| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
077670
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The failure of Japanese electronics firms to participate fully in the Internet-fueled growth of the global electronics industry during the late 1990s triggered a period of questioning among top executives. This article examines Japanese managerial responses to the organizational model "value chain modularity," which was deployed by the US electronics firms driving the creation of the Internet. While there were partial but significant steps taken in the direction of this new US model-increased specialization, outsourcing of low-end products, and shared factory investments in Japan -wholesale restructuring was resisted. This evidence is consistent with larger patterns of gradual institutional change in Japan . I argue that the result of this process will likely be increased, not diminished, institutional diversity over time. While globalization has accelerated the pace of change by opening new avenues for organizational experimentation and institutional layering, the drag on organizational change exerted by existing institutions slows the process enough to allow institutional and organizational innovations to develop into coherent systems with distinct characteristics. The result, inevitably, will be a uniquely Japanese approach to the challenges posed by globalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
102721
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For a sample of US stocks in the period 1998-1999, Cooper, Dimitrov, and Rau (2001) report dramatic value increases in the 10 days around the announcement of dotcom name changes. We find much smaller value changes for a sample of Chinese listed firms with changes to internet-related dotcom names for the 1998 to 2002 period. This result is surprising given the high proportion of retail trading in China and the prohibition to short sell Chinese stocks. Also in contrast to Cooper, Dimitrov, and Rau (2001), we find that most of the value increase for our sample firms is realized gradually prior to the announcement. Further investigation reveals that our sample firms experience more frequent CEO-turnover, significant increase in return-on-assets, and involve more restructure activities around the name change event. These results suggest that the value increases for firms with name changes are the consequence of substantial and successful operational changes, and that the name change is simply part of that process, instead of the cosmetic effects of name change or investor mania suggested by previous studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|