Michael Porter developed Porter’s Diamond, also known as The Diamond Model, in 1990 in his book ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations’. The four determinants of Porter’s diamond must operate as a system rather than individually. It provides the answers to ‘Why does nation achieve international success in a particular industry?’ (Porter, 1998:71). Despite the universal application of Porter’s diamond framework, many critics argued that the model is flawed. This essay aims to discuss the different critiques drawn to the diamond network. Firstly, an overview of Porter’s Diamond model will be entailed. Thereafter, focus will be on the many criticisms of the model. For example, many criticized the lack of consideration of the influence of the government and the role of chance in the nation. Some also critique on the inaptness of the framework to small economies, while others comment on the lack of historical perspective of the framework and lastly, the neglecting of national culture in the framework.
Porter’s Diamond Model
The Diamond Model (figure 1) outlines the ‘four broad attributes of a nation that shape the environment, in which local firms compete that promote or impede the creation of competitive advantage’ (Porter, 1998:71). It helps to understand the competitive position of nation in global competition. The four determinants of national advantage are 1) factor conditions, 2) demand conditions, 3) related and supporting industries and 4) firm strategy, structure and rivalry.
FIGURE 1: Porter’s Diamond (Adapted from Porter, 1990)
Factor conditions refers to factors of production; the inputs that are necessary to compete in any industry, these include labor, land, natural resources, capital and infrastruct...
... middle of paper ...
...millan.
Redding S.G., Competitive Advantage in the Context of Hong Kong, in The Competitive Advantages of Far Eastern Business, edited by Fitzgerald, R. (1994)
Porter, M (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rostow, W.W (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth. London: Cambridge University Press.
Rugman, A.M and D'Cruz, J.R. (1993). The "Double Diamond" Model of International Competitiveness: The Canadian Experience. MIR: Management International Review. 33, 17-39.
Van den Bosch. F. (1994). Government's Impact on the Business Environment and Strategic Management. Journal of General Management. 19 (3), 50-59.
Van den Bosch. F, Van Prooijen. A. (1992). The Competitive Advantage of European Nations: The Impact of National Culture - a Missing element in Porter's Analysis. European Management Journal. 10 (2), 173-77.
• A more competitive, efficient and profitable business with less competition in the domestic markets.
Porter, Michael E. "From competitive advantage to corporate strategy." Harvard Business Review (1987): 43-59. Print. May 2014.
P, Micheal 1998, Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance: with a new introduction, The Free Press, America.
Fast Company,(139), 69-70,73,16. Retrieved from Research Library. Document ID: 1870795761. Wheelen, Thomas L. & Hunger, J. David, (2010). Strategic management and business policy.
Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2012). Strategic Management and Business Policy: Towards Global Sustainability. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hendersern and Stern 2000, ‘Untangling the origins of competitive advantage’,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 1123-1145.
1. Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson (2005), Strategic Management : Competitiveness and Globalisation, 6th Edition, Thompson & South-Western.
...f national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411-432.
Assuming a country had a favorable political, legal and economic environment; its cultural environment was evaluated. Culture impacts demand and the marketing mix; therefore, if a country's culture was deemed unfavorable, it was not included in the top ten ranking. Similarly, if a country's culture seemed especially favorable, that aspect is denoted later in the analysis. Cultural factors considered in this analysis:
...M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster.
In a world of free trade, growing competition and accessibility to foreign markets, the need for methodical market analysis and assumptions is steadily rising in today’s business environment. It is just a normal way of thinking to primarily intent to eliminate the financial before entering a new and foreign market. This suggests that enterprises have to develop an overall strategy for their business in order to gain competitive advantage and consequently market share. With the words of Michael E. Porter, professor at Harvard University and leading authority on competitive strategy, this desirable market success is indirectly linked to the individual structure of a market. The unique structure of a single market influences the strategic behaviour and the development of a competitive strategy within a firm. The competitive strategy finally decides whether a company performs successfully on the market or not. Referring to this interpretation of business success, M. E. Porter established his five forces framework that enables directives to gather useful information about the business environment and the competitive forces in industries.
Gilpin discussed the MNC’s evolution through the lenses of a number of business economic theories. Using Raymond Vernon’s Product Cycle Theory, the overseas expansion of American companies until the 1960s was shown as a means of preempting foreign competition and preserving monopoly positions, which was possible then because of the wealth and technology gaps that existed between the US and the rest of the world (282-83). Following the closing of such gaps, Dunning and the Reading School’s Eclectic Theory explained the next stage of the MNC’s evolution as propelled by the great leaps made in technology and communication, which made internationalized management both possible and viable (283). Michael Porter’s Strategy Theory, meanwhile, asserted that the MNC is now in the era of strategic management, wherein activities and capabilities spanning borders allow it to “tap into the value chain” in the most advantageous positions (285-85). Gilpin made an interesting point, however, that MNCs are oftentimes the result of market imperfections and unique corporate situations. In many instances, the decision to expand a firm’s operations in another country was a means of circumventing protectionist measures and trade barriers, or simply to curry favor with governments, as practiced by IBM (280...
Valdani, E., and Arbore, A., 2013. Competitive Strategies: Managing the Present, Imagining the Future. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rugman, A. M. and D’Cruz, J. R. (1993). The ‘double diamond’ model of international competitiveness: the Canadian experience’. Management International Review, 2, 17-39.
15. Hill, Charles W.L. International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2007.