CC BY
2DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2021-22-4-9 JEL classification: L60, L69
Natalya Yu. Yaroshevich Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Industrial market: The semantic positioning and theoretical foundation
Abstract. The ongoing economic downturn along with the evolutionary transformation of inter-industry interaction and coordination mechanisms, processes and principles of creating added value drive the need to study such economic concept as industrial market. Today neither the scientific literature and nor various regulations and state development programmes offer a stable definition to this term. The presence of a large number of synonymous terms does not eliminate the problem of proper identification of industrial market as an object of research and management and distorts both the research findings and justification of the choice of a strategic management object at the intersectoral level while designing and implementing comprehensive economic policies. The paper aims to develop the appropriate research programme for the concept "industrial market" in economic science. The methodological basis of the study consists of neoclassical, neo-institutional theories, economic sociology, management theories, and the systems approach. The research employs the methods of semantic and bibliometric content analysis, formalisation and systematisation. Based on the new research programme for industrial market, the paper highlights its basic characteristics: integrity and autonomy, technological principle of combination, hierarchical structure, comparability of participants. The authors propose interpreting industrial market as a hierarchical form of a commodity market shaped under the influence of technological factors and institutional comparability within an industrial value chain of products and services. The results of the study can be applied for formulating strategic development programmes for inter-industry structures as well as industrial and innovation policies.
Keywords: industrial market; industry; industrial complex; semantics; bibliometric analysis; research program; strategy.
For citation: Yaroshevich N. Yu. (2021). Industrial market: The semantic positioning and theoretical foundation. Journal of New Economy, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 156-172. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2021-22-4-9 Received September 20, 2021.
Introduction
Industry has always been and remains an economic sphere of great importance. In
the context of change in technological modes and digital transformation of production, it is becoming increasingly relevant to control complex industrial facilities at different levels of state governance. This is evidenced by the initiation of government programmes aimed at developing industry as a whole and its particular sectors1 for the period until 2025 and 2030 (as exemplified by the renewed RF programme "Development of industry and enhancing its competitiveness"2 (the previous version was adopted in 2014), and the state programmes "Development of the aviation industry"3, "Promotion of shipbuilding and technology for the development of shelf deposits"4, etc.). The implementation of these strategic programmes is entrusted to the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, and the main indicator of their performance is the growth of gross value added in the economic sector5.
At the same time, sector-specific strategic programmes do not reveal the content of a particular object that forms the added value. Industry is interpreted quite broadly, mostly as industrial complex [Orekhova, Azarov, 2020], while the added value reflects the generally accepted statistical accounting indicator, rather than the results of production and interaction between industrial enterprises within the value chain6. Hence, the programme documents lack an appropriate definition of an object of control that would allow obtaining system effects of increasing the efficiency of the industry added value creation processes. There emerges an urgent problem of identifying such an object and proposing its definition.
The purpose of the article is to devise a new research programme for the object "industrial market" within the framework of the sectoral strategic management ideology. To accomplish the stated purpose, the following objectives are attained:
• to study the modern practice of using the term "industrial market" and perform its semantic positioning and bibliometric analysis;
1 Portal of government programmes of the Russian Federation. https://programs.gov.ru/.
2 Development of industry and enhancing its competitiveness: Resolution of the RF Government of March 31, 2021 no. 505-20. http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_381851/. (in Russ.)
3 Development of the aviation industry: Resolution of the RF Government of March 29, 2021 no. 480. http:// www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_381212/. (in Russ.)
4 Promotion of shipbuilding and technology for the development of shelf deposits: Resolution of the RF Government of March 18, 2021 no. 404. http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_380057/. (in Russ.)
5 State programmes have been implemented since 2013 and 2014 and for the most part are at the final stage of implementation. At that, the programmes lack target values and intermediate results, and gross value added is calculated at the sector level as the difference between the output of goods / services and intermediate consumption. The term "gross" points to the fact that the indicator is determined prior to deducting consumption of fixed capital. In this case, an economic sector is a set of enterprises grouped according to the main type of activity declared in OKVED classification (Russian National Classifier of Types of Economic Activities).
6 First described by Michael Porter. Value chain refers to a system of interdependent activities that have links between them. The links exist if the way in which one activity is performed affects the costs or efficiency of other activities [Porter, 1990], which should rather be the object of strategic management.
• to present the research programme as a set of theories that underlie studying and defining industrial market;
• to provide the author's definition of industrial market as an object of sectoral strategic management.
Industrial market: Semantic positioning and bibliometric analysis
There are a number of challenges associated with the existing equivalents of the term "industrial market" that are close in meaning and connotation both in the Russian and foreign segments of scientific publications. Firstly, a variety of synonymous definitions of the term drives the need to identify the distinctive features of their use and translation. Secondly, the lack of a unified and detailed interpretation of this concept in Russian publications. Thus, its semantic positioning in the economic literature needs to be examined.
Having analysed English-language sources, we have come to the following conclusions.
Industrial market is defined as a business market and is seen as a method used by a company to sell products or services to a specific group of consumers [Rich, 1999]. Typically, business markets make selling from one business to another easier when one company intends to reuse or resell the other company's products or services. This market is characterized by relationships with wholesale intermediaries in the production chain.
In addition, B2B (business-to-business) market is related to industrial market. Firms operating in it advertise and sell their goods and services to other producers, rather than directly to consumers. Products and services sold in the B2B market are used or resold by the firm that had bought them, and sometimes utilized as raw materials to manufacture new products. Some firms functioning in the B2B market may also sell products to consumers, but this is not their target segment and most of them concentrate on selling their products or services to other manufacturing enterprises [Rich, 1999].
Another synonym for industrial market is industrial sector [Brouthers, Brouthers, Werner, 2002; Carinia, Carpita, 2014; Heredia Pérez et al., 2018]. The term refers to a segment of the economy (secondary sector) that produces goods with significant direct inputs of natural resources and embraces enterprises that provide products to other manufacturing firms1.
However, only the concept of industrial market places an emphasis on the very sale (exchange) of industrial products. As Geigera and Finchb [2009] put it, most
1 Industrial sector: What it is and its components. March 18, 2021. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/ca-reer-development/industrial-sectors.
companies operating in the industrial market advertise and sell their products and services to other companies, but not directly to consumers. This owes to the fact that industrial goods and services are usually most valuable to businesses that can reuse them to conduct production operations, and are not typically used for individual (personal) consumption. Industrial markets are sparse as they offer their products and services to a small number of client firms.
According to the Marketing Dictionary, industrial market is a set of all individuals and organizations that acquire goods and services that enter into the production of other products or services that are sold, rented, or supplied to others1. Thus, industrial market is the most appropriate English-language equivalent.
In the Russian literature, the following terms are semantically close to the concept under examination: otrasl promyshlennosti (the industry), otraslevoy rynok (sectoral market),promyshlennyy kompleks (industrial complex).
In the Economic Dictionary, industrial sector is defined as an objectively isolated segment of the industry that unites enterprises producing homogeneous and specific products, has technology of the same type and a small circle of consumers [Rayzberg, Lozovskiy, Starodubtseva, 2007]. Thus, a limited number of purchasers is a significant characteristic of the industrial sector.
The concept of sectoral market in the Russian segment of empirical research is well-established and is applied without detailed explanations, despite the fact that no uniform interpretation of the term is offered and theoretically the legality of its existence is highly disputable. Most researchers use a combination of two semantic definitions, i.e., sector and market. For instance, Roy and Tretyak [2008] interpret the sectoral market in the context of defining a sector: this is a set of firms that manufacture products using similar resources and technologies. Shtapova [2009] views such a market as a group of commodity markets united by the manufacturer's class (according to OKVED in Russia or the North American Industry Classification System in the USA, Canada, and Mexico). It is the approach mostly used by Russian expert in practice [Alfranca et al., 2014; Gollay, 2016; Yaroshevich, 2019; Baldycheva, 2020; Kislitsyn, 2021], while largely addressing its sectoral component.
Industrial complex is seen as a set of industrial enterprises and infrastructure facilities, the combination of which has a multi-sectoral network-based institutional nature aimed at fulfilling a single system of needs [Orekhova, Azarov, 2020]. This system-related definition is the closest in semantic content to the concept of an industrial market, while reflecting the structural formula of the object under study, without taking into account the dynamic component of the market mechanism that bridges supply and demand.
1 Marketing Dictionary. https://www.monash.edu/business/marketing/marketing-dictionary/i/industrial-market.
Obviously, the use of synonyms while performing bibliometric analysis would be incorrect; therefore, we turn to the direct study of scientific publications characterizing the object of research and representing the most relevant scientific knowledge.
Since we concentrated on both Russian and foreign studies on the industrial market, the following citation databases were selected: for the Russian segment - the scientific electronic database eLibrary and its project the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI); for the foreign segment - the most prestigious and officially recognized in Russia databases such as Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics)1.
Search query configuration used for bibliometric analysis is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Search query configuration
Research database Query text Search criteria
eLibrary Promyshlennyy rynok (industrial market) Morphology-based search. Search in titles, abstracts, keywords
Scopus Industrial market Full match search. Search by TITLE-ABS-KEY. Subject fields: Business, Management and Accounting, Social Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Web of Science Industrial market Search by title, abstract, keywords
Data were collected as of September 20, 2021, and the publications released and indexed in 2021 were retained in the sample for the analysis to be complete. The results are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1.
Table 2. Key statistical indicators of bibliometric analysis, 2011-2021
Indicator Citation database
eLibrary Scopus Web of Science
Total number of documents 106 3 675 1 686
Average annual growth rate of the number of articles, % 144.3 108.1 111.7
Average number of years since publication 2.8 1.75 2.7
Average number of citations per document 1.1 3.82 4.27
Average number of citations per document per year 0.5 0.84 1.12
Average number of references in one document 12 30.6 34.4
Various authors, total 170 8 820 3 574
Number of authors per document 1.6 2.4 2.12
Number of sole-author articles 26 927.3 387.7
1 Hereinafter, unless otherwise stated, the Web of Science database will represent its main collection the Web of Science Core Collection, which covers the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), but does not include the Russian project Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI).
600
CO 500
§ 400
>4 и 300
H 200
A 100
0 •
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
а) number of publications per year
eLibrary Scopus
Web of Science
eLibrary Scopus
Web of Science
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
b) publication dynamics
Fig. 1. Statistics on the number of studies on industrial markets in the eLibrary, Scopus, and Web of Science databases
The analysis covered a 10-year period, starting when the concept under study emerged in the Russian segment of scientific publications (eLibrary). Our main conclusion is that in the international arena the publication activity on the topic of industrial market is more intense and the articles in this field are published much more often (since 2011, an average of 334 publications in Scopus and 153 publications in Web of Science have been released annually, while in the Russian segment there have been only 9.6 publications).
Publication dynamics indicates that industrial markets as an object of research are gaining in relevance both in Russia and abroad. Thus, the author's thesis on the necessity to separate the concept of industrial market into an independent semantic unit of theoretical and empirical analysis has been confirmed.
Theoretical approaches to studying industrial market
The theoretical approaches describing the mechanism of industrial market functioning are categorized into four groups: industrial organization theory, industrial
marketing theory, institutional theory, and economic sociology. They can be conditionally divided into theories revealing the fundamental market conditions (demand and supply), and theories describing the relationships between participants in the exchange process (Fig. 2).
Theoretical approaches to defining industrial market
XT'
I
Neoclassical theories
T
Economic
z
Neo-institutional theories
T
z
Economic sociology
T
I
Management theories
T
Interdisciplinary i
System-based approach
Industrial organization theory Contract theory Theory of power Industrial marketing
Fig. 2. Theoretical approaches to identifying the concept of industrial market
The concept of industrial market is studies and identified within the framework of a strict logic laid down in the classical paradigm of industrial organization theory "structure - behaviour - result" [Mason, 1939; Bain, 1956]. The paradigm is a projection of the system-based approach and allows one to consistently identify the features inherent in both the fundamental conditions of the market and the interaction in the exchange process.
The study of foreign publications that reveal the provisions of industrial marketing [Reeder, Brierty, Reeder, 1987; Cateora, 1993; Moore, Pessemier, 1993; Dillon, Madden, Firtle, 1994; Stankovic, Djukic, 2000] allows us to identify the special features of demand and compare them with the key parameters of supply highlighted within the paradigm (Table 3).
Through the systematization of the peculiarities of demand and supply we have identified the key parameter that determined the mechanism of industrial market functioning, i.e., technology.
Next, the industrial market is studied through exploring the forms of interaction between its participants in the process of production, product promotion, and the formation of a value chain. The description of the forms, conditions and
Table 3. Peculiarities of supply and demand in industrial market
Supply Demand
Peculiarities Significant parameters Peculiarities Significant parameters
Technology Specialization, resource efficiency, economies of scale Inelasticity. Cross elasticity. Coherent character. Unstable character Tightness and longevity of interaction, form of coordination, the emergence of hybrid forms of the market is dependent on the technological tightness of production links in the industrial chain
Raw materials See demand parameters that depend on production technologies at different stages of the industrial chain Derivative character The acceleration effect is established by the technological peculiarities of the industrial chain shaping and the forms of coordination in it, determines the economies of scale in the industry
Service life of product Speed of the innovation process in the industry
Economies of scale
Trade union power Elasticity of demand for human resources is determined by the production technology Rational and professional character Sets the level of elasticity of demand for human resources
the scheme of these relationships is interpreted within the framework of micro-economic and neo-institutional theories, economic sociology and the concept of a value network.
In the context of microeconomic theory, relationships between producers are regarded within the "structure - behaviour" system. What underlies the formation of the market? Is it a ratio of its basic parameters or producers' behaviour in the market and their deliberate behavioural strategy? Some researchers believe the former to be reasonable [Mason, 1939; Bain, 1965]; others prove the existence of a stronger reverse connection [Stigler, 1968; Alchian, Demsetz, 1972; Scherer, Ross, 1990]. It is worth noting that both positions are justified. However, for the industrial market, where most parameters objectively depend on the technologies used in production, only the first option is possible, where the basic parameters, technological peculiarities of supply determine the market structure, rules and norms of relationships, and typical strategies.
Neo-institutional theory investigates the interaction between enterprises in the industrial market through a system of contracts [Goetz, Scott, 1981]. According to contract theory [Polanyi, 1968], interaction takes place through the coordination
of interests, and the exchange acquires the features of being integrative. At the same time, the predominance of informal agreements over formal ones is implemented in neoclassical contracts [Macneil, 1985] and enhances the effect of the coordination mechanism. Further, in relational contracts, such relationships exhibit the signs of a hierarchy, i.e., a "method of vertical subordination", where economic agents delegate authority within production chains [Williamson, 1985]. The presence of contractual relations determines the peculiarities of the hierarchy: firstly, achieving an explicit agreement between different market agents, i.e., joint decision-making on common goals (the boundaries of the hierarchy are precisely determined by the right to decide what, how and when to do); secondly, making well-coordinated decisions, which requires additional motivation and "a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces" [Barnard, 1938]. Such conscious coordination allows rules to be established and changed using the "visible hand" [Chandler, 1977], which determines the importance of their central mechanism, that is hierarchy.
Transaction cost theory provides the most extensive description of the conditions for hierarchy to exist. Hierarchy is formed in response to evolutionary changes that are characterized by a degree of uncertainty, repeatability and specificity of the assets used in production [Williamson, 1985; Furubotn, Richter, 2005]. The possibility of minimizing transaction costs generates different organizational forms of hierarchies [Williamson, 1985, p. 54]. Deepening specificity of assets leads to an increase in transaction costs and, accordingly, gives rise to different hybrid forms of hierarchy1. At that, assets specificity is established by both objective natural-geographical factors and the development level of market institutions.
To describe the interactions between participants in the industrial market, economic sociology theory uses the term "market interface" [Callon, 2016]. Such interaction serves as a tool that decreases the level of uncertainty within the flows of material resources (both inflows - from suppliers, and outflows - from consumers) in industrial markets. The axiom for developing relationships in the industrial market is as follows: the main challenge for any actor is to find a foothold in order to organize interaction with other actors that are also looking for a foothold, which, eventually, generates a stable course of action [White, 2009]. Acquired power becomes such a foothold. According to the provisions of the theory of power [Useem, 1996; Perrow, 2002], it is the level of power concentration that underlies the existence of various forms of interaction. At that, power is an ability to create the environment and institutions around, lower the level of the current uncertainty and compensate for "market failures", rather than an internal source of a firm.
1 It should be borne in mind that the growth rate of transaction costs due to increased specificity of assets in the market is the highest, and within the hierarchy is the lowest.
Within the framework of social network theory, industrial markets are classified in the following manner:
• market-hierarchy at the level of market niche;
• market-hierarchy within vertical integration forward or backward;
• market-informal hierarchy (pecking order).
Any manufacturing enterprise has its own specialization (or, at least, aims for it) and place in the stratified system of intermediate product and service with clear upward or downward flows. This place is identified according to production volumes, the specificity of the technologies used in production, and the quality of the final product. Thus, an individual manufacturing enterprise occupies a specific market niche representing the entire market. What enterprises find their niche is dependent on the extent to which they are interchangeable. The lower the degree of inter-changeability, the more often such a form of hierarchy as a market niche is created. Market-hierarchy as a market niche sets up, respectively, the producer market or the consumer market. In such a hierarchy, the entire production chain will act as a supply market.
At the same time, any manufacturing enterprise is built into the system of "market interface" with its own developed structures and institutions. In an industrial market, which is based on integration (market interface), the enterprise performs all the three parts simultaneously - it is a supplier, a manufacturer, and a buyer. Solely the predominance of its market power in the formed hierarchy can determine the institutional conditions of its existence at large.
The extent to which the participants in the market interface are comparable regulates the complexity of an industrial market. In a number of studies, the simplest linear structure is referred to as informal hierarchy (pecking order) [Chase, 1974; Podonly, 1993].
Within the framework of markets-hierarchies, enterprises' behaviour is absolutely rational in their urge to maximize profit. Achieving this purpose is only possible through forming a single (adopted in the market-hierarchy, i.e., sector) scheme of quality evaluation [Spence, 1974]. At that, there is no direct evaluation (measurement) of quality. This is not about producers offering identical assessment of the quality of a product or service, but about adhering to the principle of equal consumer valuation or a single criterion for transaction profitability. The viability of the market-hierarchy is determined by the variety of overlapping areas of disparate market interfaces1.
1 An ultimate example of this process is the development of high standards of "up-to-date" clothing in the Scottish knitwear industry [Gulvin, 1984; Porac et al., 1995; White, 2002].
The value network concept [Porter, 1985; Kaplinsky, Morris, 2012] deals with industrial market through analysing the value chain that presents the whole range of activities required to implement a full cycle of production, including ultimate disposal. The classical interpretation of the value chain, proposed by Porter, was developed further by Sheresheva. At today's evolutionary stage, this tool is viewed as a value network, i.e., a form of vertical quasi-integration, the hallmark of which is the long-term cooperation of partners that have equal rights, are located along the value chain and serve specific markets or customer orders [Sheresheva, 2006, pp. 177-178].
The main parameters characterizing the industrial market in the context of the value network concept are:
• analysis of barriers to the entry into the chain and the types of economic rents received by participants, as well as methods of income distribution within the chain;
• differentiation of various types of management within the chain and the study of mechanisms for coordinating joint activities of the participants;
• study of the types of value chains (controlled by the producer or the buyer) and the processes of chains modernization.
Using the value network concept makes it possible to visualize and describe a variety of business processes; however, it disregards institutional and social aspects of interactions that develop in the process of industrial relationships, for example, general rules and standards of culture and quality.
It is noteworthy that despite the urgent need to view industrial markets as value creation networks, there are no relevant publications in the Russian research segment. The results of the study conducted are given in Table 4.
Table 4. Role of theoretical approaches in defining the term "industrial market"
Theoretical approach Researchers Object of analysis Contribution to the term's definition
Industrial organization theory Mason [1939], Bain [1956] Sectoral market System interconnection of demand, supply, and forms of enterprises' interaction in the market
Industrial marketing Cateora [1993], Dillon, Madden, Firtle [1994], Moore, Pessemier [1993], Reeder, Brierty, Reeder [1987], Stankovic, Djukic [2000] Peculiarities of demand in the industrial market Peculiarities of demand are connected to a greater extent with the inelasticity of demand for raw materials
Table 4 (concluded)
Theoretical approach Researchers Object of analysis Contribution to the term's definition
Micro- economic theory Alchian, Demsetz [1972], Stigler [1968], Scherer, Ross [1990] Interrelation of the basic parameters of the market, its structure and the behaviour of enterprises Industrial market behaviour depends on supply parameters
Contract theory Goetz, Scott [1981], Polanyi [1968], Macneil [1985], Williamson [1985], Barnard [1938], Chandler [1977] Hierarchy The industrial market is regarded as a hierarchy with vertical links
Transaction cost theory Williamson [1985], Furubotn, Richter [2005] Transaction costs Form of the industrial market hierarchy is determined by the existing opportunity to economize on transaction costs
Theory of power Callon [2016], White [2009], Useem [1996], Perrow [2002] Relationships of power Power in the industrial market belongs to the enterprise in the industrial chain exhibiting the maximum monopoly power
Social network theory Chase [1974], Podonly [1993], Spence [1974] Social networks Comparability of the participants is determined by not the technological parameters of the market but the opportunities to implement a single level of quality, management, and culture
Value network concept Kaplinsky, Morris [2012], Porter [1985], Sheresheva [2006] Value chain (industrial chain). Value added Allows establishing the structural, quantitative and economic parameters of an industrial market, and to assess the economic effect
The systematization of the theoretical approaches to exploring the industrial market makes it possible to single out its fundamental characteristics as a separate (with boundaries) object, i.e., not only as the object of analysis of the added value chain, but also as the object of sectoral strategic management.
Based on the theoretical approaches studied above, we have developed a research programme of the concept of industrial market (Fig. 3).
Motives behind using the term "industrial market"
Theoretical (emerging new theories, applying interdisciplinary approach to the study) Evolutionary (growing complexity of research objects, accelerating scientific and technological progress, digitalization of production and management, growing complexity of production relationships, toughening quality requirements) Situational (aggravating uncertainty, non-system crises, development of global competition)
Theoretical background of the research
Neoclassical theories (industrial organization theory, microeconomic theory) Neo-institutional theories (contract theory, transaction cost theory) Economic sociology (theory of power, social network theory) Management theories (industrial marketing, value network concept) System-based approach
Fundamental characteristics of industrial market
Holistic independent structure Technological principle of consolidation Hierarchical vertical structure Comparability of the participants
Definition of industrial market
Industrial market is a hierarchical form of the commodity market formed under the influence of technological factors and institutional comparability within the industrial value chain of industrial products and services
Fig. 3. Research programme of the concept of industrial market
Conclusion
Based on the special features of the development of industrial sectors, complexes, and enterprises, the following characteristics of an industrial market can be distinguished, which allows identifying it as an independent object of economic analysis and sectoral strategic management:
• holistic independent structure exhibiting all the attributes of a system that ensure an interrelated development nature;
• technological principle of consolidation based on the fundamental parameters of supply. Supply differentiation will determine the structure and boundaries of the industrial market;
• hierarchical structure. Interaction occurs in the context of vertical links predetermined by technological complementarity and substitutability in the industrial chain. At the same time, within hierarchy, the appropriate institutional conditions for the industrial market's development are formed. The diversity of hierarchical forms of its existence is dependent on the variety of ways for minimizing transaction costs, and the hierarchy of its structure is determined by the ability of the enterprise to enjoy maximum monopoly power within the industrial chain;
• comparability of the participants that sets the complexity of the industrial market. In this case, comparability is characterized by both technological complementarity and the formation of common quality standards, management, and culture, which is reflected in the ability to generate greater added value.
Thus, industrial market is defined as a hierarchical form of the commodity market formed under the influence of technological factors and institutional comparability within the industrial value chain of industrial products and services.
This interpretation allows, firstly, proposing a new object of study within the economic theory that institutionally corresponds to the current development stage of economic relationships, and secondly, clarifying the boundaries and principles behind the formation of the object of sectoral strategic management.
References
Baldycheva N. S. (2020). Ekonomicheskie problemy razvitiya otraslevogo rynka (rynka tu-risticheskikh uslug) v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Economic problems of the development of an industrial market (tourist services market) in the Russian Federation]. Problemy nauki = Problems of Science, no. 4 (52), pp. 62-65. (in Russ.)
Gollay I. N. (2016). Kompeksnyy analiz otraslevykh rynkov kak instrument prinyatiya resh-eniy, napravlennykh na vyvedenie innovatsionnogo produkta na rynok [Complex analysis of industrial markets as a decision-making tool aimed at launching an innovative product in the market]. Ekonomicheskiy analiz: teoriya i praktika = Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, no. 4 (451), pp. 20-35. (in Russ.)
Kislitsyn E. V. (2021). Informatsionno-tekhnologicheskiy sektor Rossii: transformatsiya konkurentnoy sredy i otsenka strukturnykh sdvigov [Russia's information technology sector: The competitive environment transformation and structural shifts' assessment]. Journal of New Economy, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 66-87. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2021-22-2-4.
Orekhova S. V., Azarov D. A. (2020). Promyshlennyy kompleks: evolyutsiya issledovatel'skoy programmy [Industrial complex: Evolution of a research programme]. Journal of New Economy, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 5-23. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2020-21-2-1. (in Russ.)
Rayzberg B. A., Lozovskiy L. Sh., Starodubtseva E. B. (2007). Sovremennyy ekonomicheskiy slovar [Modern economic dictionary]. Moscow: Infra-M Publ. 495 p. (in Russ.)
Roy L. V., Tretyak V. N. (2008). Analiz otraslevykh rynkov [Analysis of industrial markets]. Moscow: Infra-M Publ. 29 p. (in Russ.)
White H. (2009). Rynki i firmy: razmyshleniya o perspektivakh ekonomicheskoy sotsiologii [Markets and firms: Notes towards the future of economic sociology]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsi-ologiya = Journal of Economic Sociology, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 33-49. (in Russ.)
Furubotn E. G., Richter R. (2005). Instituty i ekonomicheskaya teoriya. Dostizheniya novoy institutsional'noy ekonomicheskoy teorii [Institutions and economic theory. The contribution of the new institutional economics.]. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University. 702 p. (in Russ.)
Sheresheva M. Yu. (2006). Mezhfirmennye seti [Inter-firm networks]. Moscow: TEIS Publ. 320 p. (in Russ.)
Shtapova I. S. (2009). Ponyatie otraslevogo rynka i ego kognitivnoe predstavlenie [The concept of industrial market and its cognitive representation]. Ekonomicheskie nauki = Economics Sciences, no. 54, pp. 185-190. (in Russ.)
Yaroshevich N. Yu. (2019). Model' strukturirovaniya promyshlennogo rynka mashinostro-eniya [A model for structuring the mechanical engineering market]. Journal of New Economy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 101-115. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2019-20-3-7. (in Russ.)
Alchian A. A., Demsetz H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American Economic Review, vol. 62, issue 5, pp. 777-795.
Alfranca O., Voces R., Herruzo A. C., Balteiro L. D. (2014). Effects of innovation on the European wood industry market structure. Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 40, pp. 40-47. https:// doi.org/10.1016/jforpol.2013.12.001
Bain G. (1956). Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 329 p.
Barnard C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 334 p.
Brouthers K. D., Brouthers L. E., Werner S. (2002). Industrial sector, perceived environmental uncertainty and entry mode strategy Journal of Business Research, vol. 55, issue 6, pp. 495507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00154-5.
Callon M. (2016). Revisiting marketization: from interface-markets to market-agencements. Consumption Markets & Culture, vol. 19, pp. 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2015.10 67002.
Carinia C., Carpita M. (2014). The impact of the economic crisis on Italian cooperatives in the industrial sector. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.jcom.2014.03.001.
Cateora P. R. (1993). International marketing. 8th ed. Homewood: Richard D. IRWIN, Inc. 839 p.
Chandler A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Harvard University Press. 624 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/jxtyjghwrj.
Chase I. D. (1974). Models of hierarchy formation in animal societies. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 19, pp. 374-382. DOI:10.1002/bs.3830190604.
Dillon W. R., Madden T. J., Firtle N. H. (1994). Marketing research in a marketing environment. 3 th ed. Chicago: McGrawHill, Inc. 760 p.
Geigera S., Finchb J. (2009). Industrial sales people as market actors. Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 38, issue 6, pp. 608-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.04.003.
Goetz C. J., Scott R. E. (1981). Principles of relational contracts. Virginia Law Review, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1088-1102.
Gulvin C. (1984). The Scottish hosiery and knitwear industry: 1960-1980. Edinburgh: Joch Donald.
Heredia Pérez J. A., Kunc M. H., Durstc S., Flores A., Geldes C. (2018). Impact of competition from unregistered firms on R&D investment by industrial sectors in emerging economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol.133, pp. 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2018.03.028.
Kaplinsky R., Morris M. (2012). A handbook for value chain research. http://sds.ukzn.ac.za/ files/handbook_valuechainresearch.pdf.
Macneil I. R. (1985). Relational contracts: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review, vol. 4, pp. 483-526.
Mason E. S. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Review, vol. 29, pp. 61-74.
Moore W. L., Pessemier E. A. (1993). Product planning and management. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. 542 p.
Perrow C. (2002). Organizing America: Wealth, power, and the origins of corporate capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 259 p.
Podonly J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 98, pp. 829-872.
Polanyi K. (1968). Primitive, archaic and modern economics: Essays of Karl Polanyi. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books. 346 p.
Porac J. F., Thomas H., Wilson F., Paton D., Kanfer A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 40, pp. 203-227.
Porter M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press. 557 p.
Porter M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free press. 855 p.
Reeder R. R., Brierty E. G., Reeder B. H. (1987). Industrial marketing: Analysis, planning, and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 654 p.
Rich M. K. (1999). Business market management: Understanding, creating, and delivering value. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 76-80. https://doi. org/10.1108/jbim.1999.14.3.76.1.
Scherer F. M., Ross D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Miffin Co. 713 p.
Spence A. M. (1974). Marketing signalling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 224 p.
Stankovic L., Djukic S. (2000). Research industrial buyer behavior - Key Factor of Strategic Positioning. Facta Universitatis, Series: Economics and Organization, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 17-25. Stigler G. J. (1968). The organization of industry. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin. 328 p. Useem M. (1996). Investor capitalism: How money managers are changing the face of corporate America. New York: Basic Books. 352 p.
White H. C. (2002). Market from networks: Socioeconomic models of production. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 389 p.
Williamson O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free Press. 450 p.
Information about the author
Natalya Yu. Yaroshevich, Cand. Sc. (Econ.), Associate Prof., Associate Prof. of Enterprises Economics Dept., Ural State University of Economics, 62/45 8 Marta/Narodnoy Voli St., Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
Phone: +7 (343) 283-11-21, e-mail: iarnat@mail.ru
© Yaroshevich N. Yu., 2021
