2): 141171.Google Scholar
Stuart, T., & Sorenson, O. 2003. The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2): 229253.Google Scholar
Swann, G. M. P., Prevezer, M. & Stout, D. 1998. The dynamics of industrial clustering: International comparisons in computing and biotechnology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taiwan Yacht Industry Association. 2007. Yacht industry market survey. Industrial Technology Development Program, Minister of Economic Affairs. Number: USDDC-221-T105(86). (In Chinese)Google Scholar
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. 2004. Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2): 258271.Google Scholar
Tidström, A. 2014. Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2): 261271.Google Scholar
Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2): 179190.Google Scholar
Wenting, R., & Frenken, K. 2011. Firm entry and institutional lock-in: An organizational ecology analysis of the global fashion design industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(4): 10311048.Google Scholar
Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. 2009. Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1): 90122.Google Scholar