Power and Interdependence: the Firm’s Ability to Act

  • Wilma W. Suen


This book contends that a firm’s power and interdependence are key to understanding whether it is able to translate a desire not to cooperate into action. Why are some firms able to behave opportunistically or defect while others remain in alliances where their interests have clearly been ignored by their partners? For a firm that could be harmed by its partners’ actions, what can it do to prevent this undesirable action from taking place? Both the capability to act and to defend or deter depends on its power and its interdependence. But, just because a firm has the capability to behave opportunistically or defect does not mean that it will.


Switching Cost Strategic Alliance Dark Side Latent Power Resource Contribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. H. Snyder, ‘Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut,’ in The Evolution of Theory in International Relations: Essays in Honor of William T. R. Fox, (ed.) R. L. Rothstein (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), p. 93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. N. Waltz, ‘The Myth of Interdependence’ in The International Corporation, (ed.) C. P. Kindleberger (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970), p. 216.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    D. J. Brass and M. E. Burkhardt, ‘Centrality and Power in Organizations’, in (eds) N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles, Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992), pp. 194–6.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    J. Pfeffer and G. R. Salancik, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), p. 27.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    R. O. Keohane and J. S. Nye, Power and Interdependence, 3rd edn (Boston: Longman, 2001), p. 10.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    D. A. Baldwin, ‘Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis,’ International Organization, 34 (1980) 495–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 9.
    J. S. Nye, ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Policy, 80 (1990) 159–60.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    R. Rosecrance, ‘Interdependence’, in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, (ed.) J. Krieger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 430–2.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    T. K. Das and B. Teng, ‘A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances’, Journal of Management, 26 (2000) 53–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 15.
    T. K. Das and B. Teng, Partner Analysis and Alliance Performance’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19 (2003) 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 17.
    B. Gomes-Casseres, The Alliance Revolution: The New Shape of Business Rivalry (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 136–41.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    W. M. Cohen and D. A. Levinthal, ‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1990) 128–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 19.
    D. J. Teece, ‘Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy’, in The Competitive Challenge, (ed.) D. J. Teece (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1987), pp. 185–219.Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    A. O. Krueger, Are Preferential Trading Arrangements Trade — Liberalising or Trade Protectionist?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1999) 110;Google Scholar
  15. A. O. Krueger, ‘NAFTA’s Effects: A Preliminary Assessment’, The World Economy, 23 (2000) 761–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wilma W. Suen 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilma W. Suen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations