Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:44:01.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liability of Middleness Revisited: The Advantages for Mid-Sized Competitors in Renewable Natural Resource Industries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2019

Alfonso Cruz ,
Tomas Reyes  and
Roberto Vassolo
Alfonso Cruz
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Tomas Reyes
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Roberto Vassolo*
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
*
Corresponding author: Roberto Vassolo (rvassolo@iae.edu.ar)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Size is an important antecedent of firm survival, and several studies theoretically sustain and empirically support a ‘liability of middleness’. Indeed, it is widely believed that companies should act strategically to either become large or remain small and occupy a niche position, because mid-sized firms face the strongest market selection pressures. This study challenges that logic in renewable natural resource industries. Measuring size as product-line scale and firm-level portfolio breadth, we argue that in industries characterized by cost competition, the lack of product differentiation, large capital investments, and sharp price oscillation, scale and breadth have a curvilinear effect on survival that favors mid-sized firms rather than penalizing them. An empirical analysis of the US pulp and paper (P&P) industry over the period 1970–2000 strongly supports our arguments. This study is particularly relevant for emerging economies, in which natural resource industries represent an important portion of the total economic activity.

摘要

规模是影响企业生存的重要条件，几项研究从理论上论证“中等规模弱势”，并在实证上支持了这一现象。事实上，人们普遍相信公司应该有策略地做大或者保持小的规模从而占据利基市场，因为中等规模的公司面临的市场选择压力最大。本研究站在可再生自然资源产业上挑战这个逻辑。由于企业大小可以衡量产品线的规模和公司的产品宽度，我们认为，在具有成本竞争、产品缺少区分、资本投资巨大以及价格变动剧烈等特征的产业，规模和宽度对于企业的生存具有曲线效应，即有利于中等规模的公司而非惩罚它们。对美国纸浆和纸张行业1970–2000数据的分析强烈地支持了我们的论点。本研究与新兴经济体特别有关，因为在新兴经济体中自然资源产业是整个经济活动中的重要部分。

Аннотация

Размер является важной предпосылкой для выживания компании, и некоторые исследования теоретически утверждают и эмпирически подтверждают “бремя середнячка”. Действительно, широко распространено мнение о том, что компании должны сделать стратегический выбор, чтобы либо стать крупными, либо оставаться мелкими и занимать нишевые позиции, поскольку компании среднего размера сталкиваются с сильнейшим давлением на рынке. Данное исследование ставит под сомнение эту логику в отрасли возобновляемых природных ресурсов. Определяя размер компании как масштаб производства и широту ассортимента, мы утверждаем, что в отраслях, которые характеризуются конкуренцией за счет низких затрат, отсутствием дифференциации продукции, крупными капиталовложениями и резкими ценовыми колебаниями, масштаб и широта производства оказывают обратное влияние на выживание, что ставит компании среднего размера в более выгодное положение, а не наоборот. Эмпирический анализ целлюлозно-бумажной промышленности в США за период 1970–2000 годов полностью подтверждает наши предположения. Это исследование особенно актуально для стран с развивающейся экономикой, в которых отрасли, связанные с переработкой природных ресурсов, являются важной частью общей экономической активности.

Resumen

El tamaño es un antecedente importante de la supervivencia empresarial, y muchos estudios sostienen teoréticamente y apoyan empíricamente una “desventaja de los medianos”. De hecho, se cree ampliamente que las empresas deben actuar estratégicamente ya sea para convertirse en grandes o permanecer pequeñas y ocupar una posición nicho, por que las empres medianas enfrentan las presiones más fuertes en la selección de mercado. Este estudio reta esa lógica en las industrias de recursos naturales renovables. Midiendo el tamaño como la escala de la línea de producto y la amplitud de portafolio a nivel de la empresa, sostenemos que, en industrias caracterizadas por competencia de costos, la falta de diferenciación de producto, las largas inversiones de capital, y la aguda oscilación de precio, la escala y amplitud tienen un efecto curvilíneo en la supervivencia y favorece las empresas medianas en lugar de penalizarlas. Un análisis empírico de la industria de pulpa y papel (P&P) de los Estados Unidos en el período 1970-2000 fuertemente apoya nuestros argumentos. Este estudio es particularmente relevante para las empresas de economías emergentes, en las cuales las industrias de recursos naturales renovables representan una porción importante del total de la actividad económica.

Keywords

breadthliability of middlenessnatural resource industriesscalesize competition宽度中等规模弱势自然资源产业规模成本竞争широта“бремя середнячка”добывающая промышленностьмасштабконкуренция за счет размераamplituddesventaja de los medianosindustrias de recursos naturalesescalacompetencia de tamaño
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 737 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The International Association for Chinese Management Research 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Deputy Editor Gerald A. McDermott

References

REFERENCES

Agarwal, R., & Audretsch, D. B. 2001. Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(1): 21–43.Google Scholar
Agarwal, R., Sarkar, M., & Echambadi, R. 2002. The conditioning effect of time on firm survival: A N industry life cycle approach. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 971–994.Google Scholar
Aleksynska, M., & Havrylchyk, O. 2013. FDI from the south: The role of institutional distance and natural resources. European Journal of Political Economy, 29: 38–53.Google Scholar
Anand, J., Mesquita, L. F., & Vassolo, R. S. 2009. The dynamics of multimarket competition in exploration and exploitation activities. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 802–821.Google Scholar
Arango, S., & Moxnes, E. 2012. Commodity cycles, a function of market complexity? Extending the cobweb experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 84(1): 321–334.Google Scholar
Argote, L., & Epple, D. 1990. Learning curves in manufacturing. Science, 247(23): 920–924.Google Scholar
Audia, P. G., Sorenson, O., & Hage, J. 2001. Tradeoffs in the organization of production: Multiunit firms, geographic dispersion and organizational learning. In Baum, J. A. C. & Greve, H. R. (Eds.), Multiunit organization and multimarket strategy: Advances in strategic management, Vol. 18: 75–105. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.10.1016/S0742-3322(01)18004-6Google Scholar
Audretsch, D. B., Houweling, P., & Thurik, A. R. 2000. Firm survival in the Netherlands. Review of Industrial Organization, 16(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Bailey, E. E., & Friedlaender, A. F. 1982. Market structure and multiproduct industries. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(3): 1024–1048.Google Scholar
Bain, J. 1956. Barriers to new competition: Their character and consequences in manufacturing industries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barroso, A., & Giarratana, M. S. 2013. Product proliferation strategies and firm performance: The moderating role of product space complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12): 1435–1452.Google Scholar
Batra, R., Lehmann, D., & Singh, D. 1993. Brand equity and advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Baum, J. 1995. The changing basis of competition in organizational populations: The Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990. Social Forces, 74(1): 177–204.Google Scholar
Bayus, B. L., & Putsis, W. P. 1999. Product proliferation: An empirical analysis of product line determinants and market outcomes. Marketing Science, 18(2): 137–153.Google Scholar
Besanko, D., Dranove, D., & Shanley, M. 2000. Economics of strategy (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Bhaskarabhatla, A., & Klepper, S. 2014. Latent submarket dynamics and industry evolution: Lessons from the US laser industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(6): 1381–1415.Google Scholar
Billmeier, A., & Massa, I. 2009. What drives stock market development in emerging markets–institutions, remittances, or natural resources? Emerging Markets Review, 10(1): 23–35.Google Scholar
Bolt, J., & van Zanden, J. L. 2014. The Maddison Project: Collaborative research on historical national accounts. The Economic History Review, 67(3): 627–651.Google Scholar
Buenstorf, G., & Klepper, S. 2010. Why does entry cluster geographically? Evidence from the US tire industry. Journal of Urban Economics, 68(2): 103–114.Google Scholar
Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. 2000. The life cycle of the US tire industry. Southern Economic Journal, 67(2): 254–278.Google Scholar
Caves, R., & Porter, M. 1977. From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2): 241–262.Google Scholar
Clark, J. A. 1988. Economies of scale and scope at depository financial institutions: A review of the literature. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 73(8): 16–33.Google Scholar
Cottrell, T., & Nault, B. R. 2004. Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10): 1005–1025.Google Scholar
Cuddington, J. T., & Jerrett, D. 2008. Super cycles in real metals prices? IMF Staff Papers, 55(4): 541–565.Google Scholar
Dick, A. 2004. Competition in banking: Exogenous or endogenous sunk costs? Federal Reserve Board, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Dobrev, S. D., & Carroll, G. R. 2003. Size (and competition) among organizations: Modeling scale-based selection among automobile producers in four major countries, 1885–1981. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6): 541–558.Google Scholar
Dowell, G. 2006. Product line strategies of new entrants in an established industry: Evidence from the U.S. bicycle industry. Strategic Management Journal, 27(10): 959–979.Google Scholar
Dunne, P., & Hughes, A. 1994. Age, size, growth and survival: UK companies in the 1980s. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(2): 115–140.Google Scholar
Erten, B., & Ocampo, J. 2012. Super-cycles and commodities prices since the mid-nineteenth century. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Paper Series, vol. 110.Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. 1987. Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95(4): 657–674.Google Scholar
FAO. 2015. Forest Products. FAO Statistics Yearbook.Google Scholar
Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 1983. The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5): 692–710.Google Scholar
George, G., Schillebeeckx, S. J. D., & Liak, T. L. 2015. The management of natural resources: An overview and research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6): 1595–1613.Google Scholar
Gilbert, R., & Harris, R. 1984. Competition with lumpy investment. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15(2): 197–212.Google Scholar
Gimeno, J., & Woo, C. Y. 1999. Multimarket contact, economies of scope, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 239–259.Google Scholar
Gort, M., & Klepper, S. 1982. Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. Economic Journal, 92(367): 630–653.Google Scholar
Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. 2015. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. 1993. The stock market's valuation of R&D investment during the 1980's. The American Economic Review, 83(2): 259–264.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149–164.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. 2007. Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hashai, N. 2015. Within-industry diversification and firm performance-an S-shaped hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1378–1400.Google Scholar
Jacks, D. S. 2013. From boom to bust: A typology of real commodity prices in the long run. NBER Working Paper Series. no. 18874.Google Scholar
Josefy, M., Kuban, S., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. 2015. All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): 715–802.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, B., & MacDonald, G. 1994. The life-cycle of a competitive industry. Journal of Political Economy, 102(2): 322–347.Google Scholar
Kekre, S., & Srinivasan, K. 1990. Broader product line: A necessity to achieve success? Management Science, 36(10): 1216–1232.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. 1996. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 86(3): 562–583.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. 1997. Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1): 145–182.Google Scholar
Klepper, S., & Graddy, E. 1990. The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1): 27–44.Google Scholar
Klepper, S., & Thompson, P. 2006. Submarkets and the evolution of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(4): 861–886.Google Scholar
Levitt, T. 1965. EXPLOIT the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43(6): 81–94.Google Scholar
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. 2010. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118.Google Scholar
Maoz, E., & Tybout, A. 2002. The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2): 119–131.Google Scholar
March, J. G., Olsen, J. P., Christensen, S., & Cohen, M. D. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations: 54–68. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Mueller, D. 1997. First-mover advantages and path dependence. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(6): 827–850.Google Scholar
Nicholson, C., & Stephenson, M. 2015. Milk price cycles in the US dairy supply chain and their management implications. Agribusiness, 31(4): 507–520.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1): 187–206.Google Scholar
Pavitt, K. 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6): 343–373.Google Scholar
Peltoniemi, M. 2011. Reviewing industry life-cycle theory: Avenues for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4): 349–375.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R., & Rotemberg, J. 1990. Do stock prices move together too much? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. no. 3324.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1979. The structure within industries and companies’ performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 61(2): 214–227.Google Scholar
Royston, P., & Sauerbrei, W. 2004. A new measure of prognostic separation in survival data. Statistics in Medicine, 23(5): 723–748.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. 2001. The curse of natural resources. European Economic Review, 45(4): 827–838.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R. 1978. Entry deterrence in the ready-to-eat cereal industry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2): 305–327.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R. 1992. Sunk costs and market structure: A review article. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(2): 125–134.Google Scholar
Sorenson, O. 2000. Letting the market work for you: An evolutionary perspective on product strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5): 577–592.Google Scholar
Stern, I., & Henderson, A. D. 2004. Within-business diversification in technology-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 25(5): 487–505.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. 1991. Sunk costs and market structure: Price competition, advertising, and the evolution of concentration. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Tanriverdi, H., & Lee, C. H. 2008. Within-industry diversification and firm performance in the presence of network externalities: Evidence from the software industry. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 381–397.Google Scholar
USEPA. 2000. Manufacturing profile: Paper and allied products. United States Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6): 639–656.Google Scholar
Vernon, R. 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle on JSTOR. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2): 190–207.Google Scholar
Weiss, L. 1991. In Audretsch, D. B. & Yamawaki, H. (Eds.), Structure, conduct and performance. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2006. Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring capital for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization, ITC, & UNCTAD. 2013. World tariff profiles 2013. Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization, ITC, & UNCTAD. 2015. World tariff profiles 2015. Geneva: WTOGoogle Scholar
World Trade Organization. 2010. World Trade Report, Trade in Natural Resources.Google Scholar