Reconciling Contracts and Relational Governance through Strategic Contracting

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: In an industrial marketing context of manufacturer–distributor collaboration, this law and economics paper aims to contrast two approaches to contracting: conventional and strategic.
Design/methodology/approach: Based on relational rent theory, this paper provides an analytical framework for juxtaposing conventional and strategic contracting. A contingency approach is applied to formulate propositions as to when conventional versus strategic contracting is preferable.
Findings: The distinction between conventional and strategic contracting has implications as to whether relational governance substitutes or complements formal contracts (the substitution versus complements perspectives). Strategic contracting results in complementarity (rather than substitutability) between formal contracts and relational governance.
Research limitations/implications: This paper argues that a more nuanced view on contract types, such as strategic versus conventional, may reconcile the enduring research controversy between the substitution and complements perspectives.
Practical implications: Today, formal contracts with foreign distributors tend to resemble “prenuptial agreements”. The opportunity for relational rent (e.g. manifested in higher export revenues) grows if conventional contracts are superseded by contracts following strategic contracting principles.
Originality/value: This study is interdisciplinary, not only by its combination of marketing, management and contractual economics but also through its law and economics amalgamation.
Purpose: In an industrial marketing context of manufacturer–distributor collaboration, this law and economics paper aims to contrast two approaches to contracting: conventional and strategic.
Design/methodology/approach: Based on relational rent theory, this paper provides an analytical framework for juxtaposing conventional and strategic contracting. A contingency approach is applied to formulate propositions as to when conventional versus strategic contracting is preferable.
Findings: The distinction between conventional and strategic contracting has implications as to whether relational governance substitutes or complements formal contracts (the substitution versus complements perspectives). Strategic contracting results in complementarity (rather than substitutability) between formal contracts and relational governance.
Research limitations/implications: This paper argues that a more nuanced view on contract types, such as strategic versus conventional, may reconcile the enduring research controversy between the substitution and complements perspectives.
Practical implications: Today, formal contracts with foreign distributors tend to resemble “prenuptial agreements”. The opportunity for relational rent (e.g. manifested in higher export revenues) grows if conventional contracts are superseded by contracts following strategic contracting principles.
Originality/value: This study is interdisciplinary, not only by its combination of marketing, management and contractual economics but also through its law and economics amalgamation.
LanguageEnglish
JournalJournal of Business and Industrial Marketing
Volume33
Issue number3
Pages265-276
Number of pages12
ISSN0885-8624
DOIs
StatePublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Strategic management
  • Governance
  • Partnering
  • Intermediaries
  • Business-to-business marketing
  • Contracts

Cite this

@article{aabd40340b3a4eb0a6636b7cdefc1e78,
title = "Reconciling Contracts and Relational Governance through Strategic Contracting",
abstract = "Purpose: In an industrial marketing context of manufacturer–distributor collaboration, this law and economics paper aims to contrast two approaches to contracting: conventional and strategic.Design/methodology/approach: Based on relational rent theory, this paper provides an analytical framework for juxtaposing conventional and strategic contracting. A contingency approach is applied to formulate propositions as to when conventional versus strategic contracting is preferable.Findings: The distinction between conventional and strategic contracting has implications as to whether relational governance substitutes or complements formal contracts (the substitution versus complements perspectives). Strategic contracting results in complementarity (rather than substitutability) between formal contracts and relational governance.Research limitations/implications: This paper argues that a more nuanced view on contract types, such as strategic versus conventional, may reconcile the enduring research controversy between the substitution and complements perspectives.Practical implications: Today, formal contracts with foreign distributors tend to resemble “prenuptial agreements”. The opportunity for relational rent (e.g. manifested in higher export revenues) grows if conventional contracts are superseded by contracts following strategic contracting principles.Originality/value: This study is interdisciplinary, not only by its combination of marketing, management and contractual economics but also through its law and economics amalgamation.",
keywords = "Strategic management, Governance, Partnering, Intermediaries, Business-to-business marketing, Contracts, Strategic management, Governance, Partnering, Intermediaries, Business-to-business marketing, Contracts",
author = "Bent Petersen and Kim {\O}stergaard",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1108/JBIM-09-2016-0223",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "265--276",
journal = "Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing",
issn = "0885-8624",
publisher = "JAI Press",
number = "3",

}

Reconciling Contracts and Relational Governance through Strategic Contracting. / Petersen, Bent; Østergaard, Kim.

In: Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2018, p. 265-276.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reconciling Contracts and Relational Governance through Strategic Contracting

AU - Petersen,Bent

AU - Østergaard,Kim

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Purpose: In an industrial marketing context of manufacturer–distributor collaboration, this law and economics paper aims to contrast two approaches to contracting: conventional and strategic.Design/methodology/approach: Based on relational rent theory, this paper provides an analytical framework for juxtaposing conventional and strategic contracting. A contingency approach is applied to formulate propositions as to when conventional versus strategic contracting is preferable.Findings: The distinction between conventional and strategic contracting has implications as to whether relational governance substitutes or complements formal contracts (the substitution versus complements perspectives). Strategic contracting results in complementarity (rather than substitutability) between formal contracts and relational governance.Research limitations/implications: This paper argues that a more nuanced view on contract types, such as strategic versus conventional, may reconcile the enduring research controversy between the substitution and complements perspectives.Practical implications: Today, formal contracts with foreign distributors tend to resemble “prenuptial agreements”. The opportunity for relational rent (e.g. manifested in higher export revenues) grows if conventional contracts are superseded by contracts following strategic contracting principles.Originality/value: This study is interdisciplinary, not only by its combination of marketing, management and contractual economics but also through its law and economics amalgamation.

AB - Purpose: In an industrial marketing context of manufacturer–distributor collaboration, this law and economics paper aims to contrast two approaches to contracting: conventional and strategic.Design/methodology/approach: Based on relational rent theory, this paper provides an analytical framework for juxtaposing conventional and strategic contracting. A contingency approach is applied to formulate propositions as to when conventional versus strategic contracting is preferable.Findings: The distinction between conventional and strategic contracting has implications as to whether relational governance substitutes or complements formal contracts (the substitution versus complements perspectives). Strategic contracting results in complementarity (rather than substitutability) between formal contracts and relational governance.Research limitations/implications: This paper argues that a more nuanced view on contract types, such as strategic versus conventional, may reconcile the enduring research controversy between the substitution and complements perspectives.Practical implications: Today, formal contracts with foreign distributors tend to resemble “prenuptial agreements”. The opportunity for relational rent (e.g. manifested in higher export revenues) grows if conventional contracts are superseded by contracts following strategic contracting principles.Originality/value: This study is interdisciplinary, not only by its combination of marketing, management and contractual economics but also through its law and economics amalgamation.

KW - Strategic management

KW - Governance

KW - Partnering

KW - Intermediaries

KW - Business-to-business marketing

KW - Contracts

KW - Strategic management

KW - Governance

KW - Partnering

KW - Intermediaries

KW - Business-to-business marketing

KW - Contracts

U2 - 10.1108/JBIM-09-2016-0223

DO - 10.1108/JBIM-09-2016-0223

M3 - Journal article

VL - 33

SP - 265

EP - 276

JO - Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing

T2 - Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing

JF - Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing

SN - 0885-8624

IS - 3

ER -