The Globalization of Markets: Is Convergence A Myth?

Abstract

The marketing literature still reflects Levitt

Horizons of decolonization in marketing: a proposal based on the critique of coloniality of the globalization of markets theory

“…Debates in marketing on the issue raised by Levitt, that consumer tastes in global markets are converging, argue that this is questionable given the cultural diversity that exists among peoples (Cunningham & Ferrell, 2015) or the fact that there are culturally sensitive products that would therefore be more difficult to standardize (S. Ramaparu et al, 1999). Even among developed nations, there would be a vast diversity in per capita consumption, which does not support the argument that tastes, and preferences are converging in global markets (Dixon & Sybrandy, 2015). Tedlow and Abdelal (2004, pp.…”

“…Although Levitt recognized his own exaggeration in the work, he expected his readers to use common sense on implementing his ideas (Levitt, 1983), this did not exempt him from criticism by other theorists in the field who questioned the applicability of the globalization of markets concept (Douglas & Wind, 1987;Kotler, 1986). His criticisms highlighted the fact that Levitt is opinionated in the article, without citing adequate sources or data to support his arguments (Dixon & Sybrandy, 2015). Thus, it is difficult to recognize where philosophy, politics, and reality begin or end (Boddewyn et al, 1986).…”

“…Companies that did not adhere to this way of thinking would then be in danger of being overtaken by rivals more committed to the standardization of operations and marketing (Levitt, 1983). This thinking both dominated the marketing literature (Dixon & Sybrandy, 2015) and guided the behavior of top managements of multinationals into adopting the market standardization strategy, since this would restore control to the headquarters in the countries of origin (Quelsh & Deshpande, 2004).…”

“…One of the reasons why the article is influential in marketing is because references to its theorization have been mentioned in several debates (e.g., Boddewyn, Soehl, & Picard, 1986;Cunningham & Ferrell, 2015;Dixon & Sybrandy, 2015;Douglas & Wind, 1987;Kotler, 1986;Tedlow & Abdelal, 2004). Such debates in marketing which contribute to the criticism and discussion of the globalization of markets start from the same epistemic framework and Eurocentric origin as that of Levitt´s, in a way that disregards its coloniality-a pertinent aspect regarding this theory initially developed by the author.…”

“…When marketing authors debate Levitt's theory they do so by pointing out: the lack of empirical data to support the presuppositions (Dixon & Sybrandy, 2015;Salles, 1993); the inconsistency of the plan to standardize operations and the marketing of international markets -as it would go against the discipline's ideals of meeting consumers' needs and desires (Tedlow & Abdelal, 2004); the possibility of large companies obtaining cost reduction through technological advances helping them set globally competitive prices, without it being done at the expense of product standardization (Douglas & Wind, 1987); and the heterogeneity of worldwide consumer tastes, given significant cultural differences (Cunningham & Ferrell, 2015;Kotler, 1986), among other reasons. However, the presence of coloniality in Levitt's theory, as pointed out here, is ignored in such debates.…”