Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 303–323 | Cite as

A meta-analysis of the exchange hazards–interfirm governance relationship: An informal institutions perspective

  • Zhi Cao
  • Yuan Li
  • Jayanth Jayaram
  • Yi Liu
  • Fabrice Lumineau
Article

Abstract

The existing literature is ambiguous on how exchange hazards influence interfirm governance. Drawing on institutional theory, this study revisits this relationship by examining the moderating effects of national culture. By meta-analyzing 167 articles involving 38,183 interfirm relationships in 35 countries, we found support for the moderating effects of three facets of national culture: collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. We discuss the implications of the findings for theory and practice.

Keywords

uncertainty contractual governance relational governance national culture meta-analysis exchange hazards 

Résumé

La littérature existante est ambiguë sur la manière dont les risques de l’échange influencent la gouvernance inter-firmes. Fondée sur la théorie institutionnelle, cette étude revisite cette relation en examinant les effets modérateurs de la culture nationale. En conduisant une méta-analyse de 167 articles impliquant 38.183 relations inter-firmes dans 35 pays, nous avons vérifié les effets modérateurs de trois facettes de la culture nationale : le collectivisme, la distance hiérarchique et le contrôle de l’incertitude. Nous discutons les implications de nos résultats pour la théorie et la pratique.

Resumen

La literatura existente es ambigua en cómo los riesgos cambiarios influencia la gobernanza entre las empresas de la empresa. Con base en la teoría institucional, este estudio revisita esta relación examinando los efectos moderadores de la cultura nacional. Mediante el meta-análisis de 167 artículos que involucran 38.183 relaciones entre las empresas en 35 países, encontramos apoyo por los efectos moderadores de tres facetas de la cultura nacional: el colectivismo, la distancia de poder, y la evasión de la incertidumbre. Discutimos las implicaciones de los hallazgos para la teoría y la practica.

Resumo

A literatura existente é ambígua sobre como os riscos de intercâmbio influenciam a governança entre firmas. Com base na teoria institucional, este estudo revisita essa relação examinando os efeitos moderadores da cultura nacional. Ao meta-analisar 167 artigos envolvendo 38.183 relações entre firmas em 35 países, encontramos suporte para os efeitos moderadores de três facetas da cultura nacional: coletivismo, distância de poder e evitação de incerteza. Discutimos as implicações das descobertas para a teoria e a prática.

概要

现有的文献对交换风险如何影响企业治理是模糊的。本研究借鉴制度理论, 通过考察国家文化的调节作用来重新审视这一关系。我们通过对35个国家涉及38183个企业间关系的167篇文章进行统合分析, 发现对国家文化三个方面调节作用的支持: 集体主义、权力距离和不确定性回避。我们讨论这些研究发现对理论和实践的启示。

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Yuan Li would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71421002; 01-71711530045). Dr. Yi Liu would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation grants of China (71572109), the Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (IRT13030).

References

  1. Abdi, M., & Aulakh, P. S. 2012. Do country-level institutional frameworks and interfirm governance arrangements substitute or complement in international business relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aulakh, P. S., & Gençtürk, F. E. 2008. Contract formalization and governance of exporter–importer relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3): 457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, P. S., & Glynn, M. A. 2004. Cultural variations in strategic issue interpretation: Relating cultural uncertainty avoidance to controllability in discriminating threat and opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijmolt, T. H., & Pieters, R. G. 2001. Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2): 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, K. J. 2010. Building long-term orientation in buyer–supplier relationships: The moderating role of culture. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6): 506–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. 2015. Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34: 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. 2006. Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 1058–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, R., & Hodgson, G. M. 2006. The impact of empirical tests of transaction cost economics on the debate on the nature of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5): 461–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, C., Chen, X., & Meindl, J. 1998. How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism–collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 285–304.Google Scholar
  10. Choi, J., & Contractor, F. J. 2016. Choosing an appropriate alliance governance mode: The role of institutional, cultural and geographical distance in international research & development (R&D) collaborations. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(2): 210–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crook, R., Combs, J., Ketchen, D., & Aguinis, H. 2013. Organizing around transaction costs: What have we learned and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. 2008. A meta-analytic review of opportunism in exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. 2011. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8): 797–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. David, R. J., & Han, S.-K. 2004. A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. 1998. Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 601–620.Google Scholar
  17. Doucouliagos, H. 2011. How large is large? Preliminary and relative guidelines for interpreting partial correlations in economics. Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance. https://ideas.repec.org/p/dkn/econwp/eco_2011_5.html. Accessed December 10, 2017.
  18. Dyer, J., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.Google Scholar
  19. Erramilli, M. K. 1996. Nationality and subsidiary ownership patterns in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2): 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. 2007. Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4): 465–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank, K. A. 2000. Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(2): 147–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaski, J. F. 1984. The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 48(3): 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaur, A. S., Mukherjee, D., Gaur, S. S., & Schmid, F. 2011. Environmental and firm level influences on inter-organizational trust and SME performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8): 1752–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Cunha, P. V. 2009. A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35(2): 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Kumar, N. 2006. Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffin, D., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., Li, K., & Shao, L. 2017. National culture: The missing country-level determinant of corporate governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6): 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffith, D., & Myers, M. 2005. The performance implications of strategic fit of relational norm governance strategies in global supply chain relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 254–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. 2007. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 32–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Handley, S. M., & Angst, C. M. 2015. The impact of culture on the relationship between governance and opportunism in outsourcing relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1412–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Heide, J. B., & John, G. 1992. Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of Marketing, 56(2): 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henisz, W. J. 2000. The institutional environment for multinational investment. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16(2): 334–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Homburg, C., Cannon, J. P., Krohmer, H., & Kiedaisch, I. 2009. Governance of international business relationships: A cross-cultural study on alternative governance modes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(3): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. 2006. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. 2000. Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: Implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2): 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ketkar, S., Kock, N., Parente, R., & Verville, J. 2012. The impact of individualism on buyer–supplier relationship norms, trust and market performance: An analysis of data from Brazil and the USA. International Business Review, 21(5): 782–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirca, A. H., Hult, G. T. M., Roth, K., Cavusgil, S. T., Perryy, M. Z., Akdeniz, M. B., Deligonul, S. Z., Mena, J. A., Pollitte, W. A., & Hoppner, J. J. 2011. Firm specific assets, multinationality, and financial performance: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krishnan, R., Geyskens, I., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. 2016. The effectiveness of contractual and trust-based governance in strategic alliances under behavioral and environmental uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 37(12): 2521–2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kwon, S.-W., Haleblian, J., & Hagedoorn, J. 2016. In country we trust? National trust and the governance of international R&D alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(7): 807–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lawler, J. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Bai, B. 2008. National culture and cultural effects. In M. M. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 5–28). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Li, D., Eden, L., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2008. Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  46. Liu, Y., Luo, Y., & Liu, T. 2009. Governing buyer–supplier relationships through transactional and relational mechanisms: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4): 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lumineau, F. 2017. How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of Management, 43(5): 1553–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lumineau, F., & Malhotra, D. 2011. Shadow of the contract: How contract structure shapes inter-firm dispute resolution. Strategic Management Journal, 32(5): 532–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lumineau, F., & Oxley, J. E. 2012. Let's work it out (or we'll see you in court): Litigation and private dispute resolution in vertical exchange relationships. Organization Science, 23(3): 820–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luo, Y. 2005. Transactional characteristics, institutional environment and joint venture contracts. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lusch, R. F., & Brown, J. R. 1996. Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 60(4): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Macher, J. T., & Richman, B. D. 2008. Transaction cost economics: An assessment of empirical research in the social sciences. Business and Politics, 10(1): 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. 2011. Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 981–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marano, V., Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., Spadafora, E., & van Essen, M. 2016. Home country institutions and the internationalization–performance relationship: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 42(5): 1075–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mooi, E. A., & Ghosh, M. 2010. Contract specificity and its performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 74(2): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. G. 1997. Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2): 308–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1): 3–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 920–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 635–652.Google Scholar
  62. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 707–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rabl, T., Jayasinghe, M., Gerhart, B., & Kühlmann, T. 2014. A meta-analysis of country differences in the high-performance work system–business performance relationship: The roles of national culture and managerial discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6): 1011–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reuer, J. J., & Ariño, A. 2007. Strategic alliance contracts: Dimensions and determinants of contractual complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3): 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richards, E. L. 2014. Contracting from East to West: Bridging the cultural divide. Business Horizons, 57(5): 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. 1997. Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4): 30–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sako, M., & Helper, S. 1998. Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(3): 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schepker, D. J., Oh, W.-Y., Martynov, A., & Poppo, L. 2014. The many futures of contracts: Moving beyond structure and safeguarding to coordination and adaptation. Journal of Management, 40(1): 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shelanski, H. A., & Klein, P. G. 1995. Empirical research in transaction cost economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11(2): 335–361.Google Scholar
  70. Smith, P. B. 2006. When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Geyskens, I. 2012. Transaction cost economics and the roles of national culture: A test of hypotheses based on Inglehart and Hofstede. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2): 252–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., Weaver, K. M., & Dickson, P. H. 2000. The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 951–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Subramani, M. R., & Venkatraman, N. 2003. Safeguarding investments in asymmetric interorganizational relationships: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1): 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Zaheer, A. 1998. Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 19(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tiessen, J. H. 1997. Individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5): 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Williamson, O. E. 1996. The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Wuyts, S., & Geyskens, I. 2005. The formation of buyer–supplier relationships: Detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. Journal of Marketing, 69(4): 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. 1995. Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16(5): 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. 2004. Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 524–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zhong, W., Su, C., Peng, J., & Yang, Z. 2017. Trust in interorganizational relationships: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Management, 43(4): 1050–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhou, K. Z., & Poppo, L. 2010. Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and contracts in China: The contingent role of legal enforceability. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5): 861–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhi Cao
    • 1
  • Yuan Li
    • 2
  • Jayanth Jayaram
    • 3
  • Yi Liu
    • 4
  • Fabrice Lumineau
    • 5
  1. 1.Wisconsin School of BusinessUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Darla Moore School of BusinessUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Antai College of Economics & ManagementShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  5. 5.Krannert School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations