Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genesis of a research field: district, network, strategic network

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article summarizes the changes since the beginning of the 1980s in the scholarly approach to organizational and economic research on Italian firms. Beginning with the study of industrial districts, which sparked a major reconsideration of the conventional wisdom, most scholars focused primarily on the significance of firm geographical proximity while marginalizing issues related to firm structure and strategy. Nevertheless, industrial district research eventually led to the question of firm networks, in particular how to manage relational capabilities and cooperation, both of which affect a firm’s competitive position. This new analytical framework no longer dependent on either the single firm or an industrial sector has opened up new research perspectives that promise rich insights into socio-economic studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 419–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie: la problematica territoriale dello sviluppo. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becattini, G. (1979). Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull’unità di indagine dell’economia industriale. Rivista di Economia e Politica Industriale, 1.

  • Berger, S. (2006). How we compete. What companies around the world are doing to make it in today’s global economy. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, M. (1990). The new competition: Institutions of industrial restructuring. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusco, S. (1975). Organizzazione del lavoro e decentramento produttivo nel settore metalmeccanico. In F. L. M. Bergamo (Ed.), Sindacato e piccola impresa: Strategia del capitale e azione sindacale nel decentramento produttivo (pp. 8–67). Bari: De Donato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo, A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 585–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesborough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y. L., Olk, P. M., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia: which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 553–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G. (1981). The quasifirm in the construction industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2(4), 335–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnsey, E., Lorenzoni, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-off: The Acorn-ARM story. Research Policy, 37(2), 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organization Science, 16(6), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., et al. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Lipparini, A., Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic network capabilities: Microfoundations and managerial implications. Working paper, Tuck School, Dartmonth, June 2010

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: Co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., Nonaka, I., & Takeuci, B. (1985). Managing the new product development process: how Japanese companies learn and unlearn. In K. C. R. Hayes & C. Lawrence (Eds.), The uneasy alliance. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (2001). Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 981–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazerson, M. (1988). Organizational growth of small firms: An outcome of markets and hierarchies? American Sociological review, 53(3), 330–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, G. (1979). Una politica innovativa nelle piccole medie imprese. Milan: Etas Libri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, G. (1983). From vertical integration to vertical disintegration. Paper presented at Strategic Management Society Conference, Montreal.

  • Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners. California Management Review, 37(3), 146–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, G., & Ornati, O. (1988). Constellations of firms and new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 295–336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (2005). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 148–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6), 898–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeishi, A. (2001). Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Zajac, E. J. (2007). Alliance or acquisition? A dyadic perspective on interfirm resource combinations. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1291–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The exchange rate system. Policy analyses in international economics. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, M., & Hennart, J. F. (2002). From learning races to cooperative specialization: towards a new framework for alliance management. In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies and alliances (pp. 189–210). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the contributions provided by Mark Lazerson and Andrea Lipparini.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Department, University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca 24, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Gianni Lorenzoni

Authors
  1. Gianni Lorenzoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianni Lorenzoni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lorenzoni, G. Genesis of a research field: district, network, strategic network. J Manag Gov 14, 221–239 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9151-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9151-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation