- Email: [email protected]
Advances in international marketing
Invited comment
Advances in international L. Sleuwaegen (‘atholic
Unit~ersity of Leuc:en, Belgium
The paper written by Susan Douglas and Samuel Craig surveys a rich collection of literature covering a wide array of international marketing dimensions. By classifying the literature according to the different stages in the development of a global marketing strategy the authors create great value added in systematizing the vast literature they review. Consequently, the following comments are not intended to criticize their methodology, but are meant to provide, from an industrial organization perspective, some additional elements which have important consequences for international marketing and which may help to clarify why the literature in international marketing has been growing in the directions identified by the authors. Three elements are crucial: these are the role of technology and governments as major drivers of the globalization process and the adoption of a new management paradigm to cope with a changing environment in response to these driving factors. Following the methodological approach of Craig and Douglas, the implications of the new management paradigm, and the role of technology
Correspondence to: Leuven, Dekenstraat
L. Sleuwaegen, 2, 3000 Leuven,
Catholic Belgium.
Intern. J. of Research North-Holland
in Marketing
0167.8116/92/$05.00
0 1992 - Elsevier
University
9 (1992) 319-323
Science
Publishers
of
marketing
and government in connection with the three stages of globalization, as identified in the review paper will be shown. Before doing this, however, the importance of the factors driving globalization within the rapidly changing macro- and microeconomic environments within which firms must operate, are explained. From a macroeconomic point of view, since the first oil shock, economic conditions changed rapidly and included repeated financial and monetary crises and strong fluctuations in the prices of key resources. The need to be able to cope with variability, especially in demand, has stimulated the application of new microelectronic-based technologies in more flexible automated production processes and has emphasized the importance of the rapid development in international telecommunication technologies. Technological developments have deeply affected the global corporate structure and have considerably increased the efficient use of resources throughout the world (OECD, 1992). These developments have also been coupled with the internationalization of supporting services, among which logistics (distribution) and the banking system occupy dominant places. From the microeconomic point of view, these processes have led to a reevaluation of the rigid hierarchical corporate structures that focus on the efficient organization of the production and marketing of standardized products and services, designed for large and stable markets, in which scale economies are fully exploited. This has led to the adoption of a new
B.V. All rights reserved
320
L. Sleuwaegen / Invited comment
(Japanese-inspired) management paradigm which is able to reconcile low cost-high volume, high quality and flexibility when introducing innovations for coping with technological advances and/or rapidly changing demand conditions. The new approach has led to the adoption of a more complex organizational framework characterized by new flexible structures, including cooperative R&D efforts with other (rival) firms, networking, subcontracting and “just-in-time” delivery systems, which are strongly expanding across national borders. Clearly, the change in management paradigm has given rise to a new and different process for the globalization of firms, including a wide variety of international links among firms. Governments are also responding to these environmental changes and tend to focus on technology acquisition when designing strategic trade and investment policies, which are gradually replacing free-trade policies. Similarly, in response to the greatly increased use of the new management paradigm, industrial as well as anti-trust policies are undergoing radical changes, and are increasingly based on favorable attitudes with respect to different kinds of cooperation among firms.
Market entry decisions The techno-economic base of regions or countries has become the basic factor for explaining how globalization proceeds (Lewis, 1992). The techno-economic base includes a traditional economic infrastructure, and a knowledge creation infrastructure, as well as a modern information and communications infrastructure. These infrastructures largely determine the regions or countries in which global firms arise or expand. Moreover, the technology development process and the opportunities for and problems with transferring technology to other countries largely determine how firms enter foreign markets,
i.e., through the creation of wholly-owned subsidiaries or through licensing or joint ventures agreements (see, e.g., Davidson and McFetridge, 1984). Economies of scope and multi-market spillovers resulting from the use of technology in different markets stimulate firms to grow multinationally. The benefits arising from the internalization and exploitation of spillovers have become essential elements in acquiring and sustaining competitive advantages in global markets. Technological spillovers and market interdependencies are crucial in explaining the global competitive position of firms. As Yip (1989) rightly observed, the sharing of activities, such as R&D or production, causes a firm’s market share in one country to affect its scale and overall cost structure in all the other countries where it operates. New global competition also explains the integration of competitive efforts across countries, including reciprocal entry rivalry. The best known example of this strategy is the counterattack in a competitor’s home market as a parry to an attack on one’s home market (Yip, 1989, pp. 32-33). These competitive moves can be more complex and include retaliation by one competitor in a particular country to an aggressive move made by another competitor in another country. Therefore, reciprocal threats are also important in understanding multi-market collusion among firms. In that sense, Scott (1982) points out that “when sellers meet in several markets, their recognition of the interdependence of their operations may blunt the vigor of their competition which each other”. The fact that firms can punish non-collusive actions by retaliating in different geographical markets where competitors meet each other often facilitates collusion (van Witteloostuijn and van Wegberg, 1991). However, global collusion seems to occur less frequently than cooperation among firms based in the same regional market. Coordi-
L. Sleuwaegen
nated actions by regional firms with respect to certain activities, for instance distribution, may seriously hinder entry by an outside firm. In these cases, transnationals are forced to set up joint ventures to enter a market and enlist support from local businesses. Joint ventures are proven to be a highly successful means for entering foreign markets. As one observer remarks, “they are so useful that, in most cases, one of the partners buys out the other to maintain the position in the market” (Lewis, 1992). Governments also have an important impact on the way transnational firms choose to enter foreign markets. By using all kinds of arguments related to the strategic importance of certain industries, they have moved away from undifferentiated protectionism toward improving economic performance through stimulating new technological initiatives and attracting investment by transnational firms. The use of blunt protectionist measures has been substituted by more finetuned measures such as local content rules, VERs, and anti-dumping duties which can be tailored to specific industries or companies, and which have proven to be highly successful for attracting import-substituting direct investment. At the same time, while understanding the role of multi-market spillovers, some authorities, including primarily the European Commission, insist on “reciprocity” in trade and market entry conditions in the negotiation of new agreements concerning international trade and investment.
Local market expansion According to some observers, including Lewis (19921, scale economies in manufacturing have driven globalization from the beginning of industrialization until roughly the past decade. In the last two decades rapid technological change has increased the im-
/ Incbd
comment
321
portance of R&D in almost every sector of the economy, and has fundamentally affected the globalization strategies used by firms. Undoubtedly, scale economies at the firm level still play an important role in globalization, but are increasingly related to economies of (product and geographical) scope than to product-specific economies of scale. Recent developments in factory automation allow product customization without major cost implications. These developments have given rise to new marketing and manufacturing strategies. According to Usunier (1991), “New strategies have been developed to serve diversified needs, customized products, and at the same time maintain low costs as a result of economies of scale and experience effects. Modular conception of products permits the sharing of economies of scale at the components level, whereas lagged differentiation maintains a high scale of production as long as possible in the production process, and organizes cheap final customization either in the factory or in the distribution network.” (Usunier, 1991, p. 69). There is growing evidence that access to, and the transfer of innovations has now become the most important impetus to globalization. As technology has lowered communication cost, it has become more economical to operate global firms. Geographical scope economies or international networking economies have become important drivers for globalization, especially in services, where it is most visible. However, as foreign markets are more developed, the internationalization of supporting services is often an important instrument for expansion on a global scale. In this vein, Yamawaki (19911 has shown that significant investments in distribution made by Japanese firms in the US and the EC markets have been important for facilitating exports and direct investment in manufacturing by Japanese firms.
322
L. Sleuwaegen / Invited comment
Similarly, where the adoption of product standards used to be solely inspired by technical motivations and efficiency, it has become an important strategic instrument in industrial policy to promote technological leadership and defend the domestic markets of major firms from foreign competition. Standardization is often not confined to national markets but increasingly applies to well-defined trading blocs. Within these trading blocs there are efforts shared by governments and private firms to improve competitive advantage vis-a-vis other members of the Triad or other nations. This involves the promotion of R&D in leading-edge sectors like high definition television or in the aerospace industry, by offering subsidies to different kinds of research consortia, which, in most cases, limits the participation of firms based outside the trading bloc. In order to avoid being excluded from the cooperative ventures transnational corporations are using creative means like developing strategic alliances or setting up foreign owned subsidiaries to become “insiders”. While the approach is clearly not restricted to the EC, one learns from Article 130f of the Single European Act that “the Community’s aim shall be to strengthen the scientific and technological basis of European industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international level”. In order to achieve this goal the Community “shall encourage undertakings including small and medium-sized undertakings, research centers and universities in their research and technological development activities; it shall support their efforts to cooperate with one another, aiming notably at enabling undertakings to exploit the Community’s internal market potential to the full, in particular through the opening up of national public contracts, the definition of common standards and the removal of legal and fiscal barriers to that cooperation,” (as
quoted in Roscam 1990, p. 207).
Abbing
and Schakenraad,
Global strategy rationalization The new management approach focuses on a correct definition of demand characteristics and evolution into design, production and marketing strategies. The success of using this information in gaining market share and improving the competitive position of the firm crucially depends on technological improvements meeting the correctly defined needs of customers. Therefore, technology has become the most important strategic weapon in global competition. Many firms try to use or develop greater competence in order to advance into new areas and expand their expertise in order to employ new subtechnologies (microelectronics, artificial materials . . . >. This has led to the rapid development of multi-technology corporations. However, in view of strong and rapid technological advances, innovations tend to be shortlived, thereby necessitating cooperative efforts in R&D among firms to spread the risk and high cost of uncertain investments. The new management approach requires more interaction between R&D, marketing and production than was the case under the old regime. Internal interfacing between the different departments, as well as openness to developments outside the firm at all the different functional levels becomes the focus of organization. Openness implies cooperation in many fields, including the bringing together of complementary assets (technologyproduction-distribution) of different firms, without having to sacrifice unique competitive advantages created within the core of the firms. This also leads to a further decentralisation of various functions, including the decentralisation of supply through networking and joint-ventures with component and material suppliers upstream and retailers
L. Sleuwaegen
downstream. As OECD experts point out, in industries that are technology intensive and sensitive to regional differences, organizational structures move away from rigid hierarchies with multidivisional structures and simple global strategies to the development of networks around a controlling and coordinating core and tend to adopt more complex strategies responsive to regional demand and supply differences. In the process of knowledge accumulation and information gathering, there is a shift towards putting more emphasis on information on the spot in each region. The management process increasingly centers around process coordination rather than on implementing a hierarchical, standardized rigid planning and control system. This approach, aided by the development of worldwide telecommunication networks, is characterized by changes in functional specialization, including increased centralization of allocative and management functions and new forms of linkages (“electronic quasi-integration”) between the core and decentralized semi-autonomous and even independent production and/or commercialization units (OECD, 1992). The network form of corporate organization extends beyond the boundaries of the firm through the formation of diverse joint ventures, and other forms of interfirm agreements. Governments play a crucial role in the way competition and industrial policy allows for the development of such network structures. While the development of these structures has never been subject to many restrictions in Japan, Europe has, as a result of the Japanese success, adopted a more liberal attitude toward cooperation among firms, and through various kinds of incentives, has encouraged firms to engage in cooperative R& D. US anti-trust authorities have adopted a less lenient attitude and only allow cooperation in pre-competitive R&D among firms under very strict conditions.
/ Incited comment
323
These regional differences in competition and industrial policy have a major impact on the way firms restructure and adopt new strategies to cope with the changing international environment. More research is badly needed to clarify the impact of these differences on the competitive position of firms based in different regions throughout the world.
References Capon, N. and R. Glazer, 1987. Marketing and technology: A strategic co-alignment. Journal of Marketing 51 (July), l-4. Carroad, P.A. and C.A. Carroad, 1982. Strategic interfacing of R&D and marketing. Research Management (January), 28-33. Davidson, W.H. and D.G. McFetridge, 1984. International technology transactions and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Industrial Economics 32 (March), 253-264. Gupta, A.K., S.P. Raj and D. Wilemon, 1986. Managing the R&D/marketing interface. Research Management, 38-43. Kiel, G., 1984. Technology and marketing: The magic mix?, Business Horizons (May-June), 7-14. Lewis, W.W., 1992. Corporate strategies drive globalization. Paper presented at the Conference “Europe and Global Economic Interdependence”, January 1992, Bruges, organised by the College of Europe and the Hellenic Centre for European Studies (EKEM). OECD, 1992. Towards new forms of corporate organisation. In: Technology and economy, the key relationships. Final Report of the Technology/Economy Programme (TEP), OECD, Paris (coordinator: F. Chesnais). Roscam Abbing, M. and J. Schakenraad, 1991. In: A. Rugman and A. Verbeke feds.), Research in global strategic management, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Scott, J.T., 1982, Multimarket contact and economic performance. Review of Economics and Statistics 64, 368-375. Sonder, W.E., 1980. Promoting and effective R&D/marketing interface. Research Management (July), 10-15. Usunier, J.C., 1991. In: A. Rugman and A. Verbeke (eds.), op. cit. Wheelwright, SC., 1984. Manufacturing strategy: Defining the missing link. Strategic Management Journal 5, 77-91. Van Witteloostuijn, A. and M. van Wegberg, 1991. Multimarket competition and European integration. In: A. Rugman and A. Verbeke (eds.), op. cit. Yamawaki, H., 1991. Exports and foreign distributional activities: Evidence on Japanese firms in the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics 73, 294-300. Yip, G.S., 1989. Global strategy: In a world of nations? Sloan Management Review (Fall), 29-41.
Advances in international L. Sleuwaegen (‘atholic
Unit~ersity of Leuc:en, Belgium
The paper written by Susan Douglas and Samuel Craig surveys a rich collection of literature covering a wide array of international marketing dimensions. By classifying the literature according to the different stages in the development of a global marketing strategy the authors create great value added in systematizing the vast literature they review. Consequently, the following comments are not intended to criticize their methodology, but are meant to provide, from an industrial organization perspective, some additional elements which have important consequences for international marketing and which may help to clarify why the literature in international marketing has been growing in the directions identified by the authors. Three elements are crucial: these are the role of technology and governments as major drivers of the globalization process and the adoption of a new management paradigm to cope with a changing environment in response to these driving factors. Following the methodological approach of Craig and Douglas, the implications of the new management paradigm, and the role of technology
Correspondence to: Leuven, Dekenstraat
L. Sleuwaegen, 2, 3000 Leuven,
Catholic Belgium.
Intern. J. of Research North-Holland
in Marketing
0167.8116/92/$05.00
0 1992 - Elsevier
University
9 (1992) 319-323
Science
Publishers
of
marketing
and government in connection with the three stages of globalization, as identified in the review paper will be shown. Before doing this, however, the importance of the factors driving globalization within the rapidly changing macro- and microeconomic environments within which firms must operate, are explained. From a macroeconomic point of view, since the first oil shock, economic conditions changed rapidly and included repeated financial and monetary crises and strong fluctuations in the prices of key resources. The need to be able to cope with variability, especially in demand, has stimulated the application of new microelectronic-based technologies in more flexible automated production processes and has emphasized the importance of the rapid development in international telecommunication technologies. Technological developments have deeply affected the global corporate structure and have considerably increased the efficient use of resources throughout the world (OECD, 1992). These developments have also been coupled with the internationalization of supporting services, among which logistics (distribution) and the banking system occupy dominant places. From the microeconomic point of view, these processes have led to a reevaluation of the rigid hierarchical corporate structures that focus on the efficient organization of the production and marketing of standardized products and services, designed for large and stable markets, in which scale economies are fully exploited. This has led to the adoption of a new
B.V. All rights reserved
320
L. Sleuwaegen / Invited comment
(Japanese-inspired) management paradigm which is able to reconcile low cost-high volume, high quality and flexibility when introducing innovations for coping with technological advances and/or rapidly changing demand conditions. The new approach has led to the adoption of a more complex organizational framework characterized by new flexible structures, including cooperative R&D efforts with other (rival) firms, networking, subcontracting and “just-in-time” delivery systems, which are strongly expanding across national borders. Clearly, the change in management paradigm has given rise to a new and different process for the globalization of firms, including a wide variety of international links among firms. Governments are also responding to these environmental changes and tend to focus on technology acquisition when designing strategic trade and investment policies, which are gradually replacing free-trade policies. Similarly, in response to the greatly increased use of the new management paradigm, industrial as well as anti-trust policies are undergoing radical changes, and are increasingly based on favorable attitudes with respect to different kinds of cooperation among firms.
Market entry decisions The techno-economic base of regions or countries has become the basic factor for explaining how globalization proceeds (Lewis, 1992). The techno-economic base includes a traditional economic infrastructure, and a knowledge creation infrastructure, as well as a modern information and communications infrastructure. These infrastructures largely determine the regions or countries in which global firms arise or expand. Moreover, the technology development process and the opportunities for and problems with transferring technology to other countries largely determine how firms enter foreign markets,
i.e., through the creation of wholly-owned subsidiaries or through licensing or joint ventures agreements (see, e.g., Davidson and McFetridge, 1984). Economies of scope and multi-market spillovers resulting from the use of technology in different markets stimulate firms to grow multinationally. The benefits arising from the internalization and exploitation of spillovers have become essential elements in acquiring and sustaining competitive advantages in global markets. Technological spillovers and market interdependencies are crucial in explaining the global competitive position of firms. As Yip (1989) rightly observed, the sharing of activities, such as R&D or production, causes a firm’s market share in one country to affect its scale and overall cost structure in all the other countries where it operates. New global competition also explains the integration of competitive efforts across countries, including reciprocal entry rivalry. The best known example of this strategy is the counterattack in a competitor’s home market as a parry to an attack on one’s home market (Yip, 1989, pp. 32-33). These competitive moves can be more complex and include retaliation by one competitor in a particular country to an aggressive move made by another competitor in another country. Therefore, reciprocal threats are also important in understanding multi-market collusion among firms. In that sense, Scott (1982) points out that “when sellers meet in several markets, their recognition of the interdependence of their operations may blunt the vigor of their competition which each other”. The fact that firms can punish non-collusive actions by retaliating in different geographical markets where competitors meet each other often facilitates collusion (van Witteloostuijn and van Wegberg, 1991). However, global collusion seems to occur less frequently than cooperation among firms based in the same regional market. Coordi-
L. Sleuwaegen
nated actions by regional firms with respect to certain activities, for instance distribution, may seriously hinder entry by an outside firm. In these cases, transnationals are forced to set up joint ventures to enter a market and enlist support from local businesses. Joint ventures are proven to be a highly successful means for entering foreign markets. As one observer remarks, “they are so useful that, in most cases, one of the partners buys out the other to maintain the position in the market” (Lewis, 1992). Governments also have an important impact on the way transnational firms choose to enter foreign markets. By using all kinds of arguments related to the strategic importance of certain industries, they have moved away from undifferentiated protectionism toward improving economic performance through stimulating new technological initiatives and attracting investment by transnational firms. The use of blunt protectionist measures has been substituted by more finetuned measures such as local content rules, VERs, and anti-dumping duties which can be tailored to specific industries or companies, and which have proven to be highly successful for attracting import-substituting direct investment. At the same time, while understanding the role of multi-market spillovers, some authorities, including primarily the European Commission, insist on “reciprocity” in trade and market entry conditions in the negotiation of new agreements concerning international trade and investment.
Local market expansion According to some observers, including Lewis (19921, scale economies in manufacturing have driven globalization from the beginning of industrialization until roughly the past decade. In the last two decades rapid technological change has increased the im-
/ Incbd
comment
321
portance of R&D in almost every sector of the economy, and has fundamentally affected the globalization strategies used by firms. Undoubtedly, scale economies at the firm level still play an important role in globalization, but are increasingly related to economies of (product and geographical) scope than to product-specific economies of scale. Recent developments in factory automation allow product customization without major cost implications. These developments have given rise to new marketing and manufacturing strategies. According to Usunier (1991), “New strategies have been developed to serve diversified needs, customized products, and at the same time maintain low costs as a result of economies of scale and experience effects. Modular conception of products permits the sharing of economies of scale at the components level, whereas lagged differentiation maintains a high scale of production as long as possible in the production process, and organizes cheap final customization either in the factory or in the distribution network.” (Usunier, 1991, p. 69). There is growing evidence that access to, and the transfer of innovations has now become the most important impetus to globalization. As technology has lowered communication cost, it has become more economical to operate global firms. Geographical scope economies or international networking economies have become important drivers for globalization, especially in services, where it is most visible. However, as foreign markets are more developed, the internationalization of supporting services is often an important instrument for expansion on a global scale. In this vein, Yamawaki (19911 has shown that significant investments in distribution made by Japanese firms in the US and the EC markets have been important for facilitating exports and direct investment in manufacturing by Japanese firms.
322
L. Sleuwaegen / Invited comment
Similarly, where the adoption of product standards used to be solely inspired by technical motivations and efficiency, it has become an important strategic instrument in industrial policy to promote technological leadership and defend the domestic markets of major firms from foreign competition. Standardization is often not confined to national markets but increasingly applies to well-defined trading blocs. Within these trading blocs there are efforts shared by governments and private firms to improve competitive advantage vis-a-vis other members of the Triad or other nations. This involves the promotion of R&D in leading-edge sectors like high definition television or in the aerospace industry, by offering subsidies to different kinds of research consortia, which, in most cases, limits the participation of firms based outside the trading bloc. In order to avoid being excluded from the cooperative ventures transnational corporations are using creative means like developing strategic alliances or setting up foreign owned subsidiaries to become “insiders”. While the approach is clearly not restricted to the EC, one learns from Article 130f of the Single European Act that “the Community’s aim shall be to strengthen the scientific and technological basis of European industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at international level”. In order to achieve this goal the Community “shall encourage undertakings including small and medium-sized undertakings, research centers and universities in their research and technological development activities; it shall support their efforts to cooperate with one another, aiming notably at enabling undertakings to exploit the Community’s internal market potential to the full, in particular through the opening up of national public contracts, the definition of common standards and the removal of legal and fiscal barriers to that cooperation,” (as
quoted in Roscam 1990, p. 207).
Abbing
and Schakenraad,
Global strategy rationalization The new management approach focuses on a correct definition of demand characteristics and evolution into design, production and marketing strategies. The success of using this information in gaining market share and improving the competitive position of the firm crucially depends on technological improvements meeting the correctly defined needs of customers. Therefore, technology has become the most important strategic weapon in global competition. Many firms try to use or develop greater competence in order to advance into new areas and expand their expertise in order to employ new subtechnologies (microelectronics, artificial materials . . . >. This has led to the rapid development of multi-technology corporations. However, in view of strong and rapid technological advances, innovations tend to be shortlived, thereby necessitating cooperative efforts in R&D among firms to spread the risk and high cost of uncertain investments. The new management approach requires more interaction between R&D, marketing and production than was the case under the old regime. Internal interfacing between the different departments, as well as openness to developments outside the firm at all the different functional levels becomes the focus of organization. Openness implies cooperation in many fields, including the bringing together of complementary assets (technologyproduction-distribution) of different firms, without having to sacrifice unique competitive advantages created within the core of the firms. This also leads to a further decentralisation of various functions, including the decentralisation of supply through networking and joint-ventures with component and material suppliers upstream and retailers
L. Sleuwaegen
downstream. As OECD experts point out, in industries that are technology intensive and sensitive to regional differences, organizational structures move away from rigid hierarchies with multidivisional structures and simple global strategies to the development of networks around a controlling and coordinating core and tend to adopt more complex strategies responsive to regional demand and supply differences. In the process of knowledge accumulation and information gathering, there is a shift towards putting more emphasis on information on the spot in each region. The management process increasingly centers around process coordination rather than on implementing a hierarchical, standardized rigid planning and control system. This approach, aided by the development of worldwide telecommunication networks, is characterized by changes in functional specialization, including increased centralization of allocative and management functions and new forms of linkages (“electronic quasi-integration”) between the core and decentralized semi-autonomous and even independent production and/or commercialization units (OECD, 1992). The network form of corporate organization extends beyond the boundaries of the firm through the formation of diverse joint ventures, and other forms of interfirm agreements. Governments play a crucial role in the way competition and industrial policy allows for the development of such network structures. While the development of these structures has never been subject to many restrictions in Japan, Europe has, as a result of the Japanese success, adopted a more liberal attitude toward cooperation among firms, and through various kinds of incentives, has encouraged firms to engage in cooperative R& D. US anti-trust authorities have adopted a less lenient attitude and only allow cooperation in pre-competitive R&D among firms under very strict conditions.
/ Incited comment
323
These regional differences in competition and industrial policy have a major impact on the way firms restructure and adopt new strategies to cope with the changing international environment. More research is badly needed to clarify the impact of these differences on the competitive position of firms based in different regions throughout the world.
References Capon, N. and R. Glazer, 1987. Marketing and technology: A strategic co-alignment. Journal of Marketing 51 (July), l-4. Carroad, P.A. and C.A. Carroad, 1982. Strategic interfacing of R&D and marketing. Research Management (January), 28-33. Davidson, W.H. and D.G. McFetridge, 1984. International technology transactions and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Industrial Economics 32 (March), 253-264. Gupta, A.K., S.P. Raj and D. Wilemon, 1986. Managing the R&D/marketing interface. Research Management, 38-43. Kiel, G., 1984. Technology and marketing: The magic mix?, Business Horizons (May-June), 7-14. Lewis, W.W., 1992. Corporate strategies drive globalization. Paper presented at the Conference “Europe and Global Economic Interdependence”, January 1992, Bruges, organised by the College of Europe and the Hellenic Centre for European Studies (EKEM). OECD, 1992. Towards new forms of corporate organisation. In: Technology and economy, the key relationships. Final Report of the Technology/Economy Programme (TEP), OECD, Paris (coordinator: F. Chesnais). Roscam Abbing, M. and J. Schakenraad, 1991. In: A. Rugman and A. Verbeke feds.), Research in global strategic management, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Scott, J.T., 1982, Multimarket contact and economic performance. Review of Economics and Statistics 64, 368-375. Sonder, W.E., 1980. Promoting and effective R&D/marketing interface. Research Management (July), 10-15. Usunier, J.C., 1991. In: A. Rugman and A. Verbeke (eds.), op. cit. Wheelwright, SC., 1984. Manufacturing strategy: Defining the missing link. Strategic Management Journal 5, 77-91. Van Witteloostuijn, A. and M. van Wegberg, 1991. Multimarket competition and European integration. In: A. Rugman and A. Verbeke (eds.), op. cit. Yamawaki, H., 1991. Exports and foreign distributional activities: Evidence on Japanese firms in the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics 73, 294-300. Yip, G.S., 1989. Global strategy: In a world of nations? Sloan Management Review (Fall), 29-41.