供应链合作价值创造中的交易成本经济学理论

交易成本的内涵应进行界定,即交易成本中应包含企业内部的组织成本.从交易成本经济学理论的角度研究发现,供应链合作价值主要来源于两个方面:第一,治理结构的合理安排有利于提高经济效率;第二,供应链合作有利于控制机会主义倾向.供应链合作价值创造的影响因素包括资产专用性、交易频率、不确定性、控制性、处罚机制和依赖性六种.这些因素可分为交易特征和关系特征两大类,据此可建立供应链合作价值创造的权变模型.     

资源视角下知识产权风险对合作创新绩效影响实证研究

从理论视角探讨了创新合作企业资源的专有性与依赖性,以及合作中的知识产权投入与流失风险。梳理了资源专有性与依赖性对知识产权风险的影响,及其作用于创新绩效的机理。最后,在构建模型的基础上,以272个创新型企业数据为样本进行了实证分析。研究发现,资源专有性与依赖性导致知识产权流失与投入风险,并最终影响合作创新绩效。     

企业合作与纵向一体化:文献回顾与综述

纵向一体化的分解与企业合作是当前经济活动中最为显著的现象。企业归核化过程中不断要求增加专用性投资,这与传统理论认为的因关系专用性投资带来事后准租的攫取而被迫进行一体化的说法背道而驰。自从科斯开创性地引入交易成本分析范式研究企业制度演变以来,学者们从不同角度探讨了企业间合作问题,包括资产专用性与纵向一体化的关系;反纵向一体化力量与跨组织合作;以及企业间的协调机制与治理模式。通过对上述文献的回顾,有助于解释企业不断增加专用性投资进行跨组织资源合作与纵向一体化解构并存的现象,有助于在实践中指导建立合适的企业间合作协调和治理机制。     

联盟绩效测量与关键成功要素文献述评

交易成本经济学和资源观是企业联盟研究的两大理论基础。交易成本经济学视角认为联盟企业可以通过选择有效的治理模式来降低交易成本,提升联盟绩效;资源观视角则强调联盟企业间互补资源的重要作用,研究了企业间相互依赖的资源禀赋以及有效的联盟过程管理对联盟的影响。文章认为两个视角的融合是未来研究的重要方向。     

集群企业的合作绩效提升路径实证研究——以中关村高科技集群企业为例

战略合作已经成为集群企业竞争优势的重要来源。结合联盟理论的研究成果，基于对中关村高科技产业集群中78家IT企业的问卷调查数据，本文实证研究了企业间资源依赖性和关系质量对战略合作绩效的影响。研究表明，（1）在影响因素上，资源依赖性与关系质量（包括信任、承诺和沟通）均对合作绩效有显著正的影响；（2）在影响机制上，关系质量作为中介变量影响资源，依赖性与合作绩效的关系。     

企业间合作技术创新模式选择研究

通过文献回顾总结了几种较为典型的影响企业间合作技术创新模式选择的因素,据此提出了研究假设,并于2010-2011年对103家企业进行了问卷调查,通过建立逐步回归模型,对资源因素、合作利益、技术能力与企业间合作技术创新模式选择间的影响关系进行了实证检验。在此基础上,讨论了不同合作动机对各影响因素与合作技术创新模式选择间关系的调节作用,得出若干结论与启示,为企业选择适合的合作模式,继而提升企业间合作技术创新绩效提供了理论和实践依据。     

解析龙头企业与农户合作关系的绩效差异

文章用4个案例反映了现实中龙头企业与农户之间存在不同的合作关系以及不同的关系绩效。根据交易成本理论、资源基础观和关系观,从合作关系本身对这种差异进行了分析。合作关系是一种混合治理结构,不同的合作关系应采取不同的治理机制,而不同的治理机制具有不同的价值创造功能（包括降低交易成本）,所以不同的合作关系必然存在绩效上的差异。文章对4个案例的对比分析,很好地支持了这一观点。     

高新技术企业多元合作研发模式选择

以资源基础理论、交易成本理论为基础,探讨了开放环境下企业不同合作研发模式对创新绩效的影响,以及知识和技术的中介作用与内部研发的调节作用。基于2014-2016年816家河北省高新技术企业数据的长短期对照检验结果表明：不同合作研发模式对创新绩效有不同影响,且无论长短期,境外合作的影响最强,产学、产政合作长期效应强,产研合作短期效应强;知识和技术起部分中介作用,内部研发正向调节产学、产政合作绩效,负向调节产研、境外合作绩效。研究结论对于高新技术企业选择研发战略具有重要意义。     

网络治理、四重维度与扩展的交易成本理论

本文论证网络治理不同于基于三重维度分析的混合治理，Williamson的三重维度应用于网络治理存在着结构性的缺陷。资源是企业间形成依赖的基础，而任务的导向性决定着企业利用依赖性资源的时机与组织方式，且任务复杂性的程度将从战略、目标和形式上影响合作的进程。引入任务复杂性，与不确定性、资产专用性与交易频率构成四重维度，形成扩展的交易成本理论。     

企业合作创新模式探究

合作创新是企业主体间实现资源共事、优势互补，分散风险、降低成本、缩短创新时间、调整产业结构、提高竞争力的一种选择。分别运用企业资源和能力理论、交易成本理论和产业组织理论，阐明了合作创新的理论依据，并将企业合作创新归纳为3种模式，即产学研合作创新模式、虚拟企业合作创新模式、战略联盟合作创新模式。最后针对我国企业合作创新的现状，提出了应采取的对策。     

Joint Venture for a New Product and Antitrust Exemptions

The present paper analyses different forms of organising a JV for the introduction of a new product. It is shown that under non contractible effort levels by the parent companies, a non cooperative solution, due to free-riding, is less desirable than one where firms cooperate not only at the R&D but also at the selling stage. Also, allowing firms to set up a production JV may be an alternative way to improve upon the fully non cooperative solution. An Antitrust authority should therefore consider the possible destructive effects on the JV results of prohibitions of inter-firm cooperation.     

Shared network investment

This paper discusses the case of inter-firm cost sharing in fixed-capital investment in business-related network. Such cooperation among individual firms differs in nature from the collusive conduct in pricing or production in the sense that decisions on short-term production remain independent. The model in this paper stylized a common network that reduces each member firm's variable cost of production. Firms benefit from pooling their investment in this network thanks to cost subadditivity of the investment. Different dues-assignment rules are found to affect firms' incentive in achieving collective efficiency.     

The Localisation Of Corporate Technological Trajectories In The Interwar Cartels: Cooperative Learning Versus An Exchange Of Knowledge

By itself, an exchange of knowledge between complementary activities is inadequate to bring the localised technological specialisation of firms closer together, but cooperative 1earning tends to like the technological profile of partner companies more closely cornplementary Interwar cartels in the electrical equipment industry were restricted to an exchange of knowledge at the corporate group level, but in chemicals they sometimes included cooperative Learning. US patent data for the interwar period arc used to construct a measure of the pattern of the localised technological trajectories of the largest US and European firms. Cartels had a limited impact on the overall level of research or the propensity to patent ar the corporate group level. hut cooperative learning made the technological trajectories of chemical firms more similar or closely complementry. Instend. electrical equipment firms became more localised in their learning, paths, by separating products while exchanging knowledge between activities that remained complementary. The findings are relevant to the study of current technological cooperation through inter-firm alliances.     

How does cooperative innovation affect innovation performance? Evidence from Chinese firms

This paper explores the impact of different cooperation networks upon their cooperative innovation effect (CIE) and innovation performance, and examined the relationship between the CIE and the innovation performance of firms. Some interesting findings appear. First, the findings indicate that there are significant and positive relationships between the seven cooperation networks and the CIE of firms, of which the internal cooperation network has the most significant and positive impact on their CIE. Second, the findings also reveal that there are significant and positive relationships between the six cooperation networks, except firm–government cooperation (FGC) and the innovation performance of firms. Third, contrary to some studies from developed countries, the results reveal that FGC does not demonstrate any significant impact on the innovation performance of firms. These results enrich and supplement the current understanding of the relationships between cooperation networks and innovation performance.     

Duopoly models with a joint capacity constraint

The paper proposes a two-stage mixed duopoly model of exhaustible resource market where at the first stage the government decides on the degree of privatization of public firm and at the second stage the public and private firms decide simultaneously on the two-period extraction paths. It is demonstrated that if the two firms have symmetric technologies with increasing marginal extraction costs and the same resource stocks, then neither full nationalization of any of the two firms nor full privatization will be socially desirable. It is shown that the presence of a semi-public firm improves intertemporal allocation of the fixed resource stock. Thus, partial privatization is optimal even under exogenously fixed total outputs of each firm. For asymmetric cost case, when the public firm is less efficient than the private firm, we derive the conditions under which full nationalization or full privatization is optimal.     

企业资源配置效率差异与企业边界变动

科斯指出企业和市场是两种不同的配置资源的制度安排,企业内的组织成本和企业间的交易成本决定了企业的边界。不同的企业,其资源配置效率存在着差异,这就决定了企业边界变动的动态性与复杂性。在临界点之前,企业资源配置效率与企业边界变动之间存在着互补性;突破临界点之后,企业边界变动会降低企业资源配置效率。以企业资源配置效率差异为切入点,可以将中间性组织的形成、企业纵向一体化以及企业垂直解体等纳入到一个统一的分析框架。     

农村合作组织的制度安排：一个基本框架

农村合作组织制度嵌入受到小农经济和村社文化的约束,农村合作组织的制度构架主要由产权制度、分配制度、治理结构制度以及责任制度等构成,农村合作组织的制度演进呈现农村经济合作联社一农民协会一专业合作一股份合作四个阶段,传统制度阴影、现有制度缺陷以及制度变迁成本较高成为农村合作组织的制度演进障碍,促进农村合作组织制度演进的主要措施有：加大对农村合作组织的制度供给的力度;走强制性和诱致性相结合的制度道路;营造制度环境并提供政府援助;以及通过体制创新,构建农村“2＋1”新模式;等等。     

Synergizing independent and cooperative R&D activities: the effects of organisational slack and absorptive capacity

Firms undertaking independent and cooperative research and development (R&D) activities simultaneously often have difficulties to realise their synergistic effects. This study contends that such difficulties are caused by tensions between two types of R&D activities in terms of resource competition and knowledge leakage. Moreover, organisational slack and absorptive capacity may affect these tensions and thereby play important role in synergizing independent and cooperative R&D activities. Based on a survey data of 286 firms, this study finds that such two types of R&D activities jointly have a negative impact on firm performance. Furthermore, organisational slack aids in synergizing them, while absorptive capacity has an adverse impact. These findings enrich our knowledge on the interrelation of independent and cooperative R&D activities and shed light on how firms can synergize them.     

Production and financial linkages in inter-firm networks: structural variety, risk-sharing and resilience

The paper analyzes how (production and financial) inter-firm networks can affect firms’ default probabilities and observed default rates. A simple theoretical model of shock transfer is built to investigate some stylized facts on how firm-idiosyncratic shocks are allocated in the network, and how this allocation changes firm default probabilities. The model shows that the network works as a perfect “risk-pooling” mechanism, when it is both strongly connected and symmetric. But the “risk-sharing” does not necessarily reduce default rates, unless the shock firms face is lower on average than their financial capacity. Conceived as cases of symmetric inter-firm networks, industrial districts might have a comparative disadvantage in front of heavy crises.     

Inter-firm trust in buyer–supplier relations: Are knowledge spillovers and geographical proximity relevant?

This paper empirically examines the impact of knowledge spillovers and geographical proximity on inter-firm trust in buyer–supplier relations. In particular, the effects of incoming knowledge spillovers from vertically related firms and firms’ appropriability problems are analyzed. The results suggest that there is a positive relationship between incoming knowledge spillovers from business partners and the level of inter-firm trust. Firms’ appropriability problems, however, lead to a decrease in inter-firm trust. Firms that cannot protect their technical knowledge have a greater perception of customer (supplier) opportunism. Furthermore, estimation results indicate that inter-firm trust between geographically close partners exceeds inter-firm trust between distant partners.