Elinor and Vincent Ostrom "In Memoriam"

Last month it has been a sad time for all those people who have a curiosity and passion to understand public policy and how we can improve our societies, especially the governance of them. Two outstanding scholars and human beings have passed away: Elinor “Lin” (August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) and Vincent Ostrom (25 September 1919 - 29 June 2012).It would be impossible to describe in just a few words or even pages the contributions of this remarkable couple to the academic World but to our daily life as well. Elin´s contribution to the analysis of economic governance and especially of the Tragedy of Commons was of such level that she was awarded the 2009 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, which she shared with Oliver Williamson. She was the first, and to date, the only woman to win the prize in this category.Vincent Ostrom also had an illustrious professional career. Among his various achievements, he was distinguished Indiana University professor, Founding Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis and Arthur F. Bentley Professor Emeritus of Political Science. Vincent has made particular study of fragmentation theory, rational choice theory, federalism, common-pool resources and polycentrism in government, basing much of his research on the work of early 20th century political economists Frank Knight, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek.If you are interested in rational choice theory, public administration or how humans interact with ecosystems to maintain long-term sustainable resource yields, you should take a few hours and enjoy the work of theses remarkable authors.When I was asked to write their eulogy, I had a mixed feeling. I was sad to learn that such a remarkable couple had leaved us. Bur a few minutes later, after reviewing some of their work, I was smiling again and admiring their lifetime of contributions to the field of political science Sobre el autorCoordinador Académico de Finanzas, FACS, Universidad ORT Uruguay

How can Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) compete in their Domestic Market in a Globalized World?

The international business environment is still changing dramatically and, although international growth may introduce added complexity it may be unavoidable for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) mainly due to the increasing globalization of markets (Levitt 1983) and industries (Yip 2003). In the face of rapid globalization, SMEs are a vital part of the economic systems of both emerging and developed countries. As Veloso (1991) points out, this type of companies may be an important organ for increasing the level of competitiveness of emerging markets. Some studies, for example, Yasuf (2001), go to the extent of suggesting that growth and employment in developing countries depend on the fate of SMEs. The incentive and the legal structures within which firms must operate have been drastically altered. SMEs are no longer protected from foreign competition and local buyers and suppliers are becoming more sophisticated. To compete effectively, SMEs must adapt and reshape themselves to facilitate adjustments and enhance learning for their growth and economic development. This article provides a typology to explain the degree of internationalization of SMEs. At one extreme is tangible internationalization, which is short-term and depends on macro and microeconomics factors exogenous to firms; at the other is a combination of tangible and intangible internationalization, which implies a strong commitment by firms to become competitive at international levels.I argue that different forces have forced the internationalization not only of firms, but also of markets, so that SMEs can become global without a physical presence in foreign markets. Furthermore, it may be necessary for these companies to become global if they are to remain competitive in their local markets. As a result of this paradigm shift, internationalization is based not only on geographical aspects, which are closely related to firm internationalization, but also on intangible considerations, which are closely related to market internationalization.Tangible internationalization is a restricted approach defined as a physical presence in a foreign market; it consists mainly of foreign sales, foreign direct investment (FDI), physical presence in foreign markets, and foreign suppliers. It fluctuates with exchange rates, costs of inputs, and other resource endowments that are tied to a particular geographic location. On the other hand, intangible internationalization implies a change in the comprehensive approach to the way firms should reconfigure, develop and secure resources. Intangible internationalization requires facilitating learning at all levels of a firm to increase the stock of knowledge, and, therefore, to improve flexibility on the production side and increase the likelihood of developing new resources and processes, thus enhancing the firm’s critical invisible assets (Itami and Roehl 1987). An SME should aim for both in order to take advantage of a physical presence in foreign markets and provide constant incentives to facilitate learning and new organizational capabilities and processes. Tangible internationalization is a short-term expansion in foreign markets because it takes advantage of temporary macro- and microeconomics conditions; it does not require changes at the firm level. On the other hand, a combination of intangible and tangible internationalization has a higher probability to be sustainable in the long term and mostly depends on the firm’s actions to meet international standards.This article emphasizes 5 crucial aspects of that managers need to be aware of: I. A matter of having an strategic plan II. An internal perspective of the firm III.The need of expanding the knowledge bases of SMEs IV.How to access and secure resources: networks V.The entrepreneurial aspectsI. A Matter of Having an Strategic PlanWhile firms have an important degree of freedom to make their own decisions, the effect of the environment cannot be discounted. This matter becomes critically important in the context of emerging economies because firms are not only facing changes in the structure of the industry in which they operate, but also in the surrounding and institutional environments. To be aware of the different courses of action available, decision makers must understand all the pro-market reforms, not just those that most affect their own industry. According to Weick (1995), the strategic decisions that managers make depend on their cognitive structures and how they make sense of the environment. Managers need to understand any intended change in a way that makes sense or fits an interpretative schema or system of meaning (Bartunek 1984). Andrews (1980) compares the role of the owner-manager to an architect who is in charge of doing the synthesis. Senior managers have the role of analyzing, interpreting, and making sense of clues so as to formulate and implement strategies. Senior managers should act as catalysts to understand and create new interpretative frameworks that provide purpose and direction to the members of the organization (Westley 1990).Laying a Formal Foundation: Making the Implicit Explicit The fact that SMEs have inadequate organizational structures and managerial expertise is a real problem in a changing environment. SMEs do not have the same level of support to increase their competitiveness, and given the lack of managerial expertise, building an adequate structure is not a straightforward process, even though it is a central one. Formalizing routines and processes within firms to make them less dependent on a specific individual is key. This is an important concern because SMEs not only have a less highly developed structure, but their fate is closely linked to one or a few individuals who posses knowledge or resources that have not been made explicit to the rest of the firm.Nevertheless, in a changing environment managers need to be proactive and to rethink their approaches regarding the future activities of their firms. A mere replication of previous strategies may no longer be a valid option when firms are competing in the international arena. The future can be imagined and enacted and that companies must be capable of fundamentally reconciling themselves by regenerating their core competencies and reinventing their industry. The role of managers is not to plan for the future, but to manage the process of learning and to be open to the possibility that new strategies can emerge.II. Analyzing the Firm’s ResourcesAn analytical examination of the resources of a firm may help to develop an understanding not only of possible short-run business strategies, but also of future diversifications (Montgomery and Wernerfelt, 1988), growth strategies (Penrose, 1959), and sustainability of long-term rents (Rumelt, 1984). SMEs can compete in the international arena, but they will face international competition from foreign SMEs as well as from multinational enterprises (MNEs). Focusing only on product-market strategies is not enough; instead, the long-term survival of a firm depends on the characteristics and endowment of its resources, which should be valuable and difficult to imitate (Mahoney and Pandian 1992; Grant 1991; Amit and Schoemaker 1993). To be able to compete, the manager-owners of SMEs must know the internal resources and capabilities of their companies. As Andrews (1980: 18-19) suggested, a firm should make its strategic plans “preferably in a way that focuses resources to convert distinctive competence into competitive advantage.”Firms are a bundle of different kinds of resources and a set of commitments to certain technologies, human resources, processes, and know-how that manager-owners marshal. This issue is particularly important to the present study because it is not unusual that are controlled, managed, and run by one or a small group of individuals that have a deep, but tacit, knowledge of the firm. What is important is a clear identification—not just a vague idea—of the different resources on which a firm can depend.How to Reconfigure a Firm’s Resources?  Capabilities exist when two or more resources are combined to achieve a goal and they “emphasizes the key role of strategic management in appropriately adapting, integrating and reconfiguring the internal and external organization skills, resources, and functional competences to match the requirements of changing environment” (Teece et al. 1997: 515). It is important to note that the relative endowment of firms may not necessarily relate to their financial performance because “only the service that the resource can render and not the resources themselves provide inputs into the production process” (Penrose 1972: 25). It is the deployment of a combination of those services that are critical to the rent generation of the firm. Firms need to exploit the existing firm-specific capabilities and also develop new ones (Penrose 1959; Teece 1982; Wernerfelt 1984) to compete internationally and to grow.   Over time, SMEs have seen the nature of their rents change; we should expect a shift from Ricardian to Schumpeterian rents. A company may not have better resources, but achieve rents because it makes better use of its resources (Penrose 1959). Rents depend not only on the structure of the resources, but also on the ability of firms to reconfigure and transform those resources. The above discussion leads to the formation of the following hypotheses:III. The Need of Expanding the Knowledge Bases of SMEsThe capacity to exploit a new set of opportunities depends partly on the strategic decisions made by managers. In some cases, these opportunities require at least a reconfiguration of the activities of the firm, but more often, they require the incorporation of new resources and, especially, the introduction of new processes.Firms are as systems of purposeful actions engaging in economic activities to achieve objectives, therefore, they must learn adapt and survive in a complex environment. Organizational learning is the process by which firms can cope with uncertainty and environmental complexity, and their efficiency depends on learning how the environment is changing and then adapting to those changes (March and Olsen, 1976).SMEs need to enhance their learning in two different aspects. First, internal knowledge should be coded and made available to selected members in the company. The manager-owner is knowledgeable about almost all aspects of the business (Mintzberg 1979), and his or her knowledge is personal in the sense that it is located in the mind and not always encoded or available to the rest of the firm. Routines should be created in order to secure the long-term existence of the firm because routines capture the experiential lessons and make that knowledge obtainable by the members of the organization that were not part of the history of the company (Levitt and March 1988).The second way SMEs need to enhance their learning is to make changes in their knowledge base. When socio-economic environments change, firms need to assess the change in order to reformulate how they react to new incentives. The first step is developing a capability to understand the new dynamics. When regulatory and competitive conditions change rapidly, persistence in the same routines can be hazardous because managers and employees use organizational memory or knowledge to make decisions and to formulate the present strategy of the firm.The effectiveness of decisions taken by an SME is greatly influenced by its knowledge base which, in turn, is the result of learning processes that are no longer applicable and may be misleading. Changes in the knowledge base are probably requisite for any firms competing in an industry with tradable products. Supporting infrastructure and routines may prove essential to increase the learning pace and to effectively integrate the new knowledge and reduce the inertia due to outdated knowledge.IV. How to Access and Secure Resources: NetworksSMEs, compared to larger firms, face major challenges in terms of securing and updating resources. Where internal resources are important to accounting for a firm’s performance (Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2001), resources also can be secured within networks that may allow firms to be competitive locally and internationally. Increasingly, networking is seen as a primarily means of rising required resources. Resources, such as information, equipment, and personnel, can be exchanged in networks because of relationships between. Networks are important instruments to ease the constraints facing SMEs in terms of access to: a) capital markets to obtain long-term finance both locally and internationally, b) narrow and highly regulated labor markets, c) information and technologies, d) inefficient tax codes, and e) highly bureaucratic and expansive legal procedures. SMEs may be part of a network not only because it may find complementary resources, but also because owners and managers may have friendship ties with other owners and mangers. These non-economic reasons may be as important as economic ones.A Particular Kind of Network: Industry Clusters An extensive literature exists on the topic of industry clusters. Ricardo’s “comparative advantages” can be considered as a pioneering concept of industrial clusters; and Marshall’s exposition about externalities is based on industrial localization. Industrial clusters are characterized by having extensive interfirm exchanges and an advantageous environment to pursue business activities. Marshall (1961) argues that industry localization may be an important factor because a) it creates a market for workers with certain industry-specific skills, b) it promotes production and exchange of non-tradable specialized input, and c) firms may take advantage of informational spillovers. Krugman (1991) points out that given the existence of market imperfection, pecuniary externalities may also play an important role in determining the concentration of industry in a specific geographic location. Pouder and St. John (1996) argue that clustered firms have a greater legitimacy than firms outside a cluster. Clusters can provide a critical mass to counterbalance the political influence of large firms and to increase the pressure for investments that affect the productivity of the cluster. Furthermore, competition within clusters increases productivity and new firm development (Porter 1998).V. The Entrepreneurial AspectsIntangible internationalization requires facilitating learning by its employees in order to constantly transform the firm. Implementing mechanisms to expand the knowledge base and to diffuse information should allow SMEs to increase their capacity to develop new goods and services, and to compete in new markets. Key characteristics of this type of internationalization are common interests, trust and openness that allow employees to challenge assumptions. Intangible internationalization is a more difficult international expansion, but it provides sustainable competitive advantages. Consequently, SMEs would become competitive by reducing their costs, introducing new products and expanding their potential markets.It is not possible to engage in tangible internationalization without having a minimum level of intangible internationalization or being competitive without some degree of valuable, rare, in-imitable, non-substitutable resources (Barney 1991). SMEs should aim for both types of internalization in order to take advantage of physical presence in foreign markets and constantly provide the incentives to facilitate learning, new organizational capabilities and processes.Firms have different combinations of internationalization. In order to analyze how SMEs can take advantage of both tangible and intangible internationalization, the foundation of the potential competitive advantages need to be identified. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how firms deliver products that have value for customers, but also to understand what makes these firms different from the rest (Hall 1998).  I argue that there are three major categories of differential that have a strong impact on the nature of internationalization of SMEs. The first is called firm differential, and includes a) organizational (team level), b) managerial (individual level), c) physical endowment and d) technological capabilities differentials. The second category is based on the home country characteristics and it is called country differential. The final category,market differential, takes into consideration the specific features of local markets and industries. These differentials deeply influence the role of owner-manager. There are three basic approaches that a SME can adopt while anticipating and responding to the needs of its customers. The first one is the approach of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur (Schumpeter, 1934), a leader who breaks away from routine and introduces either new goods/services or new production processes for existing goods/services. The second one is related to Porter’s (1980) concept of cost leadership even though Porter studied larger firms from developed countries. The last style of owner-manager is the Kirznerian entrepreneur, who is a person alert to opportunities (see figure 1). This type of role implies that the owner-manager acts as a broker in order to take advantage of over-optimistic or over-pessimistic reactions of economic agents (Kirzner 1973); therefore, the owner-manager will act “in regard to the changes occurring in the data of the markets” (Mises 1949: 255).ConclusionIn the business literature, internationalization involvement usually results from one of two factors: a) the firm possesses some monopolistic advantage that it can use in another country, or b) the host country owns resources that are valuable to the foreign firm. While these reasons may be necessary and sufficient conditions for larger companies, is not necessarily the case for SMEs whom have no option but to internationalization.Those two factors do not necessarily apply to SMEs because they need to become international even if they do not compete in international markets. The average level of competitiveness of SMEs is below that of multinational enterprises. SMEs are faced with international competition whether they decide to internationalize or to remain “local.” Even SMEs providing non-tradable goods face a “demand side” pressure to meet the characteristic of similar product sell in other countries. SMEs may not have the time required, according to this model, to meet world-class standards. ReferencesAmit, R. and Schoemaker, P. (1993). “Strategic assets and organizational rent”. Strategic Management Journal,14(1):33-46. Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, Irwin. Barney, J. (1991). ¨Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.¨ Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120. Bartunek, J. (1984). “Changing interpretative schemes and organizational restructuring: the example of a religion order.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3):355-372. Child, J. (1972). “Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice”. Sociology,6(1):1-22. Gnyawali, D. and Madhavan, R. (2001). “Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective.” Academy of Management Review, 26(3):431-445. Grant, R. (1991). Contemporary Strategic Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Application. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Itami, H. and Roehl, T. (1987). “Mobilizing Invisible Assets”. Harvard Business School Press.  Kirzner, I. (1973). “Competition and entrepreneurship”. University of Chicago Press, Krugman, P. (1991). “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.” The Journal of Political Economy, 99(3):483-499. Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(May-June): 92-102. Levitt, B. and March, J. (1988).“Organizational Learning.” Annual Review of Sociology, (14):319-340. Mahoney, J. and Pandian, R. (1992). “The Resource-Based View Within the Conversation of Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal, 13(5):363-380 . March, J. and Olsen, J.(1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Marshall, A., (1961 (1890)). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the article. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Mises, L. (1949). “Human action; a treatise on economics”.  Yale University Press. Montgomery, C. and Wernerfelt, B. (1988). “Diversification, Ricardian Rents, and Tobin’s q”. RAND Journal of Economics, 19(4):623-632. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the Growth of the Firm. John Wiley: New York. Penrose, E. (1972). The theory of the Growth of the Firm. Originally published in 1959, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Porter, M. (1998).  On Competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Porter, M. (1990).  The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press: New York. Pouder, R. and St. John, C. (1996). “Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of Firms and Innovation.”The Academy of Management Review, 21(4):1192-1225. Rumelt, R. (1991). “How much does Industry Matter?” Strategic Management Journal, 12(3):167-185. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press. Teece, D. Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal, 18(7):509-533. Teece, D (1982). “Toward an economic theory of the multiproduct firm”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3:39-63. Veloso, P. (1991). “International Competitiveness and the creation of an enabling environment.” International competitiveness, ed. By Irfan ul Haque, pp. 29-36. Washingto

Managing Rapid change: Fast-Growing Enterprises and SMEs from Emerging Economies (parte final)

The Need for Re-examination of Industry Structure In rapidly changing and complex environment, the rate of change may be overwhelming. Communication within the firm is crucial to assess weaknesses and strength, make sense of the new developments and reconfigure resources to respond adequately. Firms may have to collaborate with other firms, both local and international, to secure the scarce resources that may enable them to compete with the international companies in a timely fashion as opposed to developing them internally. Such resource-acquisition may require learning the necessary know-how for acquiring and deploying the new technology, or gaining the capability for developing them with others, which may also give them additional intangibles such as collaborative advantages, reputation, brand name by association with others. The discussion suggests that smaller firms may seriously explore the option of becoming a part of a network (or networks) to attain the necessary requirements and accomplish their objectives, even though the costs may be high in the short-run; but they will enable increasing returns in the longer term.  In this context, the resource-base view (RBV) of the firm provides a useful framework with which to identify valuable, rare, imperfectly inimitable and difficult to substitute resources (Barney, 1991). It also identifies the investments required to pursue international operations. However, the mere fact of identifying VRIN resources may prove insufficient to ensure competitiveness. The strategic process of renewal should emphasize resource reconfiguration, levering and deploying for catching-up with the international competition rather than mere resource selection as prescribed by the RBV. The focus not only should take into consideration the VRIN resources but also to include inimitable processes, transformation paths and positions that ensure SMEs’ global competitiveness at the end, which also parallels  the development of dynamic capabilities (Teece, Spence and Shuen, 1997) at the same time. The Augmenting Impact of Networks  Smaller enterprises in emerging economies face major challenges in reinventing themselves rapidly and securing resources, which are further amplified due in part to the characteristics of emerging markets. Increasingly, networking is seen as a “primarily means of raising required for coordinating economic exchanges that fall in the continuum between market and hierarchies. Firms face increasing foreign competition in their domestic markets and the institutional inefficiencies that favor larger enterprises. In addition, they still do not have the requisite experience and industrial standards needed to expand into international markets. Joining, or operating through, a network can shield small firms as the network, as a whole, can be viewed as a larger firm in remedying, if not removing, some of constraints associated with the smaller and younger firms in terms of relative inexperience, limited flexibility, poor resources and capabilities . Regarding the necessary capability to navigate through macroeconomic and political fluctuations, or at times the unstable circumstances inherent in the emerging economies, Rauch argues that networks are different from markets because “their members are engaged in repeated exchanges that help sustain cooperation–collusion” and because “network members have thorough knowledge of each other’s characteristics, which helps them match with each other or to refer each other to outside business opportunities” (Rauch, 200:1179). The ability to access, commercialize, and act as a broker of new resources, especially knowledge, is key to improving the competitive levels. In the case of RGEs, the concepts, and the associate practice, of social networks and the firm operating in a network are so intertwined in that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. At the individual level, the entrepreneurs, or the owner-manager, who is the critical resource and the driver of business activities, can draw upon his social network to further enable the firm. At the firm level, the individual linkages can reinforce firm-to-firm or firm-to-network linkages. Etemad and Ala-Mutka (2006) report that the entrepreneurs of the fastest-growing firms in Canada called upon their social networks to help reduce, and even remove, barriers facing them, especially at the earlier stages of their life, at both the individual and firm levels. In the emerging countries, however, the above concepts may assume a different shade. The ownership structure of SMEs in the emerging countries economies, as briefly discussed earlier, owner- managers are likely to be personally involved in most aspects of the operations of their firms. In particular, they tend to centralize important decisions and personally manage the relationships with the key players in their environment. Furthermore, SMEs from emerging markets have been insulated from international competition for a long period of time, which has affected the ways in which their managers conducted business. Neither were managers used to highly dynamic and competitive markets, nor were they familiar with collaborating with their international competitors. Consequently, such managers’ perception of independence, individualism and trust plays important roles in their decisions in becoming a member of a particular network. However, their personal ties not only may increase the social capital of the networks, it may also reduce the likelihood of opportunistic behaviors,  leading to increased cooperative and collaborative behaviours among individuals and their associated firms over time; but such personal ties are likely to be more national than international. Even those who act as brokers in enlarging the SMEs’ opportunity set by creating exchange and sharing information among contacts can benefit from the flow of useful information. Such cooperative relations may enable SMEs to reduce, and even remove, the adverse impact of restricted access to information regarding markets standards, international tax systems, international market opportunities, demand and supply condition, among others, which help to compensate for the lower levels of institutional development in emerging economies. According to Burt (1992: 65), the existence of a “relationship of non-redundancy between two contacts” creates social capital for the actor who is able to link up with network member that possesses complementary resources. These discussions suggest that even redundant contacts can benefit firms as they can provide several benefits: a) increase the political leverage of firms at home, b) overcome institutional and managerial constraints, c) increase the SMEs’ leverage in input markets and output markets and also d) facilitate SMEs’ access to managerial experience and capabilities available in the network. Bridging the Widening Gap between the Developed and Emerging Economies As discussed earlier, technological innovation is taking place at unprecedented rate. A large part of such innovation is path-dependent by nature as they are the results of firm’s long-term research and development (R&D), investment and commitments to cutting-edge knowledge and advancing technology for improving upon their knowledge-based assets, productivity, competitiveness and the consequent economic growth. This is in part a way to respond to the increased competition resulting from globalization, pro-market reforms and open-door policies, among others, which are demanding higher productivity and competitiveness from firms and countries alike. No one is immune: the more competitive and productive firms and countries gain higher market share at the cost to those who are less efficient. Firms and countries are subject to a lot of similar external pressures forcing them to experience instability and flux, continuous emergence and rapid change, and overall uncertainty; but they emanate from different sources and forces. For example, firms face the dynamics of rapidly-changing relations with both the external and internal stake-holders, which have their own motivations beyond the firm’s control. Similarly, the relative state of flux and instability is inherent in the change and emergence of complexity in the emerging countries due to the ongoing dynamics of global trade and investment not fully controllable by any given country, or firm, regardless of size and stage of development. However, RGEs have shown the capability and resilience in adapting to enable their growth. RGEs are also characterized by having entrepreneurial mindset, being market-oriented and adapting technology to meet their buyers’ and suppliers’ needs. They are learning organization in the sense that they constantly acquire, disseminate, and share both the information and its interpretation (Sinkula, 1994) with the final goal of sustaining growth in the long term. Furthermore, there is a common recognition that their growth depends on synergistic collaboration with the member of their supply and value chain. As discussed earlier, RGEs and emerging economies share relatively constrained resources and need to secure them to pursue their activities by devising innovative ways such as becoming a part of synergistic networks (Etemad 2004; Etemad, Dana and Wright 2001a), which forces a trade-offs between independent and interdependent modes of operations for securing access to vital resources to enable further growth. The added advantage of such networks is the possibility of learning from and with others through association as the rapid rate of change, emergence and complexity may not allow a firm or a country or learning by doing. Therefore, the above discussion suggests that RGEs not only are attractive models, and even instruments, for closing the gap between emerging economies, they can also grow faster than typical firms in their respective industries for augmenting growth-rates all around them. We have taken advantage of these similarities to propose a conceptual framework for the emerging economies to deploy, and learn from, RGE-like instruments to speed-up the emerging economies’ growth rate. This framework is highlighted in Figure 1.Figure 1 Key Characteristics of Rapid Growing Enterprises and Emerging Economies  Conclusion In light of characteristics describe in this paper, the necessary condition for a SME to ensure long-term success in international activities is to aim their sights high, transform their organizational structures for responding to challenges ahead and attain the resources required for expanding to international markets at high rates and on sustained basis. It is also crucial that SMEs expand their knowledge base to meet world-class requirements and standards. Naturally, governments can play crucial roles in at least three influential fronts directly aimed at improving upon firms’ productivity, competitiveness and internationalization: a) providing adequate education aimed at the basic tools to face the competitiveness and deal with the complexity of a global economy; b) putting infrastructural support systems in place to facilitate SMEs’ transition towards networked firms at home and abroad; and c) Instituting transitional subsidies and inducements for SMEs to transform towards knowledge-based assets and increasing internationalization. Although the higher levels of education allow firm managers and investors to draw resources from a pool of qualified individuals and may also increase the likelihood of transforming inventions into innovations, which is another pillar of success in the international market, it takes some time and effort and will only pay-back in the medium to longer-term; but it needs to be done sooner than later, nevertheless. Similarly, infrastructural support systems are the necessary longer-term investments. However, inducements may be very effective in terms of time and costs as well as initiating an emulative process with high and rapid multiplier effects across the population of firms. The sample of RGEs studied in this paper were young, small, pioneering and innovative firms that commercialized innovations not existing before and thus created incremental employment, income and additional wealth as opposed to resulting from shift in investments. Stated in popular terms, the RGEs presented in this paper enlarged the size of previously non-existing pie as opposed to increasing the size of the wedge of the pie at the cost to others. More importantly, their pioneering efforts set the standards for others to be emulated, thus diffusing the innovation in the allied industry. Stated differently, they rapidly constructed a bridge across barriers to unexplored landscapes that enabled further developments. From a country-level perspective, rapidly-growing enterprise may provide a viable model with an important role to play in rapid income- and wealth-creation. They may even have an important short-term impact on the economic growth of emerging economies while shifting the SMEs’ emphasis is shifting from short-term aim of reaching profitability to attaining global competitiveness as soon as possible, which is the necessary condition for sustained growth in employment, revenue, income, tax-base and wealth. The distinction is noteworthy: the former is influenced by the local and short-term orientation of the investors and managers to see results, and probably exit, as quickly as possible; as opposed to international and longer orientation in the latter that invests for the long haul and expanded international opportunities, which reflects the operations of RGEs. By favoring the development of the latter-type of firms, governments will also develop an interesting policy instrument for both creating income and employment much more rapidly than the traditional models, while encouraging modernization in the industry and enhancing long-term competitiveness of the economy. The spill-over effects of RGE-type of operations should have a positive impact on the rest of the economy not only in terms of relatively-faster diffusion of knowledge, technology, best managerial practice and information about new market opportunities; but also on improve the subjective “business environment” of a country at a higher pace and in shorter time period. The demonstrative impact of such virtuous operations may even expand to the rest of the supply chain with a snowballing effect in the rest of the economy in term of improved quality-standards on the input side (e.g. intermediate goods, labor force, etc.) first and soon expanding to the entire economy. References Ala-Mutka, Jukka & Etemad, Hamid, (2006). The Strategies of Global Gazelles: A Theoretical Framework and Evidence from Rapidly Growing and Internationalizing Enterprises from Canada, in Johansson, I. (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Development Local Pro33cesses and Global Patterns, University of West Press, Sweden. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Birch, D. & Medoff, J. (1994). Gazelles. In L. C. Solmon and A. R. Levenson (Eds). Labor Markets, Employment Policy and Job Creation, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dana, Leo. P., Etemad, H. & Wright, R., (2001a). "Symbiotic Interdependence," in Dianne Welsh & Ilan Alon, Editors, International Franchising in Emerging Markets (119-129). Illinois: CCH Publishing Delmar F., Davidson, P.&. Gartner W .B (2003). Arriving at the High-growth Firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189–216. Etemad, H. (2004). Internationalization of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: A Grounded Theoretical Framework and an Overview. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 1-21. Etemad, H. & Keen, C. (Eds.). (2007). Rapidly Growing and Internationalizing Smaller Firms from Canada. Proceedings from 2007 McGill International Entrepreneurship Conference. California: UCLA, Fischer, E. & Reuber A.R. (2003). Support for Rapid-Growth Firms: A Comparison of the Views of Founders, Government Policymakers, and Private Sector Resource Providers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41, 346–365 Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago.*Dr. Christian Keen, Coordinador Académico de Finanzas FACS, Universidad ORT Urugua

Antecedentes Relacionales de la Innovación en las Empresas Familiares: El Complejo Papel del Compromiso de los Empleados No Familiares

A better understanding of the relational antecedents of innovation in family firms is central to explaining their long-term success and survival. Our study proposes an original model that shows that the internal social capital of non-family members does not always foster innovation directly as existing theory suggests, but through their organizational commitment. These results differ across the different dimensions of organizational commitment. Therefore, our study challenges existing thinking on commitment studies by offering theoretical grounding and empirical evidence that neglected dimensions of commitment have a crucial intermediate role in the relationship between internal social capital and innovation in family firms.Una mejor comprensión de los antecedentes relacionales de la innovación en las empresas familiares es fundamental para explicar su éxito y supervivencia a largo plazo. Nuestro estudio propone un modelo original que muestra que el capital social interno de los no familiares no siempre fomenta la innovación directamente, como sugiere la teoría exis-tente, sino a través de su compromiso organizacional. Estos resultados difieren en las diversas dimensiones del compromiso organizacional. Por lo tanto, nuestro estudio desafía el pensa-miento existente sobre los estudios de compromiso al ofrecer una base teórica y evidencia empírica de que las dimensiones desatendidas del compromiso tienen un papel intermedio crucial en la relación entre el capital social interno y la innovación en las empresas familiares

Crustal structure across the Grand Banks–Newfoundland Basin Continental Margin – I. Results from a seismic refraction profile

Author Posting. © Blackwell, 2006. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Blackwell for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Geophysical Journal International 167 (2006): 127-156, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02988.x.A P-wave velocity model along a 565-km-long profile across the Grand Banks/Newfoundland basin rifted margin is presented. Continental crust ~36-kmthick beneath the Grand Banks is divided into upper (5.8-6.25 km/s), middle (6.3- 6.53 km/s) and lower crust (6.77-6.9 km/s), consistent with velocity structure of Avalon zone Appalachian crust. Syn-rift sediment sequences 6-7-km thick occur in two primary layers within the Jeanne d’Arc and the Carson basins (~3 km/s in upper layer; ~5 km/s in lower layer). Abrupt crustal thinning (Moho dip ~ 35º) beneath the Carson basin and more gradual thinning seaward forms a 170-km-wide zone of rifted continental crust. Within this zone, lower and middle continental crust thin preferentially seaward until they are completely removed, while very thin (<3 km) upper crust continues ~60 km farther seaward. Adjacent to the continental crust, high velocity gradients (0.5-1.5 s-1) define an 80-km-wide zone of transitional basement that can be interpreted as exhumed, serpentinized mantle or anomalously thin oceanic crust, based on its velocity model alone. We prefer the exhumed-mantle interpretation after considering the non-reflective character of the basement and the low amplitude of associated magnetic anomalies, which are atypical of oceanic crust. Beneath both the transitional basement and thin (<6 km) continental crust, a 200-kmwide zone with reduced mantle velocities (7.6-7.9 km/s) is observed, which is interpreted as partially (<10%) serpentinized mantle. Seaward of the transitional basement, 2- to 6-km-thick crust with layer 2 (4.5-6.3 km/s) and layer 3 (6.3-7.2 km/s) velocities is interpreted as oceanic crust. Comparison of our crustal model with profile IAM-9 across the Iberia Abyssal Plain on the conjugate Iberia margin suggests asymmetrical continental breakup in which a wider zone of extended continental crust has been left on the Newfoundland side.This research was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) grants OCE-9819053 and OCE-0326714, by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and by the Danish National Research Foundation. B. Tucholke also acknowledges support from the Henry Bryant Bigelow Chair in Oceanography from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Crustal structure across the Grand Banks–Newfoundland Basin Continental Margin – II. Results from a seismic reflection profile

Author Posting. © Blackwell, 2006. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Blackwell for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Geophysical Journal International 167 (2006): 157-170, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02989.x.New multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection data were collected over a 565km transect covering the non-volcanic rifted margin of the central eastern Grand Banks and the Newfoundland Basin in the northwestern Atlantic. Three major crustal zones are interpreted from west to east over the seaward 350-km of the profile: (1) continental crust; (2) transitional basement; (3) oceanic crust. Continental crust thins over a wide zone (~160 km) by forming a large rift basin (Carson Basin) and seaward fault block, together with a series of smaller fault blocks eastward beneath the Salar and Newfoundland basins. Analysis of selected previous reflection profiles (Lithoprobe 85-4, 85-2 and Conrad NB-1) indicates that prominent landward-dipping reflections observed under the continental slope are a regional phenomenon. They define the landward edge of a deep serpentinized mantle layer, which underlies both extended continental crust and transitional basement. The 80-km-wide transitional basement is defined landward by a basement high that may consist of serpentinized peridotite and seaward by a pair of basement highs of unknown crustal origin. Flat and unreflective transitional basement most likely is exhumed, serpentinized mantle, although our results do not exclude the possibility of anomalously thinned oceanic crust. A Moho reflection below interpreted oceanic crust is first observed landward of magnetic anomaly M4, 230 km from the shelf break. Extrapolation of ages from chron M0 to the edge of interpreted oceanic crust suggests that the onset of seafloor spreading was ~138Ma (Valanginian) in the south (southern Newfoundland Basin) to ~125Ma (Barremian-Aptian boundary) in the north (Flemish Cap), comparable to those proposed for the conjugate margins.This work was funded by NSF grants OCE-9819053 and OCE-0326714 to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, NSERC (Canada) and the Danish Research Council. B. Tucholke also acknowledges support from the Henry Bryant Bigelow Chair in Oceanography at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

A deep seismic investigation of the Flemish Cap margin: implications for the origin of deep reflectivity and evidence for asymmetric break-up between Newfoundland and Iberia

Author Posting. © Blacwell, 2006. This article is posted here by permission of Blackwell for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Geophysical Journal International 164 (2006): 501–515, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02800.x.Seismic reflection and refraction data were acquired along the southeast margin of Flemish Cap at a position conjugate to drilling and geophysical surveys across the Galicia Bank margin. The data document first-order asymmetry during final break-up between Newfoundland and Iberia. An abrupt necking profile of continental crust observed off Flemish Cap contrasts strongly with gradual tapering on the conjugate margin. There is no evidence beneath Flemish Cap for a final phase of continental extension that resulted in thin continental crust underlain by a strong 'S'-like reflection, which indicates that this mode of extension occurred only on the Galicia Bank margin. Compelling evidence for a broad zone of exhumed mantle or for peridotite ridges is also lacking along the Flemish Cap margin. Instead, anomalously thin, 3–4-km-thick oceanic crust is observed. This crust is highly tectonized and broken up by high-angle normal faulting. The thin crust and rift structures that resemble the abandoned spreading centre in the Labrador sea suggest that initial seafloor spreading was affected by processes observed in present-day ultra-slow spreading environments. Landwards, Flemish Cap is underlain by a highly reflective lower crust. The reflectivity most likely originates from older Palaeozoic orogenic structures that are unrelated to extension and break-up tectonics.This work was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation, U.S. National Science Foundation grants OCE-9819053 and OCE-0326714, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Additional support for Hopper was provided by the German Research Foundation grant MO-961/4-1. Tucholke also acknowledges support from Henry Bryant Bigelow Chair in Oceanography at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people's lives

Copyright @ 2014 Froud et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.Background - Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem that many interpret within a biopsychosocial model. There is renewed concern that core-sets of outcome measures do not capture what is important. To inform debate about the coverage of back pain outcome measure core-sets, and to suggest areas worthy of exploration within healthcare consultations, we have synthesised the qualitative literature on the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. Methods - Two reviewers searched CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PEDro, and Medline, identifying qualitative studies of people’s experiences of non-specific LBP. Abstracted data were thematic coded and synthesised using a meta-ethnographic, and a meta-narrative approach. Results - We included 49 papers describing 42 studies. Patients are concerned with engagement in meaningful activities; but they also want to be believed and have their experiences and identity, as someone ‘doing battle’ with pain, validated. Patients seek diagnosis, treatment, and cure, but also reassurance of the absence of pathology. Some struggle to meet social expectations and obligations. When these are achieved, the credibility of their pain/disability claims can be jeopardised. Others withdraw, fearful of disapproval, or unable or unwilling to accommodate social demands. Patients generally seek to regain their pre-pain levels of health, and physical and emotional stability. After time, this can be perceived to become unrealistic and some adjust their expectations accordingly. Conclusions - The social component of the biopsychosocial model is not well represented in current core-sets of outcome measures. Clinicians should appreciate that the broader impact of low back pain includes social factors; this may be crucial to improving patients’ experiences of health care. Researchers should consider social factors to help develop a portfolio of more relevant outcome measures.Arthritis Research U

Two Types of Burst Firing in Gonadotrophin‐Releasing Hormone Neurones

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/92106/1/j.1365-2826.2012.02313.x.pd