英语论文网

ding relationships are means of safeguarding specific assets in interorganizational relationships. Both scholars have noted also that when successfully safeguarded, such assets could enhance the agencies' financial performance. Besides, the transaction costs approach attempts to explain how the efficient form of relationships changes with the present level of specific assets. [66]

 

5.3.1 Safeguarding the specific assets from dependence

 

The fundamental concern of transaction cost analysis is to develop satisfactory safeguards to prevent the expropriation of the specific assets through hazards of opportunism. [67] A kind of protection of specific assets against opportunistic behavior could be the vertical integration. Haide und John (1988) claim that vertical integration could protect specific assets through monitoring capabilities, more sensitive reward structures, and reduction of the opportunistic party's ability to profit from such behavior. [68]

 

Another way to safeguard simple transactions, when asset specificity is low, is a classical contract. The more asset specificity increases, the more complex contract must the transactors attempt to write. The more complex contract contains contingency clauses, which makes equitable the adjustment to the market changes. [69]

 

5.3.2 Specific assets as a safeguard from dependence

 

Transaction cost theory refers that transaction-specific assets are useful in strengthening the relationship between actors in strategic alliances by weakening the opportunities of pursuing other alternatives or separating the members of the interorganizational relationships. [70] Investing in specific assets increases the strategic alliance termination costs. Hence, transaction-specific assets are substitutes for trust and incentives for both actors in a relationship to act non-opportunistically. Other scholars have confirmed that asset specificity effects positive on trust between the members of an interorganizational relationship. [71] Young-Ybarra and Wiersema (1999) have claimed that a partner’s specific asset investment serve as an indicator of the expectation of continuity of the relationship. [72] The reason is that specific assets are created or purchased for a particular strategic purpose and their transfer to other functions is hardly likely to be easy, so they may lose values upon transfer. [73]

 

Asset specificity - on the base of transaction cost theory, 'specific assets are those whose value is less if switched to alternative transactions and consequently whose value is not fully salvageable if the relation breaks down”. [74] Hence, intangible asset specificity should prove to be much more significant for the strategic flexibility of the alliance. Therefore, due to their investments in the alliance, it might be in firms' best interest to continue the relationship. [75]

沪ICP备10026080号-1

   Europe （24-hours）
   EN：18321957152
   china （24-hours）
   CN：18321957152

    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041