The Scope and Limits of a Public–Private Hybrid: Dispute Settlement under NAFTA Chapter 19

Globalisation is often depicted as having led to an increase in private authority at the expense of that of the state. It is important to correctly specify the scope that private authority has achieved and the capacity of states to push back and limit that authority. This article grounds these theoretical issues in a discussion of the hybrid, public–private dispute settlement mechanism set up in the original Canada–US Free Trade Agreement (CUSTFA), and later extended into Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It finds that privatising the enforcement process did make a difference. Trade experts on panels saw things differently to judges and in ways that were more sympathetic to exporters. This favoured Canadian and Mexican interests. However, the arrangement lacked deep roots. It was a late-stage compromise in trade negotiations. This rendered it vulnerable to a US counterattack once panels began to rule in favour of Canadian and Mexican challenges to US trade determinations. The transfer of quasi-judicial authority to a public–private hybrid proved contingent, partly on the hegemonic state's ongoing level of comfort with the arrangement, as well as on a lack of business consensus within the United States.     

Why “service”?

“Service-dominant logic” appears to have found resonance in the marketing community since its introduction as the evolving, “new dominant logic” in the Journal of Marketing (Vargo and Lusch 2004a, Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17 (January)). But, on occasion, so has the question of whether the concept “service” captures the essence of the new logic. This article addresses the role of “service” as the heart of value-creation, exchange, markets, and marketing, as well as its considerable implications for research, practice, societal well-being, and public policy. The purposes are both to clarify the issues and to foster the continuing dialog around the service-dominant logic for marketing, as well as for other disciplines.     

When do incentives work in channels of distribution?

The incentive dilemma refers to a situation in which incentives are offered but do not work as intended. The authors suggest that, in an interorganizational context, whether a principal-provided incentive works is a function of how it is evaluated by an agent: for its contribution to the agent’s bottom line (instrumental evaluation) and for the extent it is strategically aligned with the agent’s direction (congruence evaluation). To further understand when incentives work, the influence of two key contextual variables—industry volatility and dependence—are examined. A field study featuring 57 semi-structured depth interviews and 386 responses from twin surveys in the information technology and brewing industries provide data for hypothesis testing. When and whether incentives work is demonstrated by certain conditions under which the agent’s evaluation of an incentive has positive or negative effects on its compliance and active representation. Further, some outcomes are reversed in the high volatility condition.     

Technology infusion in service encounters

Service encounters are critical in all industries, including those that have not been traditionally defined as service industries. The increasing deployment of technology is altering the essence of service encounters formerly anchored in a “low-tech, high-touch” paradigm. This article explores the changing nature of service, with an emphasis on how encounters can be improved through the effective use of technology. The authors examine the ability of technology to effectively (1) customize service offerings, (2) recover from service failure, and (3) spontaneously delight customers. The infusion of technology is examined as an enabler of both employees and customers in efforts to achieve these three goals. Although the infusion of technology can lead to negative outcomes and may not be embraced by all customers, the focus of this article is on the benefits of thoughtfully managed and effectively implemented technology applications. Past research and industry examples are featured and future research directions and managerial implications are highlighted. Mary Jo Bitner is the AT&T Professor of Services Marketing and Management and the research director of the Center for Services Marketing & Management at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on customer evaluations of service, selfservice technologies, and service delivery issues. She has published in theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, theJournal of Business Research, theJournal of Retailing, and theInternational Journal of Service Industry Management. She is coauthor of the textServices Marketing (McGraw-Hill, 2d ed., 2000). Stephen W. Brown holds the Edward M. Carson Chair of Services Marketing and Management, is Professor of Marketing, and director of the Center for Services Marketing & Management at Arizona State University. His research focuses on services marketing strategy, service delivery, customer loyalty, and service recovery. He has published in theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of Marketing Research, theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, theJournal of Business Research, and theJournal of Retailing. He is the coeditor of theAdvances in Services Marketing and Management series. Matthew L. Meuter is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Villanova University with a Ph.D. in marketing from Arizona State University. His research interests focus on the impact technology has on the marketing function, the changing nature of technologically based service encounters, customer satisfaction with self-service technologies, and customer adoption of technologically based service delivery innovations. His research has been published in the American Marketing Association's (AMA)Educators' Proceedings and has been presented at several national conferences.