Coopetition as a business strategy that changes the market structures: the case of long-distance passenger transport markets in Poland

• Autorzy: Pestkowski Andrzej

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2021.151.38

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: This paper concerns the phenomenon of two-way causality effect between market structures and coopetition occurrence. It is assumed that certain characteristics of an existing market structure implicate the decision to deploy the strategy of coopetition by companies. Moreover, the opposite effect might be expected, that is coopetition between market rivals changes the market structure on which it was implemented in the first place. In the paper various aspects and approaches of the abovementioned phenomena have been considered. Design/methodology/approach: The author investigates the events, motives and values that lead companies to deploy the coopetition strategy. Furthermore, the theoretical and conceptual bases for the effect of the coopetition impacting the change of market structures have been provided. A wide analysis of managers’ decision resulting from the occurrence of certain strategic events has been conducted with the use of comparison matrixes. Finally, in the last part of the study the author’s empirical research on two passenger transport relevant markets has been presented. Findings: Certain market strategies characteristics affected companies to deploy the coopetition strategy and the other way round, the strategy changed the market structure in the result of competitors’ decision. Taking into consideration all of the theoretical, conceptual and empirical aspects raised throughout the course of the research, both hypotheses have been confirmed. Research limitations/implications: The author has used mostly qualitative methods such as observation, conceptualization or cause and effect analysis in which the natural existence of errors might occur. To test the hypotheses the researcher had to create assumptions and models that represent what should happen if every aspects successfully appear. It might be expected that some other variables affected the market structures during the research that the author was not aware of. Thus, one should interpret the results with the inclusion of the ceteris paribus. Practical implications: Instead of applying the high cost strategies such as price wars or demand seeking, one might use the coopetition to create added values with little or even zero cost. What is more, this strategy may result in higher pricing power, higher market size or better level of innovation. Originality/value: The publication discusses the coopetition phenomenon from the innovative perspective of two-way causality (influence) between market structures and coopetition itself while most of the studies concern only one-way cause and effect between those variables. Conclusions drawn from this paper can be useful for entrepreneurs and their decision making process.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

coopetition; market structure; business strategy; competitive strategy; passenger transport

PL

koopetycja; struktura rynku; strategia biznesowa; strategia konkurencyjna; transport pasażerski

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: z. 151
• Strony: 553--576
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 51 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Pestkowski Andrzej

• Wrocław University of Economics and Business, Faculty of Management, Computer Science and Finance

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5778-8420

Bibliografia

• 1. Ann Peng, T.-J., Yen, M.-H. and Bourne, M. (2018). How rival partners compete based on cooperation? Long Range Planning, 51, pp. 351-383. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.10.003.
• 2. Antelo, M., and Peón, D. (2019). On Cooperation Through Alliances and Mergers. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade.
• 3. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., and Gambardella, A. (2004). Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (MIT Press Books). The MIT Press.
• 4. Belleflamme, P. (2010). Industrial organization: markets and strategies. Cambridge, UK- New York: Cambridge University Press.
• 5. Bengtsson, M., and Kock, S. (2000). ”Coopetition” in Business Networks - to Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, pp. 411-426.
• 6. Bengtsson, M., and Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition - Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, pp. 180-188.
• 7. Bengtsson, M., and Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, pp. 23-39.
• 8. Bernanke, B., Frank, R.H., and Johnston, L. (2009). Principles of microeconomics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
• 9. Besanko, D. (ed.) (2013). Economics of strategy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• 10. Bouncken, R.B., ClauB, T., and Fredrich, V. (2016). Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: Singular or plural governance? Industrial Marketing Management, 53, pp. 77-90.
• 11. Bouncken, R.B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., and Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9, pp. 577-601.
• 12. Brandenburger, A., and Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday. Available
• 13. Certo, S.T., Lester, R.H., Dalton, C.M., and Dalton, D.R. (2006). Top Management Teams, Strategy and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analytic Examination. Journal of Management Studies, 43, pp. 813-839.
• 14. Chrisman, J.J., Hofer, C.W. and Boulton, W.B. (1988). Toward a System for Classifying Business Strategies. Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 413-428.
• 15. Das, T.K. and Teng, B.-S. (2000). A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management, 26, pp. 31-61.
• 16. Dixit, A., and Stiglitz, J. (1977). Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. American Economic Review, 67, pp. 297-308.
• 17. Drucker, P.F. (1955). ‘Management Science’ and the Manager. Management Science, 1, pp. 115-126.
• 18. European Comission (2004). Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 merger procedure, case no. COMP/M.5655 - SNCF/LCR/ EUROSTAR, Pub. L. No. 139/2004 (2010).
• 19. Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., and Gnyawali, D.R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, pp. 222-235.
• 20. Galloway, T.L., Miller, D.R., Sahaym, A., and Arthurs, J.D. (2017). Exploring the innovation strategies of young firms: Corporate venture capital and venture capital impact on alliance innovation strategy. Journal of Business Research, 71, pp. 55-65.
• 21. Gnyawali, D.R. and Charleton, T. (2018). Nuances in the Interplay of Competition and Cooperation: Towards a Theory of Coopetition. Journal of Management, 44, pp. 2511-2534.
• 22. Gnyawali, D.R., and Park, B.-J. (Robert) (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40, pp. 650-663.
• 23. Gremminger, M. (2003). The Commission’s approach towards global airline alliances — some evolving assessment principles. In: EC Competition Policy Newsletter. Bruksela: Competition Directorate-General of the European Commission.
• 24. Grimm, C.M., Lee, H., and Smith, K.G. (eds.) (2006). Strategy as action: competitive dynamics and competitive advantage. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
• 25. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning Within International Strategic Alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp. 83-103.
• 26. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., and Hoskisson, R.E. (2015). Strategic management: competitiveness & globalization: concepts and cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
• 27. Ho, H. (Dixon) and Ganesan, S. (2013). Does Knowledge Base Compatibility Help or Hurt Knowledge Sharing between Suppliers in Coopetition? the Role of Customer Participation. Journal of Marketing, 77, pp. 91-107.
• 28. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: an activity-based approach. London- Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• 29. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2009). Exploring corporate strategy. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
• 30. Karlof, B., and Lovingsson, F.H. (2005). The A-Z of management concepts and models. London: Thorogood.
• 31. Kotler, P., and Keller, K.L. (2012). Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• 32. Krugman, P.R., and Wells, R. (2013). Microeconomics. New York, NY: Worth.
• 33. Mariani, M.M. (2016). Coordination in inter-network co-opetitition: Evidence from the tourism sector. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, pp. 103-123.
• 34. Niemczyk, J., and Trzaska, R. (2020). Network Approach in Industry 4.0: Perspective of Coopetition. In: Contemporary Challenges in Cooperation and Coopetition in the Age of Industry 4.0: 10th Conference on Management of Organizations’ Development. Cham: Springer, pp. 139-154.
• 35. Pathak, S.D., Wu, Z., and Johnston, D. (2014). Toward a structural view of co-opetition in supply networks. Journal of Operations Management, 32, pp. 254-267.
• 36. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK-New York: Cambridge University Press.
• 37. Peng, M.W. (2000). Business strategies in transition economies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
• 38. Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors: with a new introduction. New York: Free Press.
• 39. Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., and Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, pp. 189-198.
• 40. Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition Strategy - When is it Successful? Empirical Evidence on Innovation and Market Performance. British Journal of Management, 23, pp. 307-324.
• 41. Rusko, R. (2011). Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, pp. 311-320.
• 42. Schmit, J., and Phelps, K. (1985). Two-Way Causality Between Insurance and Liability. Marquette Law Review, 69, p. 33.
• 43. Song, D.-W., and Lee, E.-S. (2012). Coopetitive networks, knowledge acquisition and maritime logistics value. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 15, pp. 15-35.
• 44. Stigler, G. (1964). A Theory of Oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy, 72, pp. 44-61.
• 45. Tether, B.S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, pp. 947-967.
• 46. Varadarajan, P.R., and Cunningham, M.H. (1995). Strategic alliances: A synthesis of conceptual foundations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, p. 282.
• 47. Varian, H.R. (1992). Microeconomic analysis. New York: Norton.
• 48. Walley, K. (2007). Coopetition: An Introduction to the Subject and an Agenda for Research. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37, pp. 11-31.
• 49. Wu, J. (2014). Cooperation with competitors and product innovation: Moderating effects of technological capability and alliances with universities. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, pp. 199-209.
• 50. Yami, S., and Nemeh, A. (2014). Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, pp. 250-260.
• 51. Yip, G.S. (2004). Using Strategy to Change Your Business Model. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.