外文翻譯--資源與多元化類(lèi)型的聯(lián)系理論和證據(jù)（英文）

1、Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, 33-48 (I 991) THE LINK BETWEEN RESOURCES AND TYPE OF DIVERSIFICATION: THEORY AND EVIDENCE SAYAN CHATTERJEE Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Clev

2、eland, Ohio, U.S.A. 8 1RG El? WER N E R FE LT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U. S. A. In this paper we theoreticully arid rrnpiricully itivestigmte t

3、he idea that firnis diversify in part to irtilire prodirctive resources which are sirrplirs to cirrrent operutions. Knowledge of these resources allows 11s to rnuke predictions uboirt the direction of u firm’s expansio

4、n. In particirlur, we suggest that excess physicul resoirrces, niost knowledge-based resources. und externul firianciiil resources ure ussociuted with rmre reluted diversif cution, while ititernul finunciul resoirrces

5、 ure ussociuted with inore wireluted diversificutiori. Perhaps the research question that has attracted the most attention in the strategic management discipline is the possible association between firm diversificatio

6、n and performance. While there are many studies which have supported Rumelt’s (1974) original finding that related diversified firms perform better than those that are unrelated (Montgomery, 1979; Bettis, 1981; Rumel

7、t, 1982; Palepu, 1985; Varadarajan, 1986; Varadarajan and Ramanujam, 1987; Jose, Nichols, and Stev- ens, 1986; Lubatkin and Rogers, 1989) there is a growing number that find the opposite (Michel and Shaked, 1984; Ra

8、jagopalan and Harrigan, 1986; Elgers and Clark, 1980; Chatterjee, 1986) or are indifferent (Lubatkin, 1987). This lack of consistent support for the relatedness hypothesis raises a question. Is unrelated diversificat

9、ion the better choice in specific instances, even though on average it seems to be inferior to related diversification? To illustrate, Montgomery (1979) found that related diversifiers operate within high-profit ind

10、ustries. This could be because the same firms are better at diversification strategy as well as industry selection, or it could be because some underlying factors allow them to enter these industries and make related

11、 diversification their best strategy. If it can be shown that, under specific situations, unrelated diversification can also create value, then we will have taken the first step to explaining some of the apparent inc

12、onsistencies in the literature. To the best of our knowledge there are no studies that have tried to answer this question.’ It may well be that firms are indifferent to the type (related or unrelated) of diversificat

13、ion. However, if we can identify systematic factors that influence the type of markets entered, this will be an important finding. For example, the relatedness hypothesis would need to be modified if it can be shown

14、 that both related and unrelated diversification can be justified depending upon certain ex-ante factors specific to individual firms. This paper builds a theoretical foundation to identify systematic factors that in

15、fluence the type of diversification, and empirically examines the validity of these factors to explain the type of diversification undertaken by a diverse group of firms between 1981 and 1985. This paper demonstrate

16、s that the resource profile of the I Chattcrjee and Wernerfelt (1988) do link resources t o the type o f entered market. However, they do not control for other factors that can affect thc decision to enter certain t

17、ypes of markets, nor do they draw the link between the selection of type of markct and performance. These itre the major extensions made in this paper over the Chatterjee and Wernerfelt (1988) study. 01 43-2095/91/01

18、0033- 16$08.00 0 1991 by John Wiley Carleton, Harris, and Stewart, 1984; Lecraw, 1984; and Lemelin, 1982) which are related to their core markets (Bettis, 1981; Caves, Porter, Spence, and Scott, 1980). Taken toget

19、her these studies suggest the testable hypothesis that intangible assets are used to enter related markets where they are most likely to generate a competitive advantage. In sum, we expect high levels of intangible

20、assets to encourage related diversification. H2: related diversification. Presence of intangible assets will lead to Financial resources Financial resources in general are the most flexible of all resources because t

21、hey can be used to buy all other types of productive resources. To arrive at hypotheses about how financial resources will be used we will break them up into two classes. The first class, internal funds, consists of

22、 liquidity at hand and unused debt capacity to borrow at normal rates. The second class, external funds, consists of new equity and possibly high-risk debts (such as junk bonds). Several theories suggest that lower l