Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inter-and Intra-industry

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management

  • 38 Accesses

Abstract

What better explains firm profitability: Position within an industry or industry membership? Intra-industry performance heterogeneity indicates the importance of unique business strategies. Inter-industry performance heterogeneity indicates the importance of industry structure to firm performance. Both are important. Yet, it appears that firm position matters to performance heterogeneity more than industry membership. Recent work shows the importance of corporate ownership and nationality.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amel, D., and L. Froeb. 1991. Do firms differ much? Journal of Industrial Economics 39: 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J.S. 1949. A note on pricing in monopoly and oligopoly. American Economic Review 39: 448–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J.S. 1950. Workable competition in oligopoly. American Economic Review 40: 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J.S. 1951. Relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American manufacturing, 1936–1940. Quarterly Journal of Economics 65: 293–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bou, J.C., and A. Satorra. 2007. The persistence of abnormal returns at industry and firm levels: Evidence from Spain. Strategic Management Journal 28: 707–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bou, J.C., and A. Satorra. 2010. A multigroup structural equation approach: A demonstration by testing variation of firm profitability across EU samples. Organizational Research Methods 13: 738–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E.H., and C.E. Helfat. 2001. Does corporate strategy matter? Strategic Management Journal 22: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brozen, Y. 1970. The antitrust task force deconcentration recommendation. Journal of Law and Economics 13: 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brozen, Y. 1971a. Bain’s concentration and rates of return revisited. Journal of Law and Economics 14: 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brozen, Y. 1971b. Concentration and structural and market disequilibria. Antitrust Bulletin 16: 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T.H., and P. Bromiley. 1997. What does a small corporate effect mean? A variance components simulation of corporate and business effects. Strategic Management Journal 18: 825–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T.H., P. Bromiley, and M. Hendrickx. 1999. The relative influence of industry and corporation on business segment performance: An alternative estimate. Strategic Management Journal 20: 519–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greckhamer, T., V.F. Misangyi, H. Elms, and R. Lacey. 2008. Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods 11: 695–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G.S., and B. Wernerfelt. 1989. Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal 10: 399–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, B. 2006. Business segment performance redux: A multilevel approach. Strategic Management Journal 27: 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancke, R.B. 1974. Causes of interfirm profitability differences: A new interpretation of the evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 88: 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, E.S. 1939. Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Review 29: 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, E.S. 1949. The current status of the monopoly problem in the United States. Harvard Law Review 62: 1265–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A.M., and M.E. Porter. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal 18: 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A.M., and M.E. Porter. 1999. The persistence of shocks to profitability. Review of Economics and Statistics 81: 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misangyi, V.F., H. Elms, T. Greckhamer, and J. LePine. 2006. A new perspective on a fundamental debate: A multi-level approach to industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Strategic Management Journal 27: 571–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, C.A., and B. Wernerfelt. 1991. Sources of superior performance: Market share versus industry effects in the US brewing industry. Management Science 37: 954–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D.C. 1977. The persistence of profits above the norm. Economica 44: 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruefli, T.W., and R.R. Wiggins. 2003. Industry, corporate, and segment effects and business performance: A nonparametric approach. Strategic Management Journal 24: 861–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R.P. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal 12: 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee, R. 1985. Do markets differ much? American Economic Review 75: 341–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J.C., D.J. Ketchen, N. Bennett, and M. Du Toit. 2006. An examination of firm, industry, and time effects on performance using random coefficient modeling. Organizational Research Methods 9: 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B., and C.A. Montgomery. 1988. Tobin’s q and the importance of focus in firm performance. American Economic Review 78: 246–250.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University Dominguez Hills, Department of Management, College of Business Administration and Public Policy, Carson, CA, USA

    David G. Hoopes

Authors
  1. David G. Hoopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David G. Hoopes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. GSBPP, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA

    Mie Augier

  2. Berkeley Research Group, LLC, Emeryville, CA, USA

    David J. Teece

  3. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    David J. Teece

Copyright information

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Hoopes, D.G. (2018). Inter-and Intra-industry. In: Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_727

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation