"network forms of organization - typified by reciprocal patterns of communication and exchange - represent a viable pattern of economic organization.
…
Pre-existing networks of relationships enable small firms to gain an established foothold almost overnight. These networks serve as conduits to provide small firms with the capacity to meet resource and functional needs.
…
I have a good deal of sympathy regarding the view the economic exchange is embedded in a particular social structural context. Yet it is also the case that certain forms of exchange are more social - this is, more dependent on relationships, mutual interest enter, and reputation - as well as less guided by a formal structure of authority. My aim is to identify a coherent set of factors the make it meaningful to talk about networks as a distinctive form of coordinating economic activity.
…
When the items exchanged between buyers and sellers processed qualities that are not easily measured, and the relations are so long-term and recurrent that it is difficult to speak of the parties as separate entities, can we still regard is as a market exchange? When the entangling of obligation and reputation reaches a point that he actions of the parties are interdependent, but there is no common ownership or legal framework, do we not need a new conceptual toolkit to describe and analyze this relationship?
…
Network forms of exchange, however, entail indefinite, sequential transactions within the context of a general pattern of interaction. Sanctions are typically normative rather than legal.
…
In networks, the preferred option is often one of creating indebtedness and reliance over the long haul. Each approach does devalues the other: prosperous market traders would be viewed as petty and untrustworthy shysters in networks, while successful participants in networks who carried those practices into competitive markets would be viewed as naïve and foolish. Within hierarchies, communication and exchange is shaped by concerns with career mobility - in this sense, exchange is bound up with considerations of personal advancement.
…
Networks are “lighter on their feet” than hierarchies. In network modes of resource allocation, transactions occur neither through discrete exchanges nor by administrative fiat, but through networks of individuals engaged in reciprocal, preferential, mutually supportive actions. Networks can be complex: they involve neither the explicit criteria on the market, nor the familiar paternalism of the hierarchy, basic assumption of network relationships is that one party is dependent on the resources controlled by another, and that there are gains to be had by the pooling of resources. In essence, the parties to a network agreed to forego the right to pursue their own interests at the expense of others.
.
In networks forms of resource allocation, individual units exist not by themselves, but in relation to other units. These relationships to establish and sustain, thus they constrain both parters ability to adapt to changing circumstances. As networks evolve, it becomes more economically sensible to exercise voice rather than exit. Benefits and burdens come to be shared. Expectations are not frozen, but change as circumstances dictate. A mutual orientation - knowledge which the parties assume each has about the other and upon which day draw in communication and problem solving - is established. In short, complementarity and accommodation are the cornerstones of successful production networks. … the “entangling strings” of reputation, friendship, interdependence, and altruism become integral parts of the relationship.
.
Networks are particularly apt for circumstances in which there is a need for efficient, reliable information. The most useful information is rarely that which flows down the formal chain of command in an organization, or that which can be inferred from shifting price signals. Rather, it is that which is obtained from someone whom you have dealt with in the past found to be a reliable. You trust best information that comes from someone you know well. … information passed through networks is “thicker” [Moi ici: Como não associar este "thicker" ao densificar das relações em Normann] than information obtained in the market, and “freer” than communicated in a hierarchy. Networks, then, are especially useful for the exchange of commodities whose value is not easily measured. Such qualitative matters as know how, technological capability, a particular approach or style of production, a spirit of innovation or experimentation, or a philosophy of zero defects are very hard to place a price tag on. They are not easily traded in markets nor communicated through a corporate hierarchy. The open-ended, relational features of networks, with their relative absence of explicit quid pro quo behavior, greatly enhance the ability to transmit and learn new knowledge and skills."
"Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization" de Walter Powell, publicado por Research in Organizational Behavior, Janeiro de 1990.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário