2002
DOI: 10.1080/10245290215047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shareholder Value, Management Culture and Production Regimes in the Transformation of the German Chemical-Pharmaceutical Industry

Abstract: One of the greatest points of controversy in the recent literature in political economy is the extent to which ''shareholder value'' oriented institutional investors are drivers of change in national systems of corporate governance. This article argues that the key question is how management cultures shape managerial responses to pressures for change from capital markets. Empirical evidence for this argument is provided through an examination of changes since the mid-1990s at the ''Big Three'' German integrate… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
13
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Competitive advantage is described in relation to business strategies and production niches described by variations in price, quantity and quality, for example, mass vs customized product market strategies (Herrigel & Wittke, 2005;Sorge, 1991). 8 Others frame competitive institutional advantage in terms of differences between incremental innovation and radical innovation strategies (Lehrer, 2000;O'Sullivan, 2000;Vitols, 2002). Despite some criticism of this dichotomous approach to patterns of innovation (Taylor, 2004), other related typologies and methods have produced encouraging empirical results (Boyer, 2004).…”
Section: Comparative Capitalism: Case-basedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Competitive advantage is described in relation to business strategies and production niches described by variations in price, quantity and quality, for example, mass vs customized product market strategies (Herrigel & Wittke, 2005;Sorge, 1991). 8 Others frame competitive institutional advantage in terms of differences between incremental innovation and radical innovation strategies (Lehrer, 2000;O'Sullivan, 2000;Vitols, 2002). Despite some criticism of this dichotomous approach to patterns of innovation (Taylor, 2004), other related typologies and methods have produced encouraging empirical results (Boyer, 2004).…”
Section: Comparative Capitalism: Case-basedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They propose that the institutions and complementarities present in coordinated market economies, such as Germany and Japan, favor industries featuring incremental innovation, while those in liberal market economies, such as the United States, support industries requiring radical innovation. While the empirical evidence on this specific proposition is mixed (Boyer, 2004;Hall & Soskice, 2001;Lehrer, 2000;O'Sullivan, 2000;Redding & Witt, 2007;Streeck, 1991;Taylor, 2004;Vitols, 2002;, the construct of institutional comparative advantage as such has taken hold.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Andererseits wird die Kontinuität der InsiderSysteme betont und hervorgehoben, dass etwa in Deutschland nur marginale Verände-rungen stattgefunden hätten (vgl. etwa AICGS 2004;Baum 2005;Goergen et al 2004;Jürgens 2002;Jürgens et al 2000;Vitols et al 1997Vitols et al , 2002 und dass die Konvergenz sich vor allem auf interne Kontrollmechanismen beschränke (Hopt/Leyens 2004). Daneben gibt es noch Ansätze, die hinsichtlich einer Klassifikation von Corporate Governance-Systemen multiple Dimensionen einführen -etwa Kapital, Arbeit und Management -und zeigen, dass sich jede Dimension als Kontinuum konzeptualisieren lasse (Jackson/Aguilera 2003), oder die den Wandel in Deutschland als einen langfristigen Prozess mit multiplen Determinanten und einem noch ungewissen Ausgang begreifen (Höpner 2003).…”
Section: Insider-und Outsidermodelle: Entwicklungstendenzen Der Corpounclassified
“…In diesem Konflikt wird exemplarisch die Transformation eines Insider-Modells der Corporate Governance im Sinne eines neuartigen Mischungsverhältnisses von politischer und marktlicher Unternehmenssteuerung sichtbar. Dieser Prozess kann als "Hybridisierung" im Sinne einer Dynamisierung institutioneller Komplementaritäten verstanden werden, in diesem Fall des Zusammenhangs von Eigentü-merstruktur und Unternehmenssteuerung (Höpner 2003;Vitols 1999Vitols , 2001Vitols , 2002Vitols , 2003. Das Konzept der Hybridisierung subsumiert verschiedene Formen institutionellen Wandels -die Ersetzung von Teilen bestehender Institutionen, institutionelle Schichtung und die funktionale Konversion von Institutionen -und ermöglicht damit ein erweitertes Verständnis pfadabhängiger institutioneller Entwicklung (vgl.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified