Neretina Evgeniya Alekseevna, Doctor of economic sciences, professor, head of sub-department of marketing, Ogarev Mordovia State University (68 Bolshevistskaya street, Saransk, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. The article considers the evolution of scientific views on interaction of economic agents which allowed to reveal distinctive features of the modern forms of interaction of business partners from the traditionally developed ones in conditions of the dual economic system "firm - market".
Materials and methods. The institutional theory and the resource concept of management of a firm formed the methodological basis of the research. It is established that within the institutional economic theory special attention was paid to the contract relations, regulated by means of various types of contracts and transactional expenses assessment. Transition of management to the resource concept, taking place in 1990s, was based on consideration of a firm as a portfolio of competences, formation of which required closer interactions with external agents. It caused new forms of intercompany interactions to occur (strategic partnership, alliances, clusters). In the last decades the interests of scientists were placed in a contour of provisions of the network theory and applied aspects of its realization.
Results. On the basis of studying and systematization of scientific views of foreign and domestic scientists on the problem the of interaction of economic agents the author revealed a tendency of strengthening of interaction between companies and external economic agents in connection with complementarity of resources, aspiration to get access to the know-how, breakthrough technologies and organizational innovations. It caused the search of new forms of intercompany interaction. The article pays special attention to the nature and prerequisites of emergence and ways of creation of interorganizational networks allowing to expand resource and innovative opportunities of organizations. It is also proved that the interest of foreign and Russian companies in network interaction is caused by the need of decrease in transactional expenses, increases of labor productivity, ensuring competitive advantages. For creation of network configurations in real practice one uses different models demanding adequate mechanisms of management. It is shown that not just foreign companies, bu whole countries and regions widely use various forms of cooperation and network interaction for sustainable development, while in the Russian Federation the vertically integrated hierarchical structures of management still prevail.
Conclusions. In order to increase competitiveness of the Russian companies the author substantiates the need of their entrance into the world chain of value creation within various forms of network interaction with business partners.
economic agents, cooperation, intercompany relations, contract, network, network interaction, value chains, types and configurations of networks.
1. Kouz R. Priroda firmy [The nature of a firm]. Moscow: Delo, 2001, 408 p.
2. Williamson O. E. Jonrnal of Law and Economics. 1979, vol. 22, no. 2.
3. Kotler F., Akrol R. S. Marketing i marketingovye issledovaniya v Rossii [Marketing and marketing research in Russia]. 2002, no. 2, pp. 2–19.
4. Ryuegg-Shtyurm Y., Akhtenkhagen L. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya [Problems of managements theory and practice]. 2000, no. 6, pp. 68–72.
5. Sheresheva M. Yu. Mezhfirmennye seti [Interorganizational networks]. Moscow: TEIS, 2006.
6. Sheresheva M. Yu. Formy setevogo vzaimodeystviya kompaniy. Kurs lektsiy: ucheb. posobie [Forms of network interaction of companies. Course of lectures: tutorial]. Moscow: Izd. dom gos. un-ta – Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki, 2010, 339 p.
7. Dubois A. Organizing Industrial Activities. An Analitic Framework, 1995.
8. Tambovtsev V. L. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost' [Social sciences and the modern times]. 2001, no. 5, pp. 25–38.
9. Gereffi G., Humphrey J., Sturgeon T. Review of International Political Economy. 2005, vol. 20, no. 3.
10. Meles R. F., Snow C. C. California Management Review. 1986, vol. 8, no. 3.
11. Riewer K., Klein S., Godolin M. Challenges and Achievements in E-Business and EWork. Part 2. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2002, pp. 892–899.
12. Hinterhueber H. H., Levin B. M. Long Range Planning. 1994, vol. 27, no. 3.