ASSET SPECIFICITY AND CHANNEL INTEGRATION
저자
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2018
작성언어
English
주제어
KDC
325
등재정보
01
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
1436-1440(5쪽)
제공처
Introduction
An important decision that a manufacturer has to make in distributing a product to customers is the degree of forward channel integration (Aulakh & Kotabe, 1997; Coughlan et al., 2001; John & Weitz, 1988). Transaction cost economics (TCE) developed by Williamson (1975, 1985, 1986, 1999) has been one of the leading theoretical frameworks used to explain the channel integration decision (Frazier, 1999; Watson et al., 2015). TCE is generally a theory for explaining the choice of an efficient governance structure in transactions and includes asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency as its explanatory variables. According to Williamson (1985, 1986, 1999), much of the explanatory power of TCE is driven by asset specificity. TCE-based channel integration studies argue that as asset specificity increases, firms are expected to increase the degree of channel integration. This study proposes to extend existing research in four important ways. First, existing studies have not examined individual dimensions of asset specificity. This study examines two important dimensions discussed by TCE: human asset specificity and physical asset specificity. Second, existing studies have tended to measure asset specificity in a particular way (i.e., with a particular set of questionnaire items). This study examines the robustness of the estimated asset specificity-integration relationship to alternative measures of asset specificity. Third, existing studies have focused on firms in one country such as the United States, Canada, or Germany. This study empirically examines the roles and relative importance of human and physical asset specificity in channel integration in two countries with different cultures, the United States and Japan. Fourth, existing studies have not investigated the possibility of endogeneity between asset specificity and channel integration. This study tests whether asset specificity is endogenous in explaining channel integration through an instrumental variables and two-stage least squares (IV-2SLS) approach.
Literature Review
In the context of distribution channels, asset specificity refers to the extent to which durable, transaction-specific investments in human and/or physical assets are needed to distribute the product in question (John & Weitz, 1988; Klein et al., 1990; Shervani et al., 2007). Examples of such investments include (1) the time and effort employed to acquire the firm-specific, product-specific, and customer-specific knowledge needed for distribution activities, and (2) specialized physical equipment and facilities (e.g., warehouses, deliver vehicles, refrigeration equipment, demonstration facilities, and repair and service centers) (Anderson, 1985; Bello & Lohtia, 1995; Brettel et al., 2011a, 2011b; John & Weitz, 1988; Shervani et al., 2007; Williamson, 1985, 1986). According to TCE, when the assets needed to distribute a product are non-specific, the use of independent channels is a priori more efficient than the use of integrated channels based on the benefits of distribution specialists and competition in the market place (Anderson, 1985). Conversely, a high level of specific assets, whether human or physical, has important implications for the degree of channel integration. The primary consequence is to reduce a large number of relationships between a manufacturer and independent channel members to a small number of relationships, which may expose the transaction in question to opportunistic behavior. Because the unique productive value created by a high level of specific assets makes it costly to switch to a new relationship, the use of independent channels will not be effective as a safeguard against opportunism (John & Weitz, 1988; Shervani et al., 2007). Channel integration provides a safeguard against opportunism by permitting (1) the better monitoring and surveillance of integrated channels relative to independent channels, and (2) the reduction of profits from opportunistic behavior since employees in integrated channels do not ordinarily have claims to profit streams (John & Weitz, 1988). As a result, as asset specificity increases, manufacturers are expected to increase the degree of channel integration to exercise greater control over the channels (John & Weitz, 1988; Shervani et al., 2007). This leads to the following basic TCE hypothesis concerning asset specificity and channel integration: TCE hypothesis. Asset specificity will be positively related to the degree of channel integration. Existing studies of channel integration tend to provide support or partial support for the hypothesized positive relationship between asset specificity and channel integration. One limitation of key studies is that they have not fully explored the dimensions of asset specificity because they treat asset specificity as unidimensional or examine only one dimension of asset specificity. Specifically, Anderson and Schmittlein (1984), Anderson (1985), Anderson and Coughlan (1987), and Krafft et al. (2004) focus on human asset specificity. While John and Weitz (1988), Shervani et al. (2007), and Brettel et al. (2011a) consider both human and physical asset specificity in their theoretical discussions, their empirical analyses focus only on human asset specificity. Klein et al. (1990), Aulakh and Kotabe (1997), and Brettel et al. (2011a) use a single measure of asset specificity that contains distinct items measuring human and physical asset specificity. Importantly, none of these studies has examined the dimension of physical asset specificity while controlling for the impact of human asset specificity. These observations suggest that further research is needed that explicitly measures and evaluates the relative importance of human and physical asset specificity in the channel integration decision.
Research Hypotheses
Based on the above literature review, we seek to extend existing research by distinguishing between two types of asset specificity, human and physical asset specificity. As already explained, TCE and TCE-based channel integration studies argue that both human and physical asset specificity are positive drivers of the degree of channel integration. Thus, our research hypotheses are the following:
Hypothesis 1. Human asset specificity will be positively related to the degree of channel integration.
Hypothesis 2. Physical asset specificity will be positively related to the degree of channel integration.
Research Methodology
As shown in Table 1, previous empirical studies attempt to test the basic TCE hypothesis concerning asset specificity and channel integration using (1) a particular measure of asset specificity, (2) data from a single national survey of firms in the United States, Canada, or Germany, and (3) methods such as an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis and a partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. In contrast with these studies, we seek to test the above two hypotheses concerning two types of asset specificity and channel integration using (1) different measures of asset specificity, (2) data from parallel national surveys of firms in two countries with different cultures, the United States and Japan, and (3) the methods used in prior empirical analyses and an IV-2SLS approach, which is a widely accepted method for investigating the potential endogeneity problem of focal explanatory variables (Antonakis et al., 2010, 2014; Zaefarian et al., 2017). This research strategy is partly based on the guidelines for high-quality replication studies articulated by Bettis et al. (2016b). The aims are to assess the generalizability of important prior results using different survey data drawn from different research contexts and to assess the robustness of these results using different measures and methods, thereby providing important additional evidence that contributes to the establishment of repeatable cumulative knowledge (Bettis et al., 2016a, 2016b). We developed the survey questionnaire in several steps. Following John and Weitz (1988), Shervani et al. (2007), and Brettel et al. (2011b), the dependent variable, channel integration, was operationalized by the percentage of sales through direct channels. We measured the focal explanatory variable, asset specificity, in four ways: (1) a four-item scale of human asset specificity used by Shervani et al. (2007), (2) a four-item scale of physical asset specificity based on Bello and Lohtia (1995) and Klein et al. (1990), (3) a six-item scale of human and physical asset specificity used by Klein et al. (1990), and (4) a four-item scale of human and physical asset specificity used by Brettel et al. (2011a). We also included four control variables: environmental uncertainty, behavioral uncertainty, financial performance, and channel members’ capabilities. Based on existing studies, manufacturers of electronic and telecommunication, metal, and chemical products in industrial (business-to-business) markets were selected as the setting for the empirical test. The unit of analysis was the domestic channel integration decision made at a product-market level. Respondents were sales/marketing managers (or executives) knowledgeable about channel design and strategies. In the United States, a professional marketing research company administered the data collection. In Japan, respondents were surveyed by mail. In total, we obtained 235 usable responses from US managers and 279 responses from Japanese managers.
Results and Conclusions
Following similar studies (John & Weitz, 1988; Shervani et al., 2007), an OLS regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The results, shown in Table 1, exhibit significant explanatory power for each model. As expected, (1) human asset specificity exhibits significant positive relationships with the degree of channel integration in both the United States and Japan (Models 1 & 2). These findings support Hypothesis 1. Conversely, (2) physical asset specificity does not have the expected significant positive relationships with the degree of channel integration in both the United States and Japan (Models 1 & 3). These findings do not support Hypothesis 2. Also, (3) asset specificity (Klein et al., 1990) and (4) asset specificity (Brettel et al., 2011a), two composite measures of human and physical asset specificity, exhibit the expected significant coefficients (Models 4 & 5). Additionally, we conducted a similar analysis using a structural equation modelling approach. The results mirrored those of OLS regression, thus providing further support for it. To assess the problem of potential endogeneity between asset specificity and channel integration, we employed IV-2SLS. We used (1) the level of the product’s technical content and (2) the need for coordination between production and distribution activities as instruments for human/physical asset specificity. Our instruments were individually significant predictors of asset specificity and met the exclusion restriction. However, the endogeneity test revealed no evidence of endogeneity. Thus, asset specificity was treated as exogenous in the model. In summary, our preliminary results suggest that human asset specificity, not physical asset specificity, is relevant to the channel integration decision. This finding is significant in that TCE-based channel integration studies tend to measure only one type of asset specificity. We are currently conducting additional analyses to better understand the relationship between human and physical asset specificity, for example, (1) the effects of human and physical asset specificity on different kinds of direct distribution, and (2) a multiple equation model in which human asset specificity is a function of physical asset specificity and direct distribution is a function of both human and physical asset specificity. We believe that our results will have important implications for the ways in which managers approach the channel integration decision.
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)