Search Results

This chapter shows how multinational firms can use marketing-finance fusion to choose international strategies. It discusses the pros and cons of international diversification to privately and publicly held firms, whether or not the firm should choose country-specific product designs, how the firm should measure and reward the performances of its country managers, what type of organizational structure the firm should use, how the firm should choose an outsourcing strategy, and what performance metrics the firm should use to measure and reward managerial performance in its outsourcing centers.

This chapter examines the conditions under which the multiproduct firm should use market share as a metric for resource allocation. It distinguishes short- and long-run effects, analyze the effects of competition, and show how the discount rate affects the firm's revenue- and volume-based market shares. In particular, it shows how the firm can use marketing-finance fusion to choose the optimal performance metrics for managers so that they focus on maximizing long-run performance.

This chapter describes the rise of a challenger organization, called NPower, that took advantage of transformations in the Circuit Rider social movement to rise in prominence. NPower combined some of the Circuit Riders’ social values with market values of technology entrepreneurs into a hybrid organizational form: the social enterprise. The result attracted funding from for-profit companies such as Microsoft as well as other large for-profit technology firms. Materially, these resources allowed NPower to grow rapidly and eventually gain national prominence. Symbolically, the support of for-profit firms provided a different basis for moral legitimacy in the nonprofit technology assistance field, moving the account of worth away from the larger social good and into more narrowly defined economic goods, such as efficiency gains.

This chapter examines the case of a fuel retailer moving from product to category management. Under product management, the aim of retail operations was to cover fuel distribution costs. Store performance was broken down to the product level using metrics such as volume, sales, and profit margins. These indicators governed product assortment decisions, with high-performing suppliers being rewarded accordingly. Market research data showing that many customers did not buy fuel prompted a move to disentangle retail from fuel sales. Category managers became responsible for purchasing and marketing entire product categories. As a result, performance indicators that had previously been kept apart were combined casting a different light on performance. This change prompted a reorganization of the company, a reconfiguration of relationships with suppliers, and significantly changed the way the company represented and related to its retail markets.

Mainstream thinking about governance focuses on rule-making and directs attention to the challenges of developing rules, promulgating implementing regulations, and dealing with matters of compliance and enforcement. But this is not the only method for meeting needs for governance in complex systems. An alternative strategy centers of goal-setting and features the establishment of clearcut priorities, the allocation of resources to address these priorities, the development of effective teams with a mandate to pursue goals, and the introduction of metrics to measure progress toward goal fulfillment. While goal-setting is more familiar to those working at subnational and even local levels, cases like the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals indicate that this strategy is usable in largescale settings as well. In some cases (e.g. the regime created under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), rule-making and goal-setting are joined together in a single governance system. But goal-setting is a distinct governance strategy with a logic of its own. It makes sense in a variety of settings to compare and contrast the relative merits of goal-setting and other governance strategies in devising arrangements likely to prove effective in solving specific problems.

Mainstream thinking about governance focuses on rule-making and directs attention to the challenges of developing rules, promulgating implementing regulations, and dealing with matters of compliance and enforcement. But this is not the only method for meeting needs for governance in complex systems. An alternative strategy centers on goal-setting and features the establishment of clearcut priorities, the allocation of resources to address these priorities, the development of effective teams with a mandate to pursue goals, and the introduction of metrics to measure progress toward goal fulfillment. While goal-setting is more familiar to those working at subnational and even local levels, cases like the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals indicate that this strategy is usable in largescale settings as well. In some cases (e.g. the regime created under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), rule-making and goal-setting are joined together in a single governance system. But goal-setting is a distinct governance strategy with a logic of its own. It makes sense in a variety of settings to compare and contrast the relative merits of goal-setting and other governance strategies in devising arrangements likely to prove effective in solving specific problems.

The global economy has enjoyed more than a half-century of unprecedented economic growth and a growth ideology is firmly entrenched in advanced and developing countries alike. It is the axis for policy making and is buttressed by a wealth of theorizing and empirical research on the sources of growth and how these can be mobilized by dint of policy making and institution building. But with policy-makers now demanding growth that is sustainable, green, and inclusive, growth economics must enlarge the menu of practical policy options so as to: enable countries to increase capital investment embodying advances in (green) technology; improve education delivery in order to enhance the quality of human capital, increase employability, and arrive at equitable outcomes; and implement vital institutional reforms to yoke and temper market forces. Growth economics is in great demand but arguably overdue for a “scientific revolution” to accommodate new demands.