scholarly journals Self-Expansion or Internalization as the Two Processes of Vertical Integration: What Informs the Decision?

Economies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 197
Author(s):  
Noriaki Hashimoto

In vertical integration literature, the two processes leading to vertical integration, namely, (1) self-expansion of the scope of activities based on internal capabilities and (2) internalization of activities with external capabilities have not been distinguished. However, using internal capabilities or incorporating external capabilities is an alternative decision for managers and distinguishing them is crucial in practice. The purpose of this study is to distinguish self-expansion separated from internalization and to explain systematically when they likely occur. This study develops a unique vertical integration model by integrating transaction cost economics and the capability approach. With the model, we systematically analyzed the occurrence of (1) self-expansion and (2) internalization. Results reveal that the firm prefers self-expansion to internalization if it is easy to build the capabilities internally or difficult to procure them from outside the firm and if the costs of acquiring a firm or business with the required capabilities or the governance costs of the activities with external capabilities are high and vice versa. Our model leads to more understanding of vertical integration.

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Peris-Ortiz ◽  
Fernando J. Peris Bonet ◽  
Carlos Rueda-Armengot

Author(s):  
Esther-Mirjam Sent ◽  
Annelie L. J. Kroese

Abstract This contribution commemorates Oliver Williamson, who recently passed away, as one of the founding fathers of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). It does so by touching on some of the details of his personal life and connecting these with his professional career. The latter was devoted to putting the study of institutions on the economic agenda. Closer scrutiny reveals that three phases may be identified. Williamson first developed an interest in analysing vertical integration. During the second phase, he elaborated this interest in TCE, and during the third, he positioned his contributions within the area of institutional economics. Furthermore, the article considers the various influences of institutional and organizational economists on Williamson. Finally, the article considers the reception, criticism, and further elaborations of Williamson's contributions.


Author(s):  
Hidenori Fuke

Conduct regulation and structural separation are often discussed in industrial organisation studies as options to prevent the abuse of market power by vertically integrated firms toward the downstream market. Both the structural separation of NTT and conduct regulation have been discussed in the Japanese telecommunications industry since the introduction of competition in 1985 and the issue is still being discussed, although the industry is going through a transition from POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) to the broadband internet. Past discussions have been inclined toward elimination of the harmful effects of vertical integration. However, there is a benefit of vertical integration in the sense that it will promote the efficient management of the firm concerned. I will present a new contention that it is important to conclude a balanced analysis of costs and benefits of vertical integration based on transaction cost theory. Structural separation in the broadband market entails significant transaction costs between a carrier with access facilities and firms offering broadband services by renting these facilities as input. These kinds of transaction costs are comparatively negligible in POTS. I will make it clear that the balance analysis of costs and benefits of structural separation has become more important in broadband than in POTS based on the actual differences in network structure.


Author(s):  
Mikko Ketokivi ◽  
Joseph T. Mahoney

Which components should a manufacturing firm make in-house, which should it co-produce, and which should it outsource? Who should sit on the firm’s board of directors? What is the right balance between debt and equity financing? These questions may appear different on the surface, but they are all variations on the same theme: how should a complex contractual relationship be governed to avoid waste and to create transaction value? Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) is one of the most established theories to address this fundamental question. Ronald H. Coase, in 1937, was the first to highlight the importance of understanding the costs of transacting, but TCE as a formal theory started in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s as an attempt to understand and to make empirical predictions about vertical integration (“the make-or-buy decision”). In its history spanning now over five decades, TCE has expanded to become one of the most influential management theories, addressing not only the scale and scope of the firm but also many aspects of its internal workings, most notably corporate governance and organization design. TCE is therefore not only a theory of the firm, but also a theory of management and of governance. At its foundation, TCE is a theory of organizational efficiency: how should a complex transaction be structured and governed so as to minimize waste? The efficiency objective calls for identifying the comparatively better organizational arrangement, the alternative that best matches the key features of the transaction. For example, a complex, risky, and recurring transaction may be very expensive to manage through a buyer-supplier contract; internalizing the transaction through vertical integration offers an economically more efficient approach than market exchange. TCE seeks to describe and to understand two kinds of heterogeneity. The first kind is the diversity of transactions: what are the relevant dimensions with respect to which transactions differ from one another? The second kind is the diversity of organizations: what are the relevant alternatives in which organizational responses to transaction governance differ from one another? The ultimate objective in TCE is to understand discriminating alignment: which organizational response offers the feasible least-cost solution to govern a given transaction? Understanding discriminating alignment is also the main source of prescription derived from TCE. The key points to be made when examining the logic and applicability of TCE are: (1) The first phenomenon TCE sought to address was vertical integration, sometimes dubbed “the canonical TCE case.” But TCE has broader applicability to the examination of complex transactions and contracts more generally. (2) TCE could be described as a constructive stakeholder theory where the primary objective is to ensure efficient transactions and avoidance of waste. TCE shares many features with contemporary stakeholder management principles. (3) TCE offers a useful contrast and counterpoint to other organization theories, such as competence- and power-based theories of the firm. These other theories, of course, symmetrically inform TCE.


Author(s):  
Jongwook Kim

How do firms organize economic transactions? This question can be thought of as a question of firm boundaries or as a decision about a firm’s scope, encompassing the choice along a continuum of governance structures, including spot markets, short-term contracts, long-term contracts, franchising, licensing, joint ventures, and hierarchy (integration). Although there is no unified theory of vertical integration, transaction cost economics, agency theory, and more recently property rights theory have been influential not only in analyzing make-or-buy decisions but also in understanding “hybrid forms” or inter-firm alliances, such as technology licensing contracts, equity alliances, joint ventures, and the like. Before Coase’s work became widely known, whatever theoretical underpinnings there were of vertical integration were provided by applications of neoclassical theory. Here, the firm was viewed as a production function that utilized the most technologically efficient way to convert input into output. In particular, neoclassical theory was concerned primarily with market power and the distortions that it created in markets for inputs or outputs as the main driver of vertical integration. Hence, the boundaries of the firm—that is, where to draw the line between transactions that occur within the firm and those outside the firm—were irrelevant within this framework. It was Coase’s question “Why is there any organization?” that first suggested that price mechanisms in the market and managerial coordination within firms were alternative governance mechanisms. That is, the choice between these alternative mechanisms was driven by a comparative analysis of the costs of implementing either mechanism. Oliver Williamson built on Coase to provide the theoretical foundations for vertical integration by joining uncertainty and small numbers with opportunism in defining exchange hazards, and consequently established comparative analysis of alternative governance forms as the way to analyze vertical integration. More recently, property rights theory brought attention to ownership of key assets as a way to distinguish between the governance of internal organizations and those of market transactions, where ownership confers the authority to determine how these assets will be utilized. And lastly, agency theory also provides important building blocks for understanding contractual choice by placing the emphasis on the different incentives that vary with different contractual arrangements between a principal and its agent. Transaction cost economics, property rights theory, and agency cost theory complement one another well in explaining vertical integration in terms of alternative governance forms in a world of asymmetric information, bounded rationality, and opportunism. These theories have also been utilized in analyzing “hybrid” organizational forms, in particular strategic alliances and joint ventures. Together, vertical integration and alliances account for a significant part of corporate strategy decisions, and more research on the theoretical foundations as well as novel ways to apply these theories in empirical analyses will be productive avenues for a better understanding of firm behavior.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Agafonow

Building on Oliver E. Williamson’s work, this article lays the basis for a transaction cost theory of social enterprises. It is submitted that the more proprietary-centred the creation of value is, the lower the governance costs of economizing on bounded rationality to protect patrons from the hazard of opportunism. Since not all productive activities can be organized within the range of the lowest governance costs, a discrete structural analysis is developed, with different ranges of governance costs suitable for different purposes depending on the kinds of value creation intended and the class of patrons to be protected. Accepting higher governance costs is justified by preventing the exploitation of bargaining asymmetries at the expense of selected classes of patrons like disadvantaged customers and stakeholders at large, subject to what is feasible, or Williamson’s remediableness standard. JEL: D23, M14


2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen S. Farnsworth Mick ◽  
Patrick D. Shay

Using a Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) approach, this paper explores which organizational forms Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may take. A critical question about form is the amount of vertical integration that an ACO may have, a topic central to TCE. We posit that contextual factors outside and inside an ACO will produce variable transaction costs (the non-production costs of care) such that the decision to integrate vertically will derive from a comparison of these external versus internal costs, assuming reasonably rational management abilities. External costs include those arising from environmental uncertainty and complexity, small numbers bargaining, asset specificity, frequency of exchanges, and information “impactedness.” Internal costs include those arising from human resource activities including hiring and staffing, training, evaluating (i.e., disciplining, appraising, or promoting), and otherwise administering programs. At the extreme, these different costs may produce either total vertical integration or little to no vertical integration with most ACOs falling in between. This essay demonstrates how TCE can be applied to the ACO organization form issue, explains TCE, considers ACO activity from the TCE perspective, and reflects on research directions that may inform TCE and facilitate ACO development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document