Do Trust-Based Relations Improve Firm’s Performance? Evidence from Transition Economies

Berulava, George (2013): Do Trust-Based Relations Improve Firm’s Performance? Evidence from Transition Economies.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of trust-based relations on firm’s performance in transition economies. The trade credit variable is used as a proxy of trust-based relations and the propensity score matching method is employed to establish casual link between relational governance and business performance in the study. The research is conducted using data from a large survey of firms across 28 transition economies. The results of the study suggest that informal trust-based institutions of contract governance represent an important way for enhancing of business performance. To say distinctly, our findings indicate that in transition economies trade credits positively affect firms’ sales growth. They provide incentives for more intensive innovation activities and ensure higher labor productivity rates. The firms that trust their partners are characterized by larger proportions of reinvested profits as well. The main contribution of this paper is that it provides new empirical insights into the casual link between trust-based relations and business performance of firms in transition economies.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Keywords: trust-based relations, trade credit, networks, propensity score matching, business performance, transition economies
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D23 - Organizational Behavior ; Transaction Costs ; Property Rights; L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L14 - Transactional Relationships ; Contracts and Reputation ; Networks; P - Economic Systems > P3 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions > P31 - Socialist Enterprises and Their Transitions; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology > Z13 - Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology ; Social and Economic Stratification

References

1. Arrow, K.J. (1969) “The Organization of Economic Activity: Issues Pertinent to the Choice of Market versus Non- Market Allocation,” in: The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PBB-System, Joint Economic Committee, 91-st Cong., 1-st sess. (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office).

2. Arrow, K.J. (1974) The Limits of Organization (New York: Norton).

3. Becker, S.O., and M. Caliendo (2007) “Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects”, The Stata Journal, 7(1), 71-83.

4. Berulava G. and D. Lezhava (2008) “The Impact of Trust on the Mode of Transaction Governance between Manufacturer and Distributor: Evidence from Georgia”, Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, Volume 1, № 2 (November), pp.1-32.

5. Bradach, J.L. and R.G. Eccles (1989) “Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms,” Annual Review of Sociology 15, 97–118.

6. Carlin W., M. E. Schaffer and P. Seabright (2004). “A Minimum Rivalry: Evidence from Transition Economies on the importance of Competition for Innovation and Growth”, William Davidson Institute, working paper №. 670.

7. DiPrete, T. and Gangl, M. (2004). ‘Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments’, Sociological Methodology, 34 (1), pp. 271-310.

8. Dyer, J. H. and W. Chu (2003) “The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea.” Organization Science. Jan/Feb, Vol. 14 Issue 1, pp: 57-68.

9. Dyer, J. H. (1996) “Does Governance Matter? Keiretsu Alliances and Asset Specificity as Sources of Japanese Competitive Advantage.” Organization Science. Nov/Dec96, Vol. 7 Issue 6, pp: 649-666.

10. Granovetter, M. (1985) “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” The American Journal of Sociology 91 (3), 481–510.

11. Heide, J. B. and G. John (1992) “Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 Issue 2, pp: 32-44.

12. Helper, S. and M. Sako (1995) “Supplier Relations in the Auto Industry in Japan and the USA: Are they Converging?” Sloan Management Review, (Spring), pp: 77-84.

13. Hendley, K., P. Murrell, and R. Ryterman (1998) “Law, Relationships, and Private Enforcement: Transactional Strategies of Russian Enterprises,” WDI Working Paper No.72, November.

14. Johnson S., J. McMillan and C. Woodruff (1999). “Contract Enforcement in Transition,” CESifo Working Paper Series, WP №211.

15. Johnson S., J. McMillan and C. Woodruff (2002). “Property Rights and Finance,” American Economic Review, Vol. 92 (5), pp. 1335-1356.

16. Lavie D., P. R. Haunschild, and P. Khanna (2012) “Organizational differences, relational mechanisms, and alliance performance.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 Issue 13, pp: 1453-1479.

17. Lewis, D.J. and A. Weigert (1985) “Trust as a Social Reality,” Social Forces 63 (4), 967–985.

18. Macaulay, S. (1963) “Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study,” American Sociological Review 28 (1), 55–67.

19. Mantel, N. and W. Haenszel (1959), “Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data from Retrospective Studies of Disease”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22(4), 719-748.

20. McMillan, J. and C. Woodruff (1999) “Interfirm Relationships and Informal Credit in Vietnam,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, No. 114, November, 1285–1320.

21. Nguyen, N. P. and N. T. Liem (2013) “Inter-Firm Trust Production: Theoretical Perspectives.” International Journal of Business & Management, Vol. 8 Issue 7, pp: 46-54.

22. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23. Poppo L. and T. Zenger (2002) “Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements?” Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 707-725.

24. Raiser, M., R. Allan, and F. Steves (2004) “Trust in Transition: Cross Country and Firm Evidence,” Working Paper No.640 (Ann Arbor: The William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan).

25. Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin (1983) “The Central Role of Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects,” Biometrika, Vol. 70(1), pp. 41-55.

26. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002) Observational Studies. New York: Springer.

27. Sako, M. (2002) “Does Trust Improve Business Performance?” in: Christel Lane and Reinhard Bachmann, eds., Trust Within and Between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

28. Steer, L. and K. Sen (2010) “Formal and Informal Institutions in a Transition Economy: The Case of Vietnam.” World Development, Vol. 38 Issue 11, pp: 1603-1615.

29. Wang Eric, Tai Jeffrey and Varun Grover (2013) “Examining the Relational Benefits of Improved Interfirm Information Processing Capability in Buyer-Supplier Dyads.” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 Issue 1, pp: 149-173.

30. Wang, Xuehua and Zhilin Yang (2013) “Inter-firm opportunism: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and effect on performance.” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 Issue 2, pp: 137-146.

31. World Bank (2001). World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets. The World Bank, Washington DC.

32. World Bank (2002). Transition – The First Ten Years: Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. The World Bank, Washington DC.

33. Zheng Zhou Kevin, Laura Poppo and Zhilin Yang (2008) “Relational Ties or Customized Contracts? An Examination of Alternative Governance Choices in China,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Apr. - May), pp. 526-534.