2011 lombana - looking for a distinctive model with which to analyze competitiveness

8/2/2019 2011 Lombana - Looking for a Distinctive Model With Which to Analyze Competitiveness

1/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 32

LOOKING FOR A DISTINCTIVE MODEL WITH WHICH TO ANALYZE

COMPETITIVENESS

Jahir Lombana

ABSTRACT

Concepts and models of mainstream competitiveness, led by Michael Porter, have been criticizedfor their limited applicability to a broader spectrum of units of analysis, their restriction to the

domestic sphere, and the role of governments. Based on a literature review, this paper uses the

firm as the unit of analysis and suggests a concept and a model of competitiveness which coversboth the mainstream and its critics. The aim of this paper is to make the mainstream model

flexible and at the same time make it more comprehensive. As a result, a model is suggested as

an alternative to analyze the competitiveness of firms.

Keywords: Cluster, Value chain, Competitiveness of the firms

INTRODUCTION

Trade theories based on competitiveness led by Michael Porter are consistent with the realities of

developed countries. However, developing countries require a methodology that can be adapted

to their own environment. Additionally, there are criticisms about the role of governments and

the international field which are restricted by their domestic diamond of competitiveness.Some developing countries have linked their schemes of management to business schools from

developed countries. However, there is no empirical evidence that the thorough use of the

mainstream model has affected the outcome of government policies implemented by developingcountries. Therefore, there are many doubts as to whether these methodologies are a true

reflection of the competitive environment in which enterprises operate.

This paper proposes a more flexible model than the existing mainstream model. Business

conditions in developing countries need different approaches and determinants such as

government and external sectors which are set apart from the mainstream model and which arealso critical for current market conditions. It assumes that the resulting model does not have


2/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 33

limitations when applied to sectors and/or countries with dissimilar levels of development. That

is, the present model is comprehensive, but also flexible. Furthermore, the role of governments isincreasingly important under our current economic conditions and transnational firms (not

necessarily corporations) are reassessing the concept of competitiveness which has been limited

to the domestic sphere by the mainstream model.

This work is the result of a review of literature regarding different models of competitiveness

where elements are drawn to make a comprehensive and eclectic scheme that applies to

companies in countries with different development levels.

This paper proposes a clustervalue chain model using the determinants of competitiveness set

by "Porters Diamond" (1990), making some adjustments in the relationship between thegovernment and the external sector both located analytically as exogenous to the model by Porter

and including the meso-level of analysis, as an input of the German Development InstitutesSystemic Model of Competitiveness.

For the plan of the model, the first step requires a definition of competitiveness to serve as ananalytical parameter of location. In the second part, concepts of value chain and cluster will be

discussed. Thirdly, mainstream model assumptions which are subject to criticism need to beestablished and those cases adapted to the conditions of competitiveness as featured by the

model. The last part will offer some conclusions.

CONCEPT OF COMPETITIVENESS

There is a consensus that there is no single definition for competitiveness (Krugman, 1994;

Ezeala-Harrison, 1999; Mahmood & Ezeala-Harrison, 2000; Chavarria et al., 2000; Ibaez,2001). The definition is the one that the researcher or policy maker uses in order to fit their own

model. For this article, specifically, there is an analytical difference between two concepts:

competitive environment and competitiveness. It is essential to understand competitive

environment as the analytical space where businesses, industries, sectors, and resulting productsare located and cooperate to reach international success.

The first element to consider is the level of analysis where the concept has to be placed. That isthe analytical space of aggregation to locate a definition. Considering economy as the discipline

involving competitiveness, one can speak about the macro and micro levels of analysis. German

scholars have included the mesolevel (Altenburg et al., 1998, Meyer-Stamer, 2001) as anintermediate between the macro and micro level and where specific policies apply to specific

sectors.

A stable macroeconomic environment is required to develop the competitiveness of firms,sectors, and/or industries at the micro level. Thus, at the meso-level, strategic policies issued by

associations, unions, and governments encourage the competitiveness of companies, sectors,

and/or products.

Once you specify the level of analysis, the frame of study should be fit to the unit of analysis in

which the concept will finally rest. For the macro level, the unit of analysis for aggregation is the


3/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 34

country or nation-state, conceived as a geographical territory, which is politically independent

and sovereign. In a liberal conception, the government that is part of the nation-state is the onlyguarantor of security and private agents are allowed to establish commercial and financial

relations with their counterparts from other countries.

A closer adaptation to reality places the government as a key factor in commercial and financialrelations. As a critique of the mainstream, and following Krugmans (1994) concepts and

analysis, a country cannot be competitive simply because it does not go into bankruptcy. What

we can establish is that countries have a favorable or unfavorable competitive environment.

The competitive environment is described by various institutions like the World Economic

Forum, the Institute for Management. and Development (IMD), among others. Independent ofthe methodology they use, its determinants are applicable to the country as a whole, but the

competitive environment can vary quite dramatically from region to region, particularly in those

developing countries with centralized governmental policies. These differences affect business

location and competitiveness. As UNCTAD (2009) states: "We must take action at the micro

level to strengthen national firms by granting them access to credit, technology and businessservices, i.e. the competitive environment. But such policies can be targeted to a specific sector

chosen by gained or created advantages; this is the analytical space where the meso-level ofanalysis lies. Clearly, the choice of specific sectors to create competitiveness is no longer the

result of the free game of supply and demand, but market imperfection. With this premise,

competitiveness is necessary as part of the new trade theory supporting market imperfections toexplain international economic relations.

As a result of the above, following the micro level of analysis should be appropriate in locating

the definition of competitiveness. Sectors, companies, and/or products are the competing units ofanalysis. As for competing sectors, it is possible to compare those in the same economic activity

by making a horizontal analysis, i.e. evaluating the same sector in several regions and/or

countries, or cross-sectional analysis in a region where different sectors compete, for example,

for the award of governmental resources. Regarding the competitiveness of enterprises, it isimportant to note two criteria: 1) their scale and 2) their international significance.

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can cross domestic borders if they associate with otherSMEs or corporations, or if they access their own niche markets which do not necessarily require

economies of scale. Moreover, transnational corporations can cross boundaries in an autonomous

way or support smaller companies or clusters that make activities more efficient. Finally, thecompetitiveness of products depends on the strategy of companies: Vernon's theory of Product

Life Cycle is a way that could explain this feature (Vernon, 1966).

As a general definition, competitiveness is a dynamic comparison among companies, industries,and sectors with their products or services that cooperate and/or compete in a certain place,

concrete or virtual, in order to reach common commercial or financial goals.

The dynamic comparison involves an evolution of the advantages of companies, sectors, or

industries over their competitors, taking into account that this comparison is of a permanent


4/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 35

character. A company is not competitive in a single moment; competitiveness emerges and

develops consistently in a positive or negative way.

The characteristics of cooperation and/or rivalry come from the theory of industrial

conglomerates or clusters (Porter, 2000; Chavarria et al., 2000, Schmitz & Nadvi, 1999).

Companies located in a common physical space meet their needs through each other. Anysolution to a flaw within the cluster depends on inter-corporate synergy. Also, outside the cluster

members compete to increase their market share and promote their product/service over others.

The location, physical or virtual, is the analytical space of movement of companies, industries,

and/or sectors within the competitive environment. Usually, it is the government which provides

infrastructure and basic conditions with which to compete. However, companies crossing bordersbecome less dependent on a nation-state and need to be strategically located to take advantage of

their environment and in some cases create them. A new area of analysis is the virtual, which

refers to the use of new communication methods and technologies to interact and create clusters

without a physical space.

CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES FOR VALUE CHAIN AND CLUSTERS

One of the main problems in the analysis of competitiveness, taking into account clusters and

value chains as models, is the confusion on these concepts. In this section, a summary of the

general ideas for value chain and clusters is presented. In English speaking countries, it iscertainly easier to find a consensus on the definition but for other languages (e.g.: Spanish

speakers) there are deep confusions in finding a consensus for this kind of definition. More than

the words themselves, there is a concern about the applicability of models in countries where

even the concepts are misunderstood. This section defines and looks for consensus but a criticalanalysis of the consequences of these misunderstandings is still expected.

Value Chain

Value chain, a kind of analysis applied since the 60s, concentrated mainly on primary sectors

(agriculture and mining) (Davis and Goldberg, 1957 and French literature calling les filires)

as forms of production and marketing, e.g. in the agricultural sector through vertical integrationbetween agents of a supply chain. Only since the 80s (Porter 1985) have new concepts been

included, such as aggregation and transformation. Thus, value creation is the basis of a

competitiveness concept coined by Porter in his later work (Porter, 1990). The margin abovecosts through value addition and the price at which ultimately consumers would be willing to pay

derives from a definition of sustainability and competitiveness of the firm.

Each of the stages of the value chain represents a challenge for the firm that wants to finddifferentiation in processes or products or lower costs ahead of their competitors and, of course,

carry out strategies to achieve their aims.

The value chain, as a method of analysis, is a complement to other alternatives of analysis that

support the development. It is normal that there are development agencies or governments that

motivate this type of study, but it is becoming more necessary for companies to take part as


5/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 36

advocates and to even develop their own studies. The approaches to value chain analysis are

diverse: 1) strategic management that emphasizes individual firms, 2) clustering strategy, and 3)global companies or multinationals. In this paper, the approach taken is the clustering strategy,

but one cannot ignore the other two approaches. The development of the analysis of value chain

has shifted from individual enterprises to companies with multiple links. It is here where the

cluster analysis becomes more important.

FIGURE 1

Source: Porter (1985)

In addition, a major criticism of the analysis of value chain is the lack of complementarity with

other development policies. This would be closely linked to the intervention of private actors in

the development of strategic policies, which depend on the decisions of governmental actors.Only if both entities agree would there most likely be a positive effect on results' policies.

The analysis of value chain is applied in developing countries by sector leaders who seek to stakeout the rest of the economy. This is far from an economy where the free game of supply and

demand is who chooses what the sector with the greatest comparative advantage is. This

reaffirms the conceptual difference of the competitive advantage, which promotes strategicdevelopment based on historical performance and creating advantages, thanks to technological

innovations in products and processes when it comes to business.

Cluster

Clusters are groups of companies that cooperate or compete in a given physical or virtual area.

The cluster analysis approach can be traced back to Marshall (1890) on external economies; theaccess to products supported by joint companies was the basis of his analysis. In those spaces,

technological spill-overs could develop which were reflected in specialized work, processes, and

product innovations through the dissemination of information and knowledge among firms.


6/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 37

Under Marshalls concept, the motivation for cooperation is clear. As for rivalry, only recent

studies make concrete approaches to seeing a cluster's development: "Rivals compete intenselyto win and retain customers. Without vigorous competition, a cluster will fail. Yet there is also

cooperation, much of it vertical, involving companies in related industries and local institutions.

Competition can coexist because they occur with cooperation on different dimensions and among

different players" (Porter 2000).

Both cooperation and rivalry are important for development of the cluster. If a service or product

is not supplied within the cluster, companies can cooperate to remove it from the cluster ordevelop it together. The rivalry allows the cluster to be proactive and prepare for foreign

competition. If a business is not sustainable within the cluster, it is unlikely to be so outside of it.

Taking into account the causes for the formation of a cluster, Marshall evaluated them as

incidental. However, empirical studies (see Schmitz & Nadvi 1999) show that the formation of

clusters can also be intentional, resulting in the concept of collective efficiency which is

"competitive advantage derived from external economies (incidental / passive) and joint action

(deliberate / active)." The strategies of firms within the cluster will depend then on the emphasisgiven to any of these strategies: deliberate or incidental.

Like value chain analysis, the cluster has also evolved with the development of companies. The

cluster is not only based on conditions of location (proximity). Elements such as transportation

costs, environmental variables (climate, geological, topographic) (Chavarria et al., 2000b) andthe diversity and intensity of linkages between enterprises, should be included in the analysis. It

should be noted that linkages with companies do not have to be physical. More companies are

using innovative information technology to cross physical distances and coordinate products and

services.

COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF COMPETITIVENESS: CLUSTER - VALUE CHAIN

The so-called Diamond of Competitiveness has been strongly criticized by scholars (Rugman,1998; Cho, 2000; Esser et al., 1996) who consider that the scope of analysis is too far from

reality and the model is too limited to be applied in developing countries. These criticisms can be

summarized, as follows:

1) Government's decisions (do or do not) necessarily affect businesses and organizationswhich can influence government policies. Therefore, exogeneity of this component inthe mainstream model is in doubt.

2) Enterprises are increasingly more affected by issues beyond their country-baseboundaries; therefore, analysis of competitiveness must include determinants thatmay affect companies overseas.

3) Companies of different sizes compete in similar macroeconomic environments, butabsorption of strategies and government policies are different among them, e.g. the

analysis of competitiveness for SMEs is different from corporations. The clustering


7/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 38

of SMEs and the support of corporations in the clusters should be analyzed

differently in the model.

4) Although it goes beyond the scope of this document, the socio-cultural aspects, basedon the meta-level by the systemic theory should be included in a comprehensive

study of competitiveness. As an example, the relational issues in the negotiationsdiffer from country to country and even among regions.

5) Value chain and clusters are different analytical spaces. Companies of different sizes(individuals or clustered) can form links to other firms including those beyond the

boundaries of their own countries. Therefore, e criticism about the mainstream

models limited scope to the domestic level can be obviated.

The model of competitiveness that is featured includes critical elements of the mainstream

(government and external sector) and the meso- level of analysis provided by the German

Development Institute - GDI.

The first question we must answer to set the model is what units of analysis will interact with it.

As noted in the definition of competitiveness, a company is the unit of analysis that applies to theconcept. However, companies could have different sizes and market interests. In this section,

there are three major types of businesses: 1) companies that are associated in clusters, 2)

transnational corporations, and 3) companies with particular interests.

FIGURE 2

TYPE OF ENTERPRISE AS UNIT OF ANALYSIS

The academic literature shows that clusters are not exclusively used in sectors with high added

value. There is evidence that economies with low added value can also configure clusters

(Altenburg, 1999; Meyer-Stamer, 1998; Ceglie & Dini, 1999). This is a breakthrough forformulating an analytical model of competitiveness that is adaptable to developing countries

based on clusters. An additional factor is foreign direct investment (FDI); in this case,


8/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 39

multinational corporations can influence the competitive environment and government policies

in a country and make Porters diamond become the Rugmans Pentagon (2002), which includes

government as an endogenous factor. Additionally, from the international finance point ofview, FDI is the bridge to including the external/foreign sector in the model.

Finally, in the analysis of competitiveness, there are companies that do not form clusters. In fact,some of these companies may have particular interests in crossing and competing overseas, or

others may only wish to stay in their domestic sphere. Thus, the units of analysis will be framed

with these types of companies in mind. Their relationships in the value chain will depend on theeffect of the determinants of competitive advantage or disadvantage dealing with third parties.

Each major type of business, as described above, can be located at any stage of the productionprocess, for example: producers, intermediaries in the local market, transport in the local market,

value-added industry in the local market, exporters, transport in the international market,

intermediaries at the international markets, importers, wholesalers, retailers, and finally

consumers.

From producers to retailers, agents can configure clusters in which firms need cooperation and/or

rivalry to create competitive advantage. Individual companies can pass from one stage to anotheraccording to their scale and strategic interest in international markets. These companies may

decide to integrate forward or backward in the chain. The clearest case of forward and backward

integration is transnational corporations.

From the trade standpoint, to include the external sector is necessary to differentiate domestic

from international markets. Thus, the analysis of the determinants affecting economic agents will

depend on their location if they are inside or outside national boundaries. Indeed, there arecompanies transcending borders, but transactions can be carried out through so-called

transnational or intermediaries (exporters/importers) to address the capabilities of enterprises that

require them. Indeed, companies that are within national borders face some internal/domestic

determinants of competitiveness.

By following Porter's diamond, factor conditions (capital, land, labor, and technology) are

basically the inputs required to produce goods and/or services. Additionally, there are conditionsof domestic demand that influence producers when local consumers are more demanding.

Producers will be required to meet higher standards to comply with their home market. However,

unlike Porters view, this does not guarantee international success. Thus, producers might dowell to confront international consumers directly without going through a "test" in the domestic

market.

Two determinants included in this model taken from the meso-level of the systemic model by theGDI are meso-policies and the meso-institutions. These are policies and strategies that emerge

from unions, guilds, and governments, etc, (local, regional and / or national) but are indicted on

to one sector or specific company. Policies and strategies for specific sectors are the meso-policies and those institutions that are developing or promoting are the meso-institutions.


9/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 40

Many countries, particularly developing countries, have conducted studies to identify those

sectors that can be drivers of the economy as a whole. The selection of a sector per se is adecision that goes beyond the free game of supply and demand; choices depend on historical

behavior of the sectors or the potential view not yet filled by the market. Additionally, there may

be specific socio-economic public or private interests involving decisions which should be

analyzed from a meso-level point of view, but which are beyond the scope of this document.Favored firms by meso-policies receive a further boost to shape their competitive advantage, of

course at the expense of other sectors/companies that do not receive them in a zero-sum game.

There are two determinants included in Porters diamond as internal/domestic: 1) structure,

strategy, and rivalry between the companies and 2) supporting and related industries and

services. If, as stated above, companies move in domestic and international environments,determinants are required to influence companies both inside and outside borders.

FUGURE 3

CLUSTER - VALUE CHAIN MODEL

In the case of "structure, strategy, and rivalry," the distinction between transnationalcorporations, clusters, and individual companies with particular interests will confront differently

in their competitive environment. Transnational corporations, by definition, are the ones thathave overseas strategies, with local adaptations of their subsidiaries to fit the national conditions.

Clusters and companies with particular interests require linkages forward or backward orhorizontal alignments in the same sector to generate value, as the value chain concept argues.

With this kind of synergy, Porters determinant, related and supporting industries/services,"

enters into the analysis and companies rely on these industries and services to add value to theirproducts. What differentiates this model from Porters is that related and supporting


10/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 41

industries/services are in all stages of the supply chain and therefore also become an external

determinant of competitiveness.

Additionally to the aforementioned determinants, demand also needs to be analyzed outside the

boundaries of a country. Unlike Porter who assumes this, it is made explicit in this model. The

external demand conditions are the requests of foreign consumers to the exportedproducts/services, but also included are policies that governments can implement to promote or

restrict certain imports. Finally, chance is exogenous to the model and affects all the

determinants but is not affected by any, just as Porter defined.

The cluster-value chain model requires comprehensive knowledge of the competitive

environment, links with companies in the same industry, and other links in the chain.International success for such companies is based on a common competitive environment, a

historical performance and projections of the company itself, and strategies of competitors. The

analysis of this model requires temporal continuity and continuous review of the links in the

chain and the relationships within the clusters (if any). Transnational corporations may have their

own dynamics but also can be affected by the competitive environment and other competitors.

The broad range of applications depends on the amount of information that the researcher is ableto collect. For developed countries, it is usually based on a common competitive environment, a

historical performance, and projections of the company itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Since, there is no consensual definition of competitiveness, it is necessary for researchers to

assess the interests of their investigation to a concept that suits their needs. This documentfeatured a definition of competitiveness tailored to companies in a dynamic competitive

environment. In principle, firms compete and cooperate exercising that dynamic, but they no

longer do so in physical spaces. Thanks to information and communication technologies, there is

also a virtual space where companies can compete. A comprehensive model would need tounderstand these new dynamics and revisit the criticisms of mainstream competitiveness. Thus,

the cluster - value chain model is presented as a comprehensive and flexible alternative to

analyzing the competitiveness of companies.

In terms of unit of analysis, it should be noted that the separation between transnational

corporations, clusters, and companies with particular interests gives greater flexibility whenusing the model, since any size and/or configuration of company can be analyzed. Also, the

relationship of these units of analysis, across the chain, establishes a system to locate the specific

determinants for each operator.

Among the critical elements of the Porter model and basic to this model are: 1) the role of

governments, which Porter declares as an exogenous factor that is unaffected by the other

determinants. However, governments are constantly influenced by interest groups who ultimatelymotivate their policies. 2) In addition, the external/foreign sector is not mentioned explicitly by

the Porter model. Both government and external/foreign sectors are explicitly included in the

featured model. The government intervenes through meso-policies (specific policies to specific


11/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 42

sectors/industries) accepting the basic idea of the meso-level model by the German Institute for

Development. The external sector is included as an analytical separation between internaldeterminants of the domestic field and external determinants of the international field. The

relocation of other determinants by Porter's diamond: 1) related and supporting industries and

services, 2) firm structure, strategy and rivalry, and 3) demand conditions, are made according to

the methodological division between internal determinants and external determinants.

The analysis of clustervalue chain adjusts the different approaches of the value chain in an

eclectic model and it allows for ex ante and ex postanalysis of competitiveness of enterprises. Indeveloping countries, it is more likely that governments and agencies would motivate such

studies. By contrast, in developed countries companies are promoting these analyses themselves.

With the cluster - value chain analysis it is possible:

- To check the agents involved in the development of a product or service in the supply

chain.

- To identify public and private actors involved in the processes and their

interrelationships.- To compare the competitiveness of businesses within both the domestic and

international sphere.- To review the added value from every single agent within the chain.

- To discuss alternatives of collaboration among economic agents (e.g.: clusters, small-

scale enterprises, or small-scale enterprises to large companies).- To analyze the performance of companies at all stages both from the economic and, if

desired, from the social and environmental points of view.

The large amount of information required in developing the cluster - value chain modelmay be a point against its use, but once the firm or industry establishes its competitiveness at a

specific time, it may be easier to monitor variables as they change. This occurs because the

flexibility of the model can easily include any sector or company to assess their competitiveness.

REFERENCES

Altenburg, T., Hillebrand, W., & Meyer-Stamer, J. (1998).Building systemic Competitiveness.

concept and case studies from Mexico, Brazil, Paraguay, Korea and Thailand. Germany,

Berlin: German Development Institute.

Altenburg, T. (1999). How to promote clusters: Policy experiences from Latin America. WorldDevelopment, 27(9), 693-1713.

Ceglie, G., & Dini, M. (1999). SME cluster and network development in developing countries:

The experience of UNIDO. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna.

Chavarra, H., Seplveda, S., & Rojas, P. (2000). Competitividad de cadenas agroalimentarias:

Elementos conceptuales, IICA.


12/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 43

Cho, D., & Moon, H. (2000). From Adam Smith to Michael Porter. Evolution of competitiveness

theory. World Scientific Publishing.

Davis, J.H., & Goldberg, R. A. (1957).A concept of agribusiness, Boston: Harvard Business

School Division of Research.

Esser, K., Hillebrand, W., Messner, D., & Meyer-Stamer, J. (1996). Competitividad Sistmica:

nuevo desafo para las empresas y la poltica.Revista de la CEPAL, 59(8), 39-52.

Ezeala-Harrison, F. (1999). Theory and policy of international competitiveness. USA: Praeger

Publishers.

Ibaez, C., & Caro, J. (2001). Algunas Teoras e Instrumentos para el Anlisis de la

Competitividad. Cuaderno Tcnico No.16, IICA.

Institute for Management and Development - IMD. Several years. The World Competitiveness

Report, IMD, Switzerland

Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affair, (Special Issue), 3.

Mahmood, A., & Ezeala- Harrison, F. (2000). Comparative versus competitive advantage, and

competitiveness in developing countries, Socioeconomic Development in the 21st Century,International Institute for Development Studies, Calcutta, 241-256.

Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.

Meyer-Stamer, J. (1998). Clustering, systemic competitiveness and commodity chains: Shaping

competitive advantage at the local level in Santa Catarina/Brazil.International Workshop

Global Production and Local Jobs: New Perspectives on Enterprise Networks,

Employment and Local Development Policy, International Institute for Labour Studies,Geneva, 09-10 March.

Meyer-Stamer, J. (2001). Was ist Meso? Systemische Wettbewerbsfhigkeit: Analyseraster,Benchmarking-Tool und Handlungsrahmen.,INEF ProjektMeso NRW. Report 55, Institut fr

Entwicklung und Frieden an der Gerhard-Mercator-Universitt Duisburg.

Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan.

Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New

York: Free Press.

Porter, M. (2000). Clusters and the new economics of competition. In J. E. Garten World (Ed.),

Global view: Strategies for the new economy. Boston, Mass: A Harvard Business ReviewBook, 201-255.


13/13

ACR Vol.19 (3&4), 2011 44

Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. (2002). Multinational enterprises and clusters: An organizing

framework. Working Paper: University of Oxford, England.

Rugman, A., Moon C., & Verbeke, A. (1998). The generalized double diamond model. In D.

Cho & H. Moon (Eds.), From Adam Smith to Michael Porter. Evolution of competitiveness

theory. World Scientific Publishing.

Schmitz, H., & Nadvi, K. (1999). Clustering and industrialization: Introduction. World

Development, 27(9), 1509-1514.

United Nations for Cooperation and DevelopmentUNCTAD. (2009). Competitividad de la

Empresa. Retrieved September, 2009 fromhttp://www.unctad.org/templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=2530&mode=more&lang=3 .

Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle.

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190-207.

World Economic Forum-WEF. The global competitiveness report. Switzerland.

Jahir Lombana is a researcher in the Business School at the Universidad del Norte,

BarranquillaColombia.
http://www.unctad.org/templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=2530&mode=more&lang=3http://www.unctad.org/templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=2530&mode=more&lang=3http://www.unctad.org/templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=2530&mode=more&lang=3

2011 lombana - looking for a distinctive model with which to analyze competitiveness

Documents