Internationalization Strategies Revisited: Main Models and Approaches

Introduction

The growing trend towards globalisation of markets modifies the way companies are organised and operate by impelling them to consider the development of their strategy on a global scale. To achieve this, the company will have to undergo an internationalisation process that may occur in several ways which implies changes at the company’s internal organisation level and requires a thorough knowledge of the market’s functioning (Freeman and Cavusgil, 2007; Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2004; Clark et al., 1997). Knowledge must soon begin to be developed in the country of origin, so that it can later be used to overcome the difficulties that may arise (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2011), in the search for new markets (Câmara and Simões, 2007).

In this context, it is intended from a broad literature review to systematise the research and characterise the main theoretical approaches and the main internationalisation models (IM) used by companies in this process.

Although the literature highlights some of the IM approaches (Oyson and Whittaker, 2010); namely the U-Model and the I-Model for their explanatory value and repeated empirical validation (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1991), we assume that there is no standard internationalisation model. Therefore, each company is given the possibility of adopting the IM that best reflects its capabilities and needs.

Considering this assumption and the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of the companies, with this work, we expect to contribute to the research by presenting a systematisation that can be used by other researchers who wish to develop empirical studies on this subject

In structural terms, after this brief introduction, the concept of internationalisation is addressed. The following section presents the main theories used in research on the internationalisation process. In section 4, the different IMs are presented and characterised. Finally, the conclusions are drawn and lines for future research are suggested.

The Internationalisation

There have been many definitions of internationalisation presented in the literature, most of them underpinning the company’s strategic orientation. The internationalisation of a company consists in the extension of its strategies of products-markets to other countries, from which a total or partial replica of its operational chain results (Freire, 1997). The company increases its level of activities outside the country of origin (Meyer, 1996) by adapting its operations (strategy, structure, resources) to international environments (Calof and Beamish, 1995). This involvement is based on dimensions such as market, product, time and performance (Welch and Luostarinen, 1988; Ruzzier et al., 2006).

Nevertheless, internationalisation cannot be seen only as a process of “increasing progression”, it must also be seen as contemplating some setbacks. Ultimately, the company may choose to “de-internationalise”. It can stop working a product, or give up foreign direct investment, and instead refocus on export, reducing or even ceasing its international activities (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2001).

Analysing the different definitions of internationalisation, Simões (1997) notes that these are essentially based on two dichotomies: the micro/macro opposition, which confronts the national economy with that of the company; and the inward/outward polarisation, which counteracts operations “from the inside out” (exports, overseas licensing, investment abroad) with operations “from the outside to the inside” (imports, foreign technology acquisitions and foreign investment).

It can be verified that companies almost always start their internationalisation process when they have already begun an export phase. Usually, the company starts the international expansion in countries that are relatively similar to it and gradually expands to different countries (Pogrebnyakov and Maitland, 2011).

In summary, the internationalisation process is considered to be based on three fundamental paradigms (Santos, 1997): (1) it is necessary for the company to acquire competences in the country of origin’s market to guarantee an international competitiveness dimension; (2) the internationalisation process is almost always started in exports and it is defined as being sequential, ordered and slow, based on the product’s lifecycle, and finally (3) when the company reaches multinational status, it faces almost always new strategic problems; namely the choice between global integration or the local adaptation of its activities.

Theoretical Approaches

The research on the companies’ internationalisation strategy has, over time, resorted to several theoretical approaches which are summarised below.

 Contingencial Theory

The IM adopted by a company portrays, in a certain way, its “personality”, because it reflects its structure, its characteristics, as well as its managers’ personality. Thus, Reid and Smith (2000) state that it is the contingencies that create the appropriate conditions to determine the company’s structure.

The theory of contingency developed with organisational theory (Woodwart, 1965) claims that there is no unique nor universal organisational structure for each organisation (Reid and Smith, 2000). There are numerous organisational configurations or strategic options depending on the environmental and organisational context (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985). The adoption of a structure and its modification occur in close relation with the organisation’s internal and external characteristics (Otley, 1980 and Chenhall, 2003). Some studies even contend that the impact of technology and the environment are the factors that influence the most the organisational structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961) among other contingency variables such as size, strategy and culture (Chenhall, 2003).

Institutional Theory

The evolution of institutions has naturally an impact on them; namely at the level of actions, as well as restrictions on organisational activity (Washington and Patterson, 2011). From the institutional perspective, organisations can be influenced by various pressures resulting from the external environment or the internal organisational factors. The institutional theory provides an understanding of corporate behaviour towards external pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Greenwood et al. (2008) describe an institution “where repetitive social behaviour is supported by normative systems and cognitive knowledge that in turn assign meaning to social changes and hence allow the self-reproduction of social order”. From this perspective, it is understood that the institutional behaviour is influenced by the internationalisation process.

Theory of Networks

A network encompasses a set of two or more institutions allowing interconnected exchanges (Axelsson and Easton, 1992) and it also includes the exchange of resources between its different members (Sharma, 1993). Therefore, companies develop relationships that allow them to access resources and sell their products and services (Johanson and Mattsson, 1988) and thus achieve higher performance and profitability (Smith et al., 1995; Gulati et al., 2000). In the theory of networks, companies benefit from mutual flexibility, the opportunity to use a set of technical and economic knowledge and even the collective assumption of costs and risks (Bachmann, 1999).

The network represents a great instrument that supports the internationalisation process, it has a great impact on the choice of market, as well as the IM that the company will adopt (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009). This theory assumes that the internationalisation is a process that establishes relationships that can be maintained, developed or cut according to the company’s goals (Johanson and Mattsson, 1988). Sharma and Johanson (1987) state that the relationships established in a network can create the opportunity and motivation required for the company to internationalise. It is in this sense that this theory is simultaneously considered a theoretical approach and an IM.

Theory of Internalisation

To establish a specific model, the most adaptive theoretical basis is the theory of internalisation (Rugman, 1981; Hennart, 1982). This theory is often associated with the transaction costs of Coase (1937) and Williamson (1971, 1975). According to this theory, companies internally perform the operations that the market completes less efficiently. The central idea of this approach is thus based on the market’s imperfections, i.e. companies take advantage of the opportunities generated by imperfect markets. When the operations’ internalisation is beyond borders, an internationalisation process begins, fundamentally through the constitution of multinationals.

This theory was therefore originally used to explain the companies’ choice between resorting to the market and integrating transactions (Hennart and Park, 1993). Hence, it is understood that the company internalises the operations until these operations’ transaction costs become higher than those resulting from their integration. The company simultaneously grows and evolves, internalising markets while the internalisation benefits, outweigh their costs.

Internationalisation Models

There are several ways of entry into a foreign country, through exports, contracts (licensing, franchising, management contracts, turnkey contracts, subcontracting, production sharing and strategic alliances) and foreign direct investment (Anderson and Gatignons, 1986; Hill et al., 1990). Each way has specific consequences at the operations’ control level, resources’ commitment and risks’ spreading (Hill et al., 1990).

We will present synthetically each of the IM identified in the literature.

 U-Model

This model considers that the internationalisation, through exports and direct investments, is a consequence of the company’s growth (Carlson, 1975) and that the knowledge, initially accumulated by the company in the internationalisation process, is tacit, that is, dependent on the company and difficult to transfer outwards. This IM allows a dynamic view of the company’s international expansion (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). Here, learning is a central concept that reveals itself in two ways: (1) over time, the company expands itself to new markets and (2) it becomes more committed to the markets in which it is already inserted. Hence, the internationalisation process develops incrementally, or gradually, due to the uncertainties and imperfections of the information received from the new market.

In this IM, the output of a set of initial decisions is transformed into the input of the following (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977), which leads to the identification of new opportunities (Johanson and Vahlne, 2003). The difficulty may later lie in the information flow between the company and the market, due mainly to distance, language, culture, political systems, and education systems, among others (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975).

Initially, companies tend to establish relationships with “psychologically” closer countries, gradually expanding to psychologically and geographically more distant regions as they gain experience. The incremental model, thus, explains that the managers’ lack of knowledge about markets and their risk aversion may condition the selection of countries for the company’s expansion (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 1990, Hadjikhani and Johanson, 2002) and these factors are a constraint to the decision process (Cyert and March, 1963). The company gradually increases its commitment in external markets as its knowledge on these markets grows, mainly through the experience gained from sporadic exports (Penrose, 1959).

The U-Model proposes the internationalisation through a “gradual extension of operations”, following a progressive and incremental logic, involving a sequence of four distinct stages that Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul (1975) denominate as the chain of establishment: (i) sporadic exports that allow the company a first contact with the market without the commitment of resources, but with the disadvantage of the information received being reduced; (ii) exports through an agent, allowing a greater knowledge of the market, nevertheless requiring a greater commitment of resources; (iii) the establishment of a commercial subsidiary, which allows the company to direct control of the information channel, though it has the disadvantage of representing an increase in costs and risks; (iv) the establishment of a productive subsidiary; the phase that requires the highest level of commitment of resources, considering the four stages.

I-Model

The I-Model assumes itself as an IM, where each step is considered an innovation (Rogers, 1962; Adersen, 1993, Bilkey and Teaser, 1977, Cavusgil, 1980 and Reid, 1981), which allows an incremental development. Companies begin to internationalise by submitting an export application, then they export regularly to a psychologically closer country, and finally they export to other countries that are psychologically more distant (Bilkey and Tesar, 1977). The different stages of the I-Model are related to the export rate, which in turn is proportional to the company’s revenue (Lin, 2012).

Leonidou and Katsikeas (1996) identify three distinct phases in the I-Model development: (1) the pre-export phase, where the interests are only in the domestic market, although the company seeks information and assesses the exports’ viability; (2) the “rail” phase of exports, in which the company begins to export irregularly, and acquires the potential to extend its activities to foreign markets; and, finally, (3) when the company reaches an advanced stage of exports, that is, when the company regularly exports with extensive experience to foreign markets and designs other forms of commitment to international markets.

Born Globals

Born Globals are companies that, since their inception, follow the vision of becoming global (Knight and Cavusgil, 1996; Bell, 1995; Gabrielsson and Kirpalani, 2004) and often rapidly globalise without any period of domestic activity (Gabrielsson and Kirpalani, 2004). To Knight and Cavusgil (1996), Born Globals are small, technology-oriented companies which start operating in the international markets as soon as they are created, evidencing an accelerated internationalisation, with sales to the foreign market reaching over 25% of the total, in the first three years of the company’s life.

The Born Globals model proposes that the advances in technology of information and globalisation facilitate companies to acquire knowledge and its application in all countries (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2004). Most of this type of companies usually begins with countries that are naturally similar to the country of origin (Chetty and Campbell-Hunt, 2004; Freeman and Cavusgil, 2007).

The Lifecycle of the Product

The product’s lifecycle model was developed by Vernon (1966) and is based on the paradigm of the market’s imperfection. When the company discovers an innovation in the market, it seeks to extend the product’s lifecycle by starting to expand to countries where the demand for this product can be developed. This expansion occurs through export and can be developed until the implementation of subsidiaries.

Vernon (1966) states that the countries with higher incomes and high labour costs tend to be the most competitive internally and externally. Hence, the second stage of the product’s lifecycle starts in its sale to other countries and it is boosted by the competitive advantage derived from innovation and benefits, resulting from lower costs and greater production know-how. The creation of a subsidiary in an external market can strategically help meeting the need to reduce costs with savings in materials and services involved in the product’s production and marketing, but it may also represent a way of avoiding any potential commercial barriers imposed by importing countries, making it a viable alternative, more profitable than the mere products’ export (Vernon, 1966).

Non-Sequential Model

The non-sequential model addresses an analysis of the two main factors influencing the choice of entry and maintenance ways in the external markets: the market of specific knowledge and comprehensive knowledge of how to operate in international markets (Clark et al., 1997). This model thus emerges as a counterpart to U-Model, in which the internationalisation process is developed over time in stages.

The company can develop its operations “at home”, where it develops knowledge which will be useful to overcome the difficulties of external expansion (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2011). As a result, it can strategically begin the internationalisation in a non-sequential way and opt for countries which are very different from the country of origin. Clark et al. (1997) concluded that a company can internationalise through a sequential path or simply through skipping steps, changing directly, for example from export to direct investment.

Pre-Export Activities Model

The Pre-Export Activities Model was developed by Wiedersheim-Paul, Olson and Welch (1978) and addresses the company’s pre-export role by analysing the influence of the factors that lead the company to export. According to these authors, the factors are: i) the decision-maker’s characteristics; ii) the company’s domestic context and location; iii) the company’s characteristics; iv) the factors that attract or stimulate the attention; and v) the information activities for pre-export.

In short, this model considers that the company’s behaviour is hence affected by the manager’s characteristics (decision-maker), the company’s environment and location and the company’s characteristics. Therefore, the model is defined by incremental, sequential and non-linear stages, where the acquired experience in the domestic market (national context) justifies the IM adopted.

Integrated Model

The integrated model is based on the recognition of different possible trajectories for the internationalisation process. MacNaughton, Young and Crick (2003) developed this model considering that the process is not necessarily sequential. Therefore, these authors contemplated the possible stages of internationalisation of small companies considering traditional, born global and born-again global companies. They concluded that the integrated model is influenced both by internal and external aspects and even by the individual competences of the people that constitute the organisation, which allows guaranteeing the process’ flexibility.

This model considers the knowledge’s intensity in a company, that is, the more important the knowledge for the activities development, the faster the internationalisation process becomes. This model also considers that the internationalisation process is neither linear nor unidirectional, with advances and setbacks. Consequently, it resorts to the “internationalisation” concept, rather than the “stage” concept of the internationalisation process (Bell et al., 2003).

To conclude this point, in Table 1, we present a summary of the key characteristics of the main IM identified in the literature review.

Table 1: Main characteristics of the Internationalisation Models

Source: own

Conclusions

The purpose of this research was to gain a better understanding of the internationalisation process of firms, particularly the application and usefulness of the main theories. The literature review allows us to conclude that the internationalisation process is mainly a strategic decision. It can occur in many ways and is influenced by several factors. On the other hand, the company’s behaviour is influenced by the internationalisation process (Greenwood et al., 2008), where knowledge is gradually being sustained and it allows evaluating the transition to the next phase, i.e., the creation of subsidiaries (commercial and productive). The increase in the international experience reduces the risk and progressively strengthens the commitment of resources with internationalisation, which clearly represents the institutional theory position.

As we have seen, there are several models that allow the companies’ internationalisation. Nonetheless, each model has its own defining characteristics which is translated into specific consequences for the company, both in the operations’ control level and at the commitment of resources and even at the risks dissemination level (Hill et al., 1990). Many research papers still need to be developed to analyse the IM impact on the company’s internal structure.

In this line of research, we suggest the development of some case studies that allow us to perceive these relations with some depth (Roque, Alves and Raposo, 2018) and offer the opportunity to enrich more traditional approaches.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the funding obtained through the FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology under the project UID / GES / 04630/2019.

References

1. Andersen, O. (1993). On the internationalization process of firms: A critical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (2), 209-231.
2. Anderson, E., and Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: a transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3), 1-26.
3. Axelsson, B., and Easton, G. (1992). Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality. London: Routledge.
4. Bachmann, R. (1999). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Working Paper 129/1999, ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
5. Bartlett C.A., and Ghoshal S. (1991). Managing across borders”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
6. Bell, J. (1995). The Internationalization of Small Computer Software Firms: A Further Challenge to “Stage” Theories. European Journal of Marketing, 29, (8), 60-75.
7. Bell, J., McNaughton, R., Young, S., and Crick, D. 2003. Towards an Integrative Model of Small Firm Internationalisation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(4), 339-362.
8. Bilkey, W., and Tesar, G. (1977). The export behavior of smaller sized Wisconsin manufacturing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 93-98.
9. Burns T., and Stalker G. (1961). The management of innovation. London, Tavistock
10. Calof, J., and Beamish, P. (1995). Adapting to Foreign Markets: Explaining Internationalization”, International Business Review, 4 (2), 115-131.
11. Câmara, F., and Simões, V. (2007). Market Linking and market learning: social networks in SMEs internationalization. 3rd Iberian International Business Conference. Portugal.
12. Carlson, S. (1975). How foreign is foreign trade: a problem in international business research. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.
13. Cavusgil, S. T. (1980). On the internationalization process of firms”, European Research, 8 (6) 273-281.
14. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control Systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, (2/3), 127-168.
15. Chetty, S., and Campbell-Hunt, C. (2001). Paths to Internationalisation Among Small to Medium-sized Firms: A Global Versus Regional Approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (5/6), 796-820.
16. Chetty, S., and Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004). A strategic approach to internationalization: A traditional versus a ‘‘born-global’’ approach. Journal of International Marketing, 12, 57–81.
17. Clark, T., Pugh, D. S., and Mallory G., (1997). The Process of Internationalization in the Operating Firm. International Business Review, 6 (6), 605-623.
18. Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4 (November), 386-405. Reprint in Williamson and Winter 1991.
19. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2011). Selecting the country in which to start internationalization: The non-sequential internationalization model. Journal of World Business 46, 426–437
20. Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21. DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American sociological review 48 (2), 147-160.
22. Freeman, S., and Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Toward a typology of commitment states among managers of born global firms: A study of accelerated internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 1– 40.
23. Freire, A. (1997). Estratégia – Sucesso em Portugal. Editorial Verbo,
24. Gabrielsson, M., and Kirpalani, V. (2004). Born globals: how to reach new business space rapidly. International Business Review, 555-571.
25. Greenwood, R. Oliver, C. Suddaby, R., and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2008). Handbook of organization institutionalism. London, England: Sage Publications.
26. Ginsberg, A., and Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency Perspectives of Organizational Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research. The Academy of Management Review 10, 421–434.
27. Gulati R., Nohria N., and Zaheer A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal Mgmt. J., 21, 203–215.
28. Hadjikhani, A., and Johanson, J. (2002). Special issue on the internationalization of the firm. International Business Review, 11, 253–255.
29. Hennart, J. F. (1982). A theory of the multinational enterprise. The University of Michigan Press, Cambridge, Mass. 201
30. Hennart, J-F., and Park, Y-R. (1993). Greenfield vs. acquisition: the strategy of Japanese investors in the United States. Management Science, 39 (9), 1054-1070.
31. Hill, C.W.L., Hwang, P., and Kim, W.C. (1990). An Eclectic Theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal, 11, (2), 117-128.
32. Johanson, J., and Vahlne, J. E. (1990). The Mechanism of Internationalization. International Marketing Review, 7 (4), 11-24.
33. Johanson, J., and Mattsson, L.G. (1988). Internationalisation in industrial systems – a network approach. Hood, N. Vahlne, J.E (Editores), Strategies in global competition, 287-314, New York: Croom Helm.
34. Johanson, J., and Vahlne, J.E. (2003). Business relationship learning and commitment in the internationalisation process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), 83- 101.
35. Johanson, J., and Vahlne, J.E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411-1431.
36. Johanson, J., and Vahlne, J. (1977). The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8, 23–32.
37. Johanson, J., and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalisation of the firm. Four Swedish Cases. Journal of Management Studies, Outubro, 305-322.
38. Knight, G., and Cavusgil, S. T. (1996). The born global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8, 11–26.
39. Leonidou, L. C., and Katsikeas, C. S. (1996). The export development process: An integrative review of empirical models. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (3), 517-551.
40. Lin, S. (2012). Internationalization of SMEs: Towards an integrative approach of resources and competences. IAE Université Jean Moulin Lyon, published in “1er Colloque Franco-Tchèque: “Trends in International Business”, Lyon. France.
41. Meyer, R. (1996). The Internationalization Process of the Firm Revisited: Explaining Patterns of Geographic Sales Expansion. Management Report, 300, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
42. Otley D.T. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and progress. Accounting Organizations and Society, 5 (4),413-428.
43. Oyson, M. J., and Whittaker D. H. (2010). Creativity and prospection: Creating and exploiting opportunities for international entrepreneurship. International Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Regional Development, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.
44. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. White Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 272.
45. N., and Maitland, C. F. (2011). Institutional distance and the internationalization process: The case of mobile operators. Journal of International Management 17, 68–82.
46. Reid, G.C., and Smith, J.A. (2000). The impact of contingencies on information system development. Management Accounting Research, 11 (4), 427–50.
47. Reid, S.D. (1981). The decision-maker and export entry and expansion. Journal of International Business Studies, 12 (2), 101-112.
48. Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
49. Roque, A., Alves M., and Raposo, M. (2018). The management control in the internationalization process – a case study in the services sector. Proceedings of the 25th EBES (Eurasian Business and Economics Society) Conference, Volume 3, 82, p. 1353-1372, Berlin.
50. Rugman, A. (1981). Inside the Multinationals. The Economics Internal Markets. Croom Helm.
51. Ruzzier,, Hisrich, R. D., and Antoncic, B. (2006). SME internationalization research: past, present, and future. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13 (4), 476-497
52. Sharma, D. (1993). Introduction: industrial networks in marketing. In Cavusgil, S. e Sharma, D. (ed.), Advances in International Marketing, 6 (1-9), Greenwich: JAI Press.
53. Sharma, D., and Johanson, J. (1987). Technical consultancy in internationalization. International Marketing Review, 4, 20-29.
54. Simões, V. C. (1997). Estratégias de Internacionalização das Empresas Portuguesas. ICEP – Investimentos, Comércio e Turismo de Portugal (ed.), Comércio e Investimento Internacional, ICEP, Lisboa.
55. Smith, K.G., Carroll, S. J., and Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra- and inter organizational cooperation: toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7-23.
56. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economic, 83 (1), 190-207.
57. Washington M., and Patterson K.D.W. (2011). Hostile takeover or joint venture: Connections between institutional theory and sport management research. Sport Management Review, 14, 1–12.
58. Welch, L. S., and Luostarinen, R. (1988). Internationalization: Evolution of a concept. Journal of General Management, 14(2), 34–55.
59. Wiedersheim-Paul, F., Olson, H. C., and Welch, L. S. (1978). Pre-Export Activity: The First step in Internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 9 (1), 9.
60. Williamson, O. (1971). The vertical integration of production: market failure considerations. American Economic Review, 61 (May), 12-125.
61. Williamson, O. (1975). Market and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York. Free Press.
62. Woodwart J. (1965). Industrial organization: theory and practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.