Advertisement

Factorial Analysis of the Correlation Between Competitive Strategy and Company’s Characteristics: The Case of Romanian Business Environment

Chapter

Abstract

The cutthroat market competition for gaining competitive advantage and, implicitly, extra profits often makes companies intervene in competition mechanisms by closing deals or initiating anticompetitive practices. In order to avoid falling under the incidence of competition law, companies should apply a competition strategy and a competition audit. Our paper sets as a general objective the analysis of how companies on the Romanian market know, understand, and apply the coordinates of a competition strategy. Specific objectives target the factorial analysis of the influencers of the business strategy of the considered companies. For the factorial analysis, we have performed nonparametric tests of the answers given by 425 managers of companies on the Romanian market to certain questions in the questionnaire, in order to assess the importance of specific factors (company size, experience in the market, etc.) on the tested aspects regarding the business and, respectively, competition strategy and the risk of getting involved in anticompetitive behaviors.

Keywords

Romania business environment Government subsidies Anti-competition 

References

  1. Appelbaum PS et al (2009) Voluntariness of consent to research a conceptual model. Hastings Cent Rep 39(1): 30–39Google Scholar
  2. Bingley P, Westergaard-Nielsen N (2004) Personnel policy and profit. J Bus Res 57(5): 557–563Google Scholar
  3. Boitani A et al. (2010) Do competition and ownership matter?: evidence from local public transport in Europe. Appl Econ 45(11) (Taylor and Francis Journal). Available at: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/2010231040134NDL2010-009.pdf
  4. Booth ME, Philip G (1998) Technology, competencies and competitiveness: the case for reconfigurable and flexible strategies. J Bus Res 41(1): 29–40Google Scholar
  5. Budzinski O, Ruhmer I (2009) Merger simulation in competition policy: a survey. University of Southern Denmark, Department of Environmental and Business Economics, series Working Papers, no. 82/09. Available at:http://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/Miljo/ime/wp/budzinski82.ashx
  6. Cullmann A, Hirschhausen C (2008) From transition to competition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Econ Trans 16(2): 335–357. Available at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0351.2008.00312.x
  7. Delgado M et al. (2002) Firm productivity and export markets: a non-parametric approach, Elsevier. J Int Econ 57(2): 397–422. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V6D-44JD5S2-2/2/69f0fa857418bb81bdbed3446fa15a22
  8. Felli L et al. (2011) Competition and trust: evidence from german car manufacturers. CESifo Group Munich, series CESifo Working Paper Series, no. 3358. Available at: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2011/wp-cesifo-2011-02/cesifo1_wp3358.pdf
  9. Forrier A, Sels L (2003) The concept employability: a complex mosaic. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manage 3(2): 102–124Google Scholar
  10. Grønholdt L, Martensen A (2009) Management practices driving sustained business success. Measur Bus Excellence 13(1): 47–55Google Scholar
  11. Helgesen O et al. (2009) Impacts of store and chain images on the quality–satisfaction–loyalty process in petrol retailing. J Retail Consum Serv 17(2): 109–118Google Scholar
  12. Hunt SD, Duhan DF (2002) Competition in the third millennium: efficiency or effectiveness? J Bus Res 55(2): 97–102 (Elsevier)Google Scholar
  13. Ishida J et al. (2008) When market competition benefits firms. Osaka School of International Public Policy. Available at : http://www.osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp/archives/DP/2008/DP2008E011.pdf
  14. Kay JA (1993) Foundations of corporate success. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Khilji S, Wang X (2007) New evidence in an old debate: Investigating the relationship between HR satisfaction and turnover. Int Bus Rev 16(3): 377–395Google Scholar
  16. Koster S, Stel A (2011) Start-up intensity, competition and regional economic development. European Regional Science Association, series ERSA conference papers, no. ersa10: 556. Available at: http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa10/ERSA2010finalpaper556.pdf
  17. Möller K, Svahn S (2009) How to influence the birth of new business fields—network perspective. Ind Mark Manage 38(4): 450–458Google Scholar
  18. Molnár M (2010) Measuring competition in slovenian industries: estimation of mark-ups. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 787, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmd41bjwr0q-en
  19. Ospina S, Schiffbauer M (2010) Competition and firm productivity: evidence from firm-level data. International Monetary Fund, series IMF Working Papers, no. 10/67. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1067.pdf
  20. Scopelliti A (2010) Competition and economic growth: a critical survey of the theoretical literature, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova. J Appl Econ Sci. Available at: http://www.jaes.reprograph.ro/articles/spring2010/ScopellitiAD.pdf
  21. Wagner J (2011) Exports, foreign direct investments and productivity: are services firms different? University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics, series Working Paper Series in Economics, no. 215. Available at: http://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/ifvwl

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business Administration, in foreign languagesThe Bucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations