Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by AMSDEN, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by HIKINO, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1994 Oxford University Press

research-article

Project Execution Capability, Organizational Know-how and Conglomerate Corporate Growth in Late Industrialization

ALICE H. AMSDEN and TAKASHI HIKINOa

MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
aHarvard Business School USA

Abstract

In many successful late-industrializing countries in the 20th century, business groups with operating units in technologically unrelated industries have acted as the microeco-nomic agent of growth. This paper explores why this business form has characterized countries which industrialized ‘late’, and why this form succeeded in the early phases of catching up whereas the advanced-country conglomerate has had an undistinguished performance. The paper uses internal resource-base theories of the firm to explore the significance of organizational knowledge and resulting increasing returns in the group form which, even in mature markets and especially in late industrialization, constitute a sustainable source of competitiveness. In the case of late industrialization foreign technology acquisition capability became a necessary condition for corporate success. In the best diversified business groups this capability was transformed into organizational know how that provided a key resource in the effectiveness of corporate growth through diversification. The first two parts of the paper briefly survey diversified industrial groups in historical contexts and then across a broad array of late-industrializing countries. Then the paper considers why diversification was not prevalent among firms attempting to catch up in earlier historical periods, why the strategy of leading late industrializing firms was one of diversification rather than specialization and why their chosen diversification path was one involving technologist colly unrelated industries. This is followed by the core argument of the paper about the transformation of technology acquisition into a competitive asset and illustrated with evidence from South Korea. Finally, the paper analyzes why the behavior of the late industrializing group differs from that of the American conglomerate.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Organization StudiesHome page
C.-N. Chung
Beyond Guanxi: Network Contingencies in Taiwanese Business Groups
Organization Studies, April 1, 2006; 27(4): 461 - 489.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
International SociologyHome page
G. G. Hamilton, R. Feenstra, W. Choe, C. K. Kim, and E. M. Lim
Neither States Nor Markets: The Role of Economic Organization in Asian Development
International Sociology, June 1, 2000; 15(2): 288 - 305.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.