A Study on the Relationship Commitment between Exporters and Importers : A Comparative Study of...

A Study on the Relationship Commitment between Exporters and Importers : A Comparative Study of Chinese and Japanese Market 341

A Study on the Relationship Commitment between Exporters and

Importers : A Comparative Study of Chinese and Japanese Market

백 영 미*7)

This study identified factors affecting the relationship commitment between manufacturing exporters

and foreign distributors and its effects on export performance. In addition, this study tried to find

whether relationship commitment strengthen the firm resources and then improve the performance. RBV,

TCE and SET were applied as the base theories for constructing the research model. Brand power,

product quality, price competency and technology capability as resource based factors, transaction

specific investment, external uncertainty and internal uncertainty as transaction cost factors, and also

communication, fairness, dependence and shared value as Social exchange factors were selected.

Japanese and Chinese markets are selected as the empirical test subjects. For testing the hypothesis, 76

company samples that are contracting to Japanese importers and 114 company samples trading with

Chinese importers are used for the analysis.

Key Words : commitment, export performance, resource based view,transaction cost perspective,

and social exchange theory

. IntroductionⅠ

. Theoretical Background and LiteratureⅡReview

. Research Model and HypothesisⅢ

. MethodologyⅥ

. DiscussionⅤ

. Limitation and Future ResearchⅣReferences

국문초록

수협중앙회 경제연구소 책임연구원*

The Journal of Korea Research Society for Customs 논문투고일자 : 2013. 2. 6.Volume 14, Number 1, February 2013 pp.341~367.： 심사 수정 일( ) : 2013. 2. 15.관세학회지 제 권 호 년 월 일14 1 (2013 2 28 ) 게재확정일자 : 2013. 2. 22.

관세학회지 제 권 제 호14 1342

The increase of FTA with developing countries makes the cross-border traders consider the

business contract in the long-term perspective. This trend is reflected in the fast growing

economy such as China, India, Russia, and so on. Each nation has special historical

background and the business customs so that exporters pay attention in the formal contract

clause and local oriented relationship building simultaneously for expanding the market. If

exporters don t consider only discrete contract, informal norm in the dyadic relation becomes’significant. Especially, the informal mechanism in forming long-term relationship between

export manufacturing companies and foreign distributors becomes very important (Dwyer,

Shurr, and Oh, 1987 Heide and John, 1992 Gencturk and Aulakh, 2007).

The relationship between manufacturing exporters and importers was studied on the

perspective of the buyer-supplier relation in various literatures recently. However, past

studies have the following limitations. First, past literature focused on the buyer supplier–relationship within only one country so there are few literatures concerning the

buyer-supplier relationship in an international context (Ganesan, 1994 Mohr, Fisher and

Nevinn, 1996 Doney and Cannon, 1997 Sharma and Patterson, 1999 Chung, Sternquist and

Chen, 2006). Second, tested variables in the international context were limited on the TCE

and relationship marketing (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994 Parkhe, 1993 Skarmeas, Katsikeas and

Schilegelmilch, 2002 Bello, Chelariu and Zhang, 2003 Katsikeas, Skarmeas and Bello, 2009).

Third, comparative studies, which tested more than two countries, are very rare.

To fill these gaps, this study s theoretical background adopts not only TCE and social’exchange theory, but also RBV. In addition, this study analyzed exporter-importer

relationships and performed comparative studies about the relationship with China and Japan.

This study chose the Korean manufacturing exporters as the survey sample firms because

Korea is one of the high export dependent countries compared to other developing countries

and developed countries. The bank of Korea reported that the ratio of export dependence is

44.7% (the rate of export rate compared to nominal GDP) in 2010. In addition, the

contribution of net export increase to GDP growth is 4% in 2009. This fact reflects how

export affects the recovery of the Korean economy significantly. Since an increase in export

became the main resource for fast recovery in the Korean economy (SERI, 2010), The

relationship between exporter and importer which influences the export performance of

manufacturing companies is becoming more important.

In addition, China and Japan is geographically close to the Korean peninsula and have

similar cultural backgrounds such as Confucianism so the Korea trade volume among these

countries is very large. However, China and Japan have a different political and institutional

system as well as continental structure and infrastructure. In addition, these two countries


have different export and import policy so that economic effect in the world economy has

gap. These cause differences in business customs and the priority difference in the

cross-border contract relationship. Therefore, these similarities and differences between the

two countries became the motives to compare the determinants of long-term relation in the

Chinese and Japanese market.

The purpose of this study is to develop a model that depicts some crucial antecedents of

the long-term relationship between exporters and importers across the border. Accordingly

this research model suggests the determinants of the relationship commitment and its relation

to relationship performance. This study consists of three sections. (1) Review the theoretical

background related to relationship commitment and past literature. (2) Explain the research

model with transaction cost, social exchange and resource-based variables. (3) Suggest the

empirical research result and managerial implications of the model.

The past researches about the inter-firm commitment have not concluded the consensus in

the scope of the definition. The conceptualizations of past literatures indicate that

commitment consists of diverse factors including an enduring desire, willingness, efforts and

sacrifice for continuing the relationship. In the international buyer-seller relationship

context, commitment is defined as three dimensional continuance commitment, behavioral–commitment and affective commitment (Kim and Fraizer 1997, Skarmeas, Katsikeas and

Schilegelmilch 2002). In this study, continuance commitment is adopted and defined as the

extent to which a firm is dedicated to an enduring relationship with overseas partner firms.

Prior researches have drawn and developed two main theories (TCE and social exchange

theory) in order to explain the determinants of relationship commitment. Therefore, affecting

factors (which are verified in the past) based on these theories are discussed below. In

addition, this study attempts to identify new factors to affect the relationship commitment

based on other theories. Furthermore, the literatures concerning the relation between

commitment and relationship performance are discussed below.

The physical separation between the manufacturing place and the foreign market makes it

difficult to interact efficiently compared to the domestic business setting. In addition,

manufacturing exporters and foreign distributors are governed by different political,

institutional and legal systems whereby these cause contract enforcement or conflict.


Therefore, Studies of the international distribution channel suggested that a strong channel

relationship enhances international performance through reduced transaction costs (Zhang,

Cavusgil and Roath, 2003). On the transaction cost perspective, transaction specific

investment and environmental uncertainty were analyzed as the major determinants.

Transaction specific investment would become a sunk cost when the contract is dissolved.

Therefore, it increases the dependence to the contract partner and decreases the opportunistic

behavior in order to make the possibility of partner change lower. Anderson and Weitz (1992),

Ganesan (1994), Doney and Cannon (1997), Skarmeas, Kasikeas and Schilegelmilch (2002),

Katsikeas, Skarmeas and Bello (2009) verified that asset specificity affects relationship

commitment positively.

Environmental uncertainty is the unpredictability of environmental change or complexity as

the situational uncertainty by market conditions. Environmental uncertainty is divided into a

volatile external environment and internal uncertainty. In the volatile external environment,

monitoring becomes very important in order to reduce opportunistic behaviors so that the

transaction cost increases. In this perspective, past studies suggest that the environmental

uncertainty would affect the relationship commitment significantly (Heide and John, 1990

Galaskiwicz, 1985 Skarmeas, Katsileas and Schilegelnilch, 2002 Katsikeas, Skarmeas and Bello,

2009). Internal uncertainty occurs when exporting manufacturers have difficulty in predicting

the performance of export channel partners. In this case, exporting manufacturers intend to

evaluate the export channel more so they increase the investment in controlling and

monitoring sectors. Finally, this intention increases the transaction cost (Katsikeas, Skarmeas

and Bello, 2009).

In social exchange theory, long-term relational partners depend on relational contracts so

they prohibit the intention of seeking short-term profits and thus accomplish long-term

profit (Heide and John, 1992). In the development of exchange relation, the moral foundation

is important. And trust, fairness, responsibility and commitment should be improved for the

contract relationship moving from discrete exchange to relational exchange (Gundlach and

Murphy, 1993).

In past studies based on relation exchange theory, shared value (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;

Morgan and Hunt, 1994), communication (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Anderson and Weitz, 1989;

Mohr and Nevin, 1990; Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Sharma and

Patterson, 1999), relationship period (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Weiss and Anderson, 1992),

social norms (Doney and Cannon, 1997), fairness (Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Kumar, Scheer

and Steenkamp, 1995), and dependence (Fraizer, 1999; Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp, 1995;

Zhang, Cavusgil and Roath, 2003) were analyzed as the significant determinants to affect the


buyer-supplier relationship.

Firm resources may lead to the sustainable competitiveness on the RBV assumption because

Strategic resources are distributed heterogeneously across firms and then these differences are

stable over time (Barney, 1991). Firm resources include all the assets, product quality,

technology, information, capabilities, knowledge and firm attributes, which improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of the firm. Drawing from the RBV, most studies analyzed the

influence of firm resources on the relationship economic performance. However, few prior

studies have examined the impact of resources on the relationship between buyer and

supplier. Especially in the cross-border context, few studies have considered the firm s’resources as the determinants of the exporter-importer relationship even though the firm s’resources are very important. Lages, Silvia and Styles (2009) suggested that product

strategies affect the exporter-importer relationship and therefore indirectly contribute to the

economic success of the channel relationship. Jean, Sincovic and Cavusgil (2009) studied how

IT resources impact the relationship governance mechanism and what configuration of the

alternative governance mechanism help to create economic performance in cross-border

customer-supplier relationships.

Commitment may reduce the usual increase in the overall cross-border channel cost through

the alignment of partners goals, interest and values. For example, Commitment helps’partners sharing information and reacting to the changing environment flexibly in the

relationship so that the relationship partners economize the learning cost (Anderson and

Weitz, 1992) and mitigate the uncertainty of continuous searching (Gundrach, Achrol and

Mentzer, 1995). In addition, commitment makes each party continue efforts to enduring the

relationship and finally reduce the opportunistic behavior throughout the contract process.

Therefore, prior researches insisted that commitment improves the performance between

exporting manufacturers and foreign distributors (Anderson and Weitz, 1992 Weitz and Jap,

1995 Skarmeas and Katsikeas, 2001 Skarmeas, Katsikeas and schlegelmilch, 2002 Gencturk and

Aulakh, 2007 Lages, Silvia and Styles, 2009).


In prior studies, the relationship between an exporting manufacturer and foreign distributor

was explained by the TCE (Williamson, 1985) and social exchange theory (Heide and John,

1992). With regards to the TCE perspective, high level of environmental uncertainty and

transaction specific investment produce the opportunism among international business partners

and finally contribute to increase the transaction cost. The relational exchange theory

explains that the partners involved in the long-term business relationship make the factors to

improve the quality of the relationship, and these factors substitute for a formal control

mechanism or support the mechanism. In this study, transaction cost determinants

(environmental uncertainty and transaction specific investment) and relational exchange

determinants (communication, shared value, communication and dependence) are considered as

the significant factors to affect commitment in the exporter-importer relationship.

Commitment increases the quantity of sharing information and communication, improves the

efficiency of business process, and finally affects the export performance positively.

Therefore, this study considers that commitment may contribute to the increase of

performance directly. However, It is insufficient to explain the relation between relationship

commitment and performance. For this reason, this study adopts the RBV to identify the

relation. Product quality, brand power, technology capability and price competitiveness will be

newly analyzed as the mediators.

The conceptual model depicted in Figure -1 specifies the interrelations among theⅢtransaction cost factors, social relational factors, resource-based factors, relationship

commitment and relationship performance. Based on this conceptual framework, this study

compares the significant variables in the Chinese and Japanese market through empirical

tests.

Figure -1. Conceptual FrameworkⅢ


Prior studies confirmed that long-term commitment in the channel relationship motivated

the greater cooperation between exporters and main foreign distributors. This cooperation also

leads to the improved export performance (Anderson and Weitz, 1992 Weitz and Jap,1995). In

addition, commitment can manifest in attitude, which leads to the strategic integration of

enhancing operational performance. This integration improves the decision-making, long-term

planning and product development via knowledge sharing, logistic system integration, and so

on (Lages et al.,2009). A company committed to export channel relationship does not need to

develop an expensive structural control mechanism to ensure coordination and desired

performance. Commitment may reduce the usual increase of transaction cost in the

cross-border channel through the alignment of partner s goals, interests and values, and’economizing learning cost (Skarmeas, Katsikeas and Schlegelmilch, 2002).

Hypothesis 1a: The exporting manufacturer s commitment to a foreign distributor positively’affects the exporter s performance in the relationship.’

In cross-country studies of the buyer-supplier relationship, product quality has been

verified as the top determinant of export performance. Many successful Japanese and German

companies emphasized a range of quality management strategies such as top management

commitment, shop-floor quality control and product planning in the 20th century (Ahire,

Golhar and Waller, 1996). In the prior research, the formality of the product quality control

department and the educational level of the department head were verified as the discriminant

characteristic between successful and unsuccessful exporters (Lages, Silva and Styles, 2009).

Hypothesis 1b: The exporting manufacturer s product quality positively affects the’relationship performance with a foreign distributor.

Technology is knowledge and information including production technology, marketing

know-how, production know-how, and system sharing between firms. In the international

buyer-supplier relationship, when the supplier has a high level of technology and the buyer

highly satisfies the technical level, the technology leads to the positional advantage. This

means that high technical capability drives end-user demand and the ability to charge price

premiums in the cross-border market (Lages, Silva and Styles, 2009). Consequently, this

makes the suppliers improve revenue and margin.


Hypothesis 1c: The exporting manufacturer s technical capability positively affects the’relationship performance with foreign distributors.

Companies, which have a high brand reputation in the international market, are perceived

that they are financially and managerially safe (Anderson and Weitz, 1992). Thus, these

companies can easily acquire trust from foreign distributors and have less opportunism from

partners (Styles, Patterson and Ahmed, 2008). These reflect that monitoring and control costs

to the foreign distributors are reduced and a premium price is applicable. In addition, past

researches suggested that a strong brand helps the firm establish an identity in the market

and provides a weapon to counter the growing retail power of other companies (Douglas,

Craig and Nijssen, 2001 Barwise and Robertson, 1992).

Hypothesis 1d: The exporting manufacturer s brand reputation positively affects the’relationship performance with foreign distributors.

Transaction-specific asset is the extent to invest a necessary asset and make an effort for

a specific transaction relationship. The buyer-supplier invests the transaction specific and

nontransferable asset to a channel partner to continue the relationship and then make it

difficult for one or the other to dissolve the relationship(Anderson and Weitz, 1992).

Skarmeas, Katsikeas and Schilegelnilch (2002) also insisted that firm-specific investment

increases switching cost and heightens exit barriers. By augmenting the cost of dissolving the

relationship, transaction-specific investments bind buyers and suppliers in the cross-border

channel relationship and continue the condition. In addition, they insisted that these assets

are built and tailored specifically to the focal trading arrangement so that they save time and

effort in the exchange process, and accomplish channel goals more easily (Kim and Fraizer,

1997).

Hypothesis 2a: The transaction-specific asset of an exporting manufacturing company

positively affects the commitment of an exporting manufacturing company

to foreign distributors.

Environmental uncertainty means the deficit of information concerning the external

environmental factors, which are needed for decision making. The external environment may


give a foreign distributor motives to seek a short-term benefit opportunistically and break

the appointment in the volatile situation (Bello and Gilliland, 1997), because it can interpret a

vague contingency in its own favor (Klein, Fraizer and Roth, 1990). Additionally, the level of

conflict among contract partners is increased in the uncertain environment. The conflict or

inter-firm inconsistency in their opinion prevents the distributors from providing the

appropriate help to their manufacturers. Therefore, an uncertain external market environment

decreases the firm's intension to continue the cross-border buyer-seller relationship and

becomes an obstacle to build the close relation and opinion congruence(Skarmeas, Katsikeas

and Schlegelmilch, 2002).

Hypothesis 2b: The external environmental uncertainty negatively affects the commitment of

an exporting manufacturing company to foreign distributors.

Internal uncertainty means the extent of difficulty to predict the export performance. This

difficulty includes troubles in gathering and processing of information, and it makes it

difficult for the manufacturing company to evaluate efficiency, which occurs in the contract

relationship making the attempts by the foreign distributor to assess equity and efficiency

unclear (Williamson, 1985). In this circumstance, the opportunity to exploit the contract

arrangement is increased so that the supplier may increase the opportunistic behavior. Thus

high internal uncertainty is related to suspension of exporting manufactures' opportunism. In

addition, an inability to appraise partner s performance and monitor its conduct distorts’expectations regarding motives, cultivates suspicions and reduces trust (Katsikeas, Skarmeas

and Bello, 2009). According to this reason, internal uncertainty decreases the will of trusting

and cooperating with contract partners and the level of the relationship.

Hypothesis 2c: The internal uncertainty negatively affects the commitment of an exporting

manufacturing company to foreign distributors.

Communication is defined broadly as the formal as well as informal sharing of meaningful

and timely information between firms (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Communication, especially

timely communication, assists in resolving disputes and coordinating expectations (Morgan and

Hunt, 1994). Members of the distribution channel can accomplish cooperation by frequent

information exchange. Additionally, the buyer-supplier increases the confidence of continuing

the contract and resolves the mal-functional conflict (Anderson and Weitz,1989). Therefore,

when communication is formal and is achieved by a two-way inter-exchange, relationship


commitment between distribution channel members are increased (Anderson and Weitz,1992).

Hypothesis 3a: Communication positively affects the commitment of an exporting

manufacturing company to a foreign distributor.

Fairness of a contract is defined as the fairness of benefit, which is provided from a

contract partner and the fairness of the business process in the contract relationship (Kumar,

Scheer and Steenkamp, 1995). By making sacrifices and demonstrating concern in other

long-term relationships, channel members obtain a reputation for their fairness in the

contract relationship. Such fairness in the contract decreases the opportunistic behavior and

gives the contract partners confidence, which they consider as their own and the partner's

benefit at the same time. In addition, the feeling of having received fair treatment tends to

create a behavior to reciprocate that fairness and act fairly themselves by adhering to the

strategic decisions (Kim and Mauborgne,1993). Thibaut and Walker (1975) also noted that the

increase in procedural fair judgments would result in better acceptance and compliance. On

the other hand, the contract partners, who perceived unfairness from the other party,

consider the suppliers untrustworthy and finally feel dissatisfaction. This emotion brings

about doubt and mistrust with regards to the contract partner.

Hypothesis 3b: Fairness in the cross-border business relationship positively affects the

commitment of an exporting manufacturing company to a foreign

distributor.

Shared value is the extent to which partners have beliefs in common about what behaviors,

goals, and policies are important or unimportant, appropriate or inappropriate, and right or

wrong (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Gundlach and Murphy (1993) insisted that the basis of

relational exchange started from morally shared values. Hunt, Wood and Chonko (1989)

suggested that firms seeking ethically shared value or ethical standards are very important

factors to improve organizational collaboration. Therefore, the ethical shared values and

directly task related values between exporting manufacturers and foreign distributors intensify

the relationship make the same goal and increase commitment (Morgan and Hunt,1994). In

addition, shared values related to product quality, promotion strategy and customer service

might increase the commitment in the relational exchange. When the buyer-supplier selected

a partner, who conceals the business philosophy and overall value, they can build and

accomplish the mutual goal more easily while understanding the other party(Berg and

Friedman, 1980).


Hypothesis 3c: Shared value in the cross-border relationship positively affects the

commitment of an exporting manufacturer to a foreign distributor.

Dependence is defined as the extent to there being no equivalent or better alternatives

available in the market (Heide and John, 1988). When importers and exporters exchange high

value resources, which are very difficult to acquire from other partners, they build high

interdependence. Interdependence leads to the development of a better understanding, both

explicit and implicit, regarding obligation, rules, outcomes, contribution and sanction to the

relationship (Gao, Sirgy and Bird, 2005). In this process, interdependence improves the

transaction value and reduces transaction cost. First, since coordinating high value resources

enhances payoffs, transaction value can be increased. Second, since the expected benefits

from exploiting an irreplaceable partner are reduced so that vulnerability is reduced, the

transaction cost is reduced (Katsikeas, Skarmease and Bello, 2009).

Hypothesis 3d: Interdependence in the cross-border relationship positively affects the

commitment of an exporting manufacturer to a foreign distributor.

Product quality is considered the top determinant of export success. Firm resources such as

product quality are distributed heterogeneously across firms. The differences are stable over

time and finally affect a firm's competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). In the study of

Christensen, Rocha, and Gertner (1987), product innovation and product quality are suggested

as the two key elements of product strategy. Lages, Silvia and Style (2009) insisted that

these elements are the outcomes for three sets of capabilities: organizational learning,

relationship, and quality capabilities. Among the capabilities, quality capabilities gauge a

firm's ability to design, develop and produce products that fulfill customer needs.

A manufacture's commitment to the distributor makes each party communicate well and

share information more efficiently with the long-term goal. In addition, commitment leads to

performance enhancing operational and strategic integration (Larson,1992). This integration

leads to more efficient product development in response to local customer needs and

knowledge sharing (Lages, Silvia and Style, 2009). This also increases the probability of

reaching a mutual satisfactory solution for improving the product quality (Mohr and Spekman,

1994).

Hypothesis 4a: The commitment of an exporting manufacturer to the foreign distributor

positively affects the product quality.


When a company has a long-term oriented relationship with a partner firm and commits to

the partner, they can have a mutual goal and make an effort to accomplish it. For

approaching the mutual goal, the company promotes the cooperation and mutual monitoring

mechanism. First, cooperation between exchange partners is thought to enhance the

innovative capability by providing opportunities of information sharing and resource exchange

(Jean, Sinkovics and Cavusgil,2010). According to the RBV, cooperativeness can create an

environment for sharing complementary resources so buyers and suppliers are able to access a

great resource base from which to develop unique and useful idea or approaches (Wang

Bradford, Xu and Weitz, 2008). In the cross-border buyer-supplier relationship, a foreign

distributor's request stimulates the product innovation for an exporting manufacture (Jean,

Sinkovics and Cavusgil, 2010). Therefore, this request for product innovation reflects the

technology development of the supplier's product and improves the products technical

capability. Second, the mutual monitoring, especially the output monitoring mechanism

provides leadership in the innovation network and leads to greater supplier innovativeness

(Jean, Sinkovics and Cavusgil, 2010). When this monitoring governance has an atmosphere of

trust, openness and commitment, it facilitates the flow of information from the foreign

market more effectively (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006). So the supplier can reflect the foreign

customers' needs on new product technology appropriately.

Hypothesis 4b: The commitment of an exporting manufacturer to a foreign distributor

positively affects the manufacturer's technical capability.

Brand reputation is the one intangible source of building a sustainable competitive-

advantage which is difficult to copy and transfer to other companies. This reputation is made

by trustful and consistent quality and business behavior so that it is easily announced to the

business market. This brand reputation is built on long-term relationship orientation and

commitment. The agenda between supplier and buyer is different so the extent to which buyer

and supplier goals and plans are aligned will have a marked impact on what is ultimately

executed in the market (Hughes and Ahearne, 2010). In addition, the intent to the

relationship commitment makes the buyer-supplier share the resources (Anderson, Lodish and

Weitz, 1987). Those behaviors make it possible to improve both product and service quality,

reduce the lead-time in the logistics and finally increase customer satisfaction. Thus, these

enhancements in the international product distribution improve brand evaluation.

Hypothesis 4c: The commitment of an exporting manufacturer to foreign distributor

positively affects the manufacturer's brand reputation.


According that suppliers perceived end-user s buying pattern changed, the exporting firms’have contract with a national mass buyer in order to augment its existing channels of

distribution. Therefore, this empirical test is set in the relationship between an exporting

manufacturer (supplier) and a national mass importer (buyer).

To test the research hypothesis, the samples were randomly selected from 1000

manufacturing exporters, which are registered in KITA and 650 manufacturing exporters listed

in KOCHAM (Korean Chamber of Commerce). On the basis of MTI code, 9 industries were

selected and then samples are collected by each industry rate (Table1). The samples were

collected via e-mail after a phone call. 467 questionnaires were received from an export

manager who is most involved in international supply relations. The response rate was 28.3%.

In order to only test companies, which do their business in Japan and China, 190 samples

(Chinese market (114 samples), Japanese market (76 samples)) were used for the empirical

analysis. Finally, 190 samples (11.5%) were used for further analysis.

Table -1 Export volume rate based on MTI code(ministry of trade and industry)Ⅵ

Commodity Export volume Rate

Electronic product 131,909,601 0.31

Machines 133,254,828 0.32

Chemicals 45,884,784 0.11

Iron and steel 39,099,804 0.09

Mineral 40,299,913 0.10

Fabrics 13,317,087 0.03

Plastic, rubber and leather product 9,340,205 0.02

Agricultural products 4,351,988 0.01

Personal care goods 2,575,036 0.01

Miscellaneous manufactured goods 1,974,082 0.00

Total 422,007,328 1.00

KITA (Korean International Trade Association)(2009)

The measurement approach for the theoretical constructs in this research model was

described briefly. The variables as the antecedent were measured by the following description

and each dimension was measured as a multi-item scale with a likert-type format.


First, relationship performance was measured by relationship satisfaction and economical

goal accomplishment. Relationship accomplishment was adapted to the scale of Gencturk and

Aulakh (2007) s study and economical goal accomplishment was used Kasikeas, Skarmeas and’Bello (2009) s scale.’Second, commitment was used as the scale, which was developed by Anderson and Weitz

(1992) and also applied in Gencturk and Aulakh (2007) s study.’Third, transaction specific investment was measured by the scale, which was developed by

Anderson and Weitz (1992). External uncertainty and internal uncertainty was applied to the

measure of Katsikeas, Skarmeas and Bello (2009) s study.’Fourth, communication was adapted from the scale, which was used by Morgan and Hunt

(1994). Transaction fairness was from Clemmer and Schneider (1996) s scale. Shared value was’applied to the scale, which was used in Gundlach and Murphy (1993), and Morgan and Hunt

(1994). Interdependence was used as the scale, which was developed by Katsikeas, Skarmeas

and Bello (2009).

Fifth, the scale of product quality was adapted from Lee (2002). Technical capability was

applied to the scale of Knight and Cavusgil (2004) s study. The scale of brand reputation was’adapted from Steenkamp, Batra and Alden (2003) s study.’

In order to verify the validity of data, three statistical tests were processed. For all these

tests, we used SPSS 14.0 and AMOS 16.0 program.

First, we assessed non-response bias by comparing an early respondent with a late

respondent on all key constructs (Armstrong and Overton 1977). Our t-test result showed no

significant difference, providing the evidence that our data did not have a non-response bias

problem.

Second, we followed recent recommendations (Podsakoff et al. 2003, Malhotra et al. 2006)

to test common method bias. Above all, in order to control the effect of common method bias

prior to the survey, we used alternative forms of scales to measure variables. Next, we

applied Harman s one-factor test. Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggested that one general factor’would emerge from a factor analysis if common method variance were a serious problem. The

factor analysis produced no apparent general factor, which implied that common method

variance was not a serious concern.

Third, we tested the reliability and validity of all variables. According to the test result of

constructs reliability through Cronbach's , all indicators showed more than 0.7 so that allαvariables were verified the unidimmensionality. In addition, we assessed convergent validity

and discriminant validity. For the convergent validity test, AVE and C.R. were used. All

variables passed the convergent validity test because AVE (more than .70) and C.R. (more


than .80) satisfied the validity standard.

To verify the discriminant validity, the squared root of AVE and the correlation were

compared. The square root of each AVE appeared higher than the correlation indexes so that

the discriminant validity was verified both in the Chinese and Japanese market.

Table -2. Reliability and Validity Test Result (Chinese market)Ⅱ

Variables IndicatorFactor

loadingsCronbach’s α C.R. AVE

Internal uncertainty

I1 0.872

0.851 0.910 0.771I2 0.940

I3 0.818

External uncertaintyE2 0.941

0.888 0.947 0.900E1 0.956

InvestmentV5 0.955

0.945 0.973 0.948V 0.992

Communication

C1 0.923

0.852 0.911 0.774C2 0.913

C3 0.809


loadingsCronbach s’ α C.R. AVE

Shared valueS1 0.861

0.840 0.926 0.862S2 0.995

Fairness

F1 0.778

0.901 0.938 0.835F2 0.937

F3 1.025

Dependence

D1 0.903

0.866 0.918 0.789D2 0.900

D3 0.861

CommitmentM1 1.143

0.833 0.923 0.857M2 0.708

Performance

P1 0.849

0.900 0.926 0.715

P2 0.832

P3 0.994

P4 0.829

P5 0.706

Technical

Capability

T1 0.996

0.910 0.944 0.848T2 0.889

T3 0.879

Product qualityQ1 0.958

0.888 0.947 0.900Q2 0.939

Brand reputationB1 1.011

0.878 0.942 0.891B2 0.877


Table 3. Correlation of Constructs and the square root of the AVE (Chinese market)

C S F D M P T B I E Q V

C 0.880

S 0.497 0.928

F 0.579 0.497 0.914

D 0.453 0.448 0.544 0.888

M 0.486 0.393 0.709 0.522 0.926

P 0.270 0.350 0.344 0.344 0.418 0.846

T 0.426 0.239 0.573 0.311 0.452 0.278 0.921

B 0.338 0.285 0.413 0.326 0.489 0.477 0.625 0.944

I 0.001 -0.167 -0.019 0.008 -0.010 -0.139 -0.031 -0.070 0.878

E 0.008 0.061 -0.228 -0.105 -0.204 -0.069 -0.162 0.034 0.025 0.948

Q -0.062 -0.056 0.136 0.06 0.228 0.150 0.121 0.116 0.149 0.008 0.949

V 0.152 0.102 0.210 0.251 0.276 0.303 0.519 0.613 -0.144 0.157 0.040 0.974

Note: Square roots of average variances extracted (AVE's) shown on diagonal

V:internal investment, E:external uncertainty, I:internal uncertainty, C:communication, S:shared value,

F:fairness, D:dependence, M:commitment, Q:product quality, B:brand power, T:technical capability, P:

performance

Table 4. Reliability and Validity Test Result (Japanese market)


loadingsCronbach’ α C.R. AVE

Communication

C1 0.874

0.778 0.873 0.698C2 0.751

C3 0.878

Shared valueS1 0.777

0.709 0.873 0.744S2 0.983

Fairness

F1 0.96

0.920 0.950 0.863F2 0.808

F3 1.015

Dependence

D1 0.759

0.857 0.913 0.779D2 0.874

D3 1.006

Commitment

M1 1.087

0.906 0.942 0.844M2 0.836

M3 0.856

Performance

P1 0.843

0.909 0.932 0.734

P2 0.806

P3 0.744

P4 0.963

P5 0.921

Technical

Capability

T1 0.968

0.922 0.951 0.865T2 1.149

T3 0.664

Brand reputationB1 1.104

0.953 0.977 0.955B2 0.851


Table 5. Correlation of Constructs and the square root of the AVE (Japanese market)

To identify the significance of the hypothesis, the structural equation model and path

analysis were used. The Warp PLS (Partial least square) program was used for the statistical

analysis. The reason why the PLS is adopted for the statistical analysis method is that the

test result shows the significance of variables and VIF index simultaneously without any other

analytical process. All constructs seem to be measured in a reflective (i.e., not formative)

fashion. According to the test result, correlation indexes between latent variables (product

quality, technical capability and brand reputation) were shown to be too high even though

both of them are exogenous variables. This means that there is doubt regarding the

multi-collinearity problem. Therefore, the VIF index was used for the verification of collinear

possibility. The test result showed no problem because all VIF indexes appeared to be much

lower than 5.

To test the hypothesis, firstly we tested factors affecting relationship commitment. Second,

the direct relations between relationship commitment and performance were tested. Finally,

the resource capabilities were tested as the mediating variables between relationship

commitment and relationship performance.


loadingsCronbach’ α C.R. AVE

Internal

uncertainty

I1 0.964

0.887 0.930 0.817I2 0.891

I3 0.856

External

uncertainty

E2 0.9730.862 0.935 0.879

E1 0.901

InvestmentV5 1.04

0.938 0.970 0.942V 0.901

Product qualityQ1 1.059

0.927 0.965 0.932Q2 0.871

V E I C S F D CM Q B T PV 0.971

E 0.227 0.937

I 0.201 -0.028 0.904

C 0.119 -0.151 -0.150 0.836

S -0.035 -0.047 -0.259 0.639 0.880

F 0.104 -0.074 -0.071 0.368 0.460 0.929

D 0.217 -0.158 0.000 0.329 0.215 0.400 0.882

C 0.391 -0.098 0.020 0.456 0.386 0.696 0.552 0.919

Q 0.217 -0.094 -0.124 0.080 0.111 0.328 0.111 0.400 0.965

B 0.203 0.034 -0.171 0.119 0.236 0.430 0.295 0.468 0.791 0.977

T 0.263 0.002 0.098 0.197 0.199 0.518 0.199 0.592 0.717 0.747 0.930

P 0.255 0.039 -0.022 0.201 0.291 0.481 0.331 0.425 0.439 0.471 0.446 0.857


Before the hypothesis was verified, the model fitness had been checked with PLS model fit

indices. If the p-value of APC and ARS are less than .05, and AVIF are less than 5.00, the

model fit is satisfied. All of the research models demonstrated good model fits because the

model fit indices appeared to be much less than the standards. (Chinese market: APC=0.192

p=0.00, ARS=0.272 p=0.00, AVIF=1.591, Japanese market: APC=0.251 p=0.00, ARS=0.407

p=0.00, AVIF=1.724).

In the hypothesis test for the Chinese market, firstly our result supported the H1a,

suggesting that the relationship commitment of the exporting manufacturer to a foreign

distributor strengthens the relationship performance. Brand reputation (coefficient=.188,

p<0.01) was also identified as the significant factor to affect relationship performance.

Therefore, our result also supported H1d, indicating that the exporting manufacturer s high’brand reputation improved performance including relationship satisfaction and economic

performance.

We tested what the significant exogenous factors affecting relationship commitment were.

Relationship specific investment, fairness and dependence (coefficient =0.163 p=0.00,

coefficient=0.495 p=0.00, coefficient=0.170, p=0.02) were identified as the significant

determinants. Thus, our empirical test supported H2a, H3c, and H3d.

Brand reputation, technical capability and product quality were tested as mediate variables

between commitment and performance. First of all, commitment improved all the resource

capabilities (product quality, technical capability and brand reputation) so that H4a, H4b, and

H4c were supported. However, brand reputation only affected relationship performance. As

previously mentioned, H1d was supported.

Table 6. Chinese market - Path coefficient and p-value

C S F D I T B P I E M

Commitment0.123 0.020 0.495*** 0.170** 0.163*** -0.021 -0.076

0.118 0.435 0.000 0.020 0.006 0.495 0.159

Performance-0.109 0.385** 0.050 0.265***

0.258 0.012 0.329 0.007

Technical

Capability

0.452***

0.000

Brand

Reputation

0.489***

0.000

Product

quality

0.276***

0.003

*: p<0.10, **: p<0.05, ***: p<0.01

Therefore, the transaction specific investment among transaction cost factors was identified


as significant in the Chinese market(Skarmeas, Kasikeas and Schilegelmilch, 2002). This

result is consistent with Zhou(2008) s study result, which shows a close positive relation’between asset specificity and ties with Chinese partners. Fairness and interdependence among

the social exchange factors were significant to increase relationship commitment between

cross-border buyer-suppliers. This result is consistent with the past literatures (Anderson

and Weitz, 1992; Fraizer, 1999; Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp, 1995). In addition,

commitment improved relationship performance directly (Zhang, Cavusgil and Roath, 2003).

Brand reputation among the resource capabilities significantly mediated the relation between

commitment and relationship performance. Finally, commitment was shown to improve all

resources (product quality, technical capability and brand reputation).

In the hypothesis test of the Japanese market among variables, which were expected to

affect to relationship commitment, three variables except product quality were significantly

verified. Therefore, H1a, 1c, and 1d were supported. It means that the high level of

relationship commitment, technical capability and brand reputation improved relationship

performance. In the test result regarding factors affecting relationship commitment,

transaction specific investment, external uncertainty, fairness, shared value, and dependence

were identified as the significant determinants. Thus, our empirical test supported H2a, H3b,

H3b, H3c, and H3d. Brand reputation, technical capability and product quality were tested as

mediate variables between commitment and performance. The empirical test result verified

that commitment improves all the resource capabilities (product quality, technical capability

and brand reputation).

Table 7. Japanese market - Path coefficient and p-value

C S F D I T B P I E M

Commitment0.020 0.136* 0.514*** 0.248*** 0.274** -0.041 -0.036**

0.325 0.058 0.000 0.004 0.019 0.483 0.036

Performance0.235* 0.394** -0.083 0.191**

0.095 0.014 0.415 0.035

Technical

Capability

0.623***

0.000

Brand

Reputation

0.492***

0.000

Product

quality

0.539***

0.000

*: p<0.10, **: p<0.05, ***: p<0.01


Therefore, H4a, H4b, and H4c were supported. However, product quality did not affect

relationship performance. Therefore, only H1c and H1d were supported.

In the result of the Japanese market, external environment uncertainty and transaction

specific investment (Skarmeas, Kasikeas and Schilegelmilch, 2002) among transaction cost

factors, and shared value (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), fairness (Anderson and Weitz, 1992) and

interdependence (Fraizer, 1999) among the social exchange factors, were identified as the

significant factors affecting relationship commitment. Commitment improved all resource

capabilities, technical capability and brand reputation among the resource capabilities and was

identified as the significant factors to improve the relationship performance. Therefore,

commitment was verified to increase the relationship performance directly (Zhang, Cavusgil

and Roath,2003). At the same time, technical capability and brand reputation significantly

affected the mediating variables between commitment and performance.

The objective of this study is to compare the Chinese market and Japanese market with

regards to the exporting manufacturer-foreign distributor s relationship. In the analysis of’each country, this research attempted to identify the significant determinants that affect

relationship commitment and the important mediators between commitment and relationship

performance. The findings demonstrate that social exchange factors improve the relationship

commitment and this commitment increases all resource capabilities in both countries. In

addition, the level of commitment improves relationship performance.

According to the main test difference between China and Japan, external environment

uncertainty was significant in preventing relationship commitment in Japan. This empirical

result supported that external environment volatility increases transaction cost. This result is

consistent with Klein, Fraizer and Roth (1990). In addition, this result reflects the fact that

the Japanese economy has been depressed for the last 20 decades. During this period, a lot of

companies were bankrupt or downsizing and the investment from foreign countries was

decreased. In addition, the value of the yen became high so local manufacturing cost and

export product price increased and thus export decrease (Collins and Rugman,2008).

Therefore, Japanese environmental volatility in the last 2 decades might make the

cross-border business environment opportunistic and enforce the foreign partners who have

difficulty in committing, into the dyadic relationship.

Secondly, technical capability was also the meaningful mediator between relationship

commitment and the performance in the Japanese market. It reflects that the Japanese

distributor carefully considers the level of technical resources when they do business with a


foreign exporting manufacturer. Japan is basically strong in the technical oriented industry

such as electronics, semiconductor, automobile, and so on. The Japanese firms generally put

the R & D budget with the large portion. Even during the distribution process, they invest a

large volume of financial and human assets to educate the sales employees and control the

technical service quality. Because of these reasons, Japanese products generally have a high

technical level in the majority of the industries. Therefore, Japanese importers are sensitive

in the technical level of the importing product.

Thirdly, shared value is identified to affect relationship commitment in the Japanese

market. Japan is considered a high context cultural country (Hall, 1976). When they start a

business relation with foreign firms, they spend much time and effort to verify the

appropriateness of the business relation such as not only the firms tangible assets but also’the intangible assets like business customs, values, goal and so on. Above all, they consider

the possibility of sharing intangible assets throughout the business relation compared to

western country based firms. Therefore, the shared value between cross-border buyers and

suppliers is meaningful in the Japanese market.

In the test result, fairness and dependence among social exchange factors were identified as

the important determinant of relationship commitment in both countries. The reputation

related to fairness is received and collected by past businesses. This reputation is the base of

a firm s credibility and an indicator for evaluating the firm. Therefore, fairness in the’cross-border business process is regarded as the significant condition with whomever the firm

has business relations with.

In addition, the commitment into the cross-border buyer-supplier relation is identified to

improve relationship performance both in the Japanese and Chinese market. Commitment

means the long-term orientation in the business relationship. The long-term orientation

makes the dyadic partner build mutual goals and cooperate with each other more

progressively. This also promotes sharing information and controlling the process efficiently

so the transaction costs decrease. Therefore, commitment in the cross-border buyer-supplier

relation improves relationship performance.

This study shows how export suppliers have business relations with Japanese and Chinese

local buyers based on the empirical test result. This is the first study, which attempts to

identify the resource factors as the mediator between commitment and performance. Prior IB

literatures look at resource factors only as the determinants of performance. Recently few

studies have attempted to use resource variables as the determinants of relationship

commitment. Therefore, this study is very meaningful to show the reverse logical perspective

concerning relationship commitment with the RBV.

Korea, China and Japan share the Confucian cultural heritage so they respect authority,

devotion to groups and strong work ethics. Chinese ideogram is an essential part of the

Japanese and Korean language system. This shared cultural experience can be assumed to


have favorably affected the cooperative activities among each other (Kim, Kim and Lesage,

1986). These two countries show the significance of shared values in the business relationship

as it is empirically verified in this study. However, each country has their own specific

characteristics based on politics, economics and other areas whereby they show different

reactions to the same factors. Therefore, export suppliers have to behave appropriately to the

local buyers (distributors) in these two countries with regards to the differences among each

country.

To identify the determinant of commitment for the cross-border buyer-supplier and its

relation to relationship performance, this study surveyed only the export suppliers with the

questionnaire. This may provide limited empirical implication as it only considered the

supplier s site. In future studies, a dyadic survey is needed to recover this limitation even’though there are geographical and linguistic obstacles, as well as time and financial cost

limitations for surveying within the three countries.


조미진 김정곤 와 시장접근성 분석 베트남 수입시장을 중심으로(2012). FTA : .· 관세학회지, 13(4),

135~156.

황재한 대 중국 무역 및 투자 활성화 방안에 관한 연구(2012). . 관세학회지, 13(3), 193-212

Ahire S. L., Golhar D. Y. and Waller M. W. (1996). Development and Validation of TQM

implementation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56.

Anderson, E., Lodish, L. M. and Weitz, B. A. (1987). Resource allocation behavior in

conventional channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(February), 85-97.

Anderson, E. & Narus, J. A. (1986). Toward a better understanding of distribution channel

working relationships, In K. Backhaus, &D. Wilson(Eds.). Industrial marketing: A

German-American perspective, K. Backhaus & D. Walson, eds. Berlin: Springer

Verlag, Inc, 120-336.

Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. A. (1989). Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial

Channel Dyads. Marketing Science, 8(Fall), 310-23.

Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. A. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment

in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 18-34.

Armstrong, S. J & Overton, T. S. (1997). Estimating non-response bias in mail survey.

Journal of Marketing Research, 16(August), 396-400.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bello, D., Chelariu, C & Zhang, L. (2003). The antecedents and performance consequences

of relationalism in export distribution channels. Journal of Research, 56, 1-16.

Bello, D. & Gilliland, D. (1997). The effect of output controls, process control, and

flexibility on export channel performance. Journal of marketing, 61(January),

22-38.

Berg, S. V., & Friedman, P. (1980). Causes and effects of joint venture activity:

Knowledge acquisition vs. parent horizontality. Antitrust Bulletin, 25(Spring),

143-168.

Cavusgil, S. T. & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy performance relationship: An

investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing,

58(1), 1-21.

Chung, J., Sternquist, B., & Chen, Z. (2006). Retailer-Buyer Supplier Relationships: The

Japanese Difference. Journal of Retailing, 82(4), 349-355.

Christensen, C. H., Rocha A. & Gertner R. K. (1987). An Empirical investigation of the

factors influencing exporting success of Brazilian firms. Journal of International


Business Studies, 18(3), 61-77.

Collinson, S. & Rugman, A. M. (2008). Regional nature of Japanese multinational

business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 215-230.

Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in

buyer-seller relationships. Journal of marketing, 61(2), 35-51.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H. & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 51(April), 11-27.

Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture, New York: Doubleday

Frazier, G. (1999). Organizing andManaging Channels of Distribution. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 226-240.

Ganesan, S. (1995). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1- 19.

Gao T., Sirgy M. J. & Bird M. M. (2005). Reducing buyer decision-making uncertainty in

organizational purchasing: Can supplier trust, commitment and dependence help?

Journal of Business Research, 58, 397-405.

Gencturk, E. F. & Aulakh, P. S. (2007).Norms- and control-based governance of

international manufacturer distributor relational exchange.– Journal of International

Marketing, 15(1), 92-126.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S. & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in

exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78-92.

Gundlach, G. T., & Murphy, P. E. (1993). Ethical and legal foundations of relational

marketing exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 35-46.

Heide, J. & John, G. (1988). The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding

transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. Journal of Marketing, 52(1),

20-35.

Heide, J. & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationship. Journal of

marketing, 56(April), 32-44.

Hughes, D. E. & Ahearne, M. (2010). Energizing the reseller s sales force: the power of’brand identification. Journal of Marketing, 74 (July), 81-96.

Hunt, S., Wood, V. & Chonko, L. (1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational

commitment in marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 79-90.

Jean R. J. B, Sincovics, R. R. & Cavusgil, S. T. (2010). Enhancing international

customer-supplier relationships through IT resources: A study of Taiwanese

electronics suppliers. Journal of International Business Studies 41, 1218-1239.

Kasikeas C. S., Skarmeasm D. & Bello D. C. (2009). Developing successful trust-based

international exchange relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 40,


132-155.

Kim, I. I., K. H. Kim & J. P. Lesage. (1986). An empirical study of the transnational

production sharing of the Asian NICs with Japan. Journal of International Business

Studies Summer, 117-130.

Kim K. & Fraizer G. L. (1997). Measurement of distributor commitment in industrial

channels of distribution. Journal of Business Research, 40, 139-155.

Klein, S., Fraizer, G. L. & Roth, V. J. (1990). A transaction cost analysis model of

channel integration in international markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2),

196-208.

Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Effectively conceiving and executing

multinationals worldwide strategies. Journal of International Business Studies,

24(3). 419-448.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1995) The effects of supplier fairness

on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32

(February), 54-65.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (1995). The effects of perceived

interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 348-356.

Lages L. F., Silvia G., &Styles C. (2009). Relationship capabilities, quality and innovation

as determinants of export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 17(4),

47-70.

Malhotra N. K., Kim S. S. & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A

comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management

Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.

Mohr, J.J., Fisher, R. J., & Nevin, J. R. (1996). Collaborative communication in

inter-firm relationships: Moderating effects of integration and control. Journal of

Marketing, 60. 103-115.

Mohr J. & Nevin J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A

theoretical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 36-51.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Parkhe, A. (1993). Partner nationality and the structure performance relationship in–strategic alliances. Organization Science 4(2), 301 324.–

Parkhe, A. (1998). Building Trust in International Alliances. Journal of world business,

33(4), 417-437.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

bias in behavioral research: A critical review of literature and recommended


remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879 903.–Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). A model of relationship commitment among

professional services. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), 151-170.

Skarmeas D. A. & Katsikeas C. S. (2001). Drivers of Superior Importer Performance in

Cross-Cultural Supplier-Reseller Relationships. Industrial Marketing Management,

30(2), 227-241.

Skarmeas, D., Katsikeas, C. S. &Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2002). Drivers of

commitment and its impact on performance in cross-cultural buyer-seller relationships:

the importer s perspective.’ Journal of international business studies, 33(4), 757-783.

Styles, C., Patterson, P. G. & Ahmed, F. (2008) A relational model of export performance.

Journal of International Business Studies, 39(August), 880-900.

Thibaut, J. & Walker, L (1975) Procedural justice: A psychological analysis, Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J. (1978) A theory of procedure. California law review, 66, 541-566.

Weiss, A. M. & Anderson, E. (1992). Converting from independent to employee

sales-forces: the role of perceived switching cost. Journal of Marketing Research,

29(February), 101-115.

Weitz, B. A & Jap S. D. (1995). Relationship marketing and distribution channels. Journal

of the Academy of marketing Science, 23(4), 305-320.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism, New York: The Free

Press.

Zhang, C., Cavusgil, T. S., & Roath, A. S. (2003). Manufacturer governance of foreign

distributor relationships: Do relational norms enhance competitiveness in the export

market? Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 550-566.

Zhang, C., Griffith D. A., & Cavusgil, T. S. (2006). The litigated dissolution of

international distribution relationships: A Process framework and proposition.

Journal of International Marketing, 14(2), 85-115.

Zhou, K. Z., Poppo, L. & Yang Z. (2008). Relational ties or customized contracts? An

examination of alternative governance choices in China. Journal of International

Business Studies, 39, 526-534.


국 문 초 록

수출기업과 해외수입기업의 관계의 몰입에 관한 연구

중국과 일본 시장 비교연구:

백 영 미

본 연구는 수출제조기업과 해외유통업체간의 관계 몰입에 영향을 미치는 변수들을 규명하고 성과

와의 관계를 살펴보았다 또한 수출제조기업과 해외유통업체와의 관계 몰입이 수출제조기업의 자원.

역량을 강화시켜 성과를 향상시키는지 여부를 분석하였다 본 연구는 자원기반이론 거래비용이론. , ,

관계적 교환이론을 기반으로 선행변수와 종속변수간의 연구 모델을 구축하였으며 자원기반 변수로,

서 브랜드력 제품 품질 가격 경쟁력 기술 역량을 거래비용 변수로서 거래특유투자 외적 불확실, , , , ,

성과 내적 불확실성을 사회적 교환변수로서 의사소총 공정성 의존성 공유가치를 변수로 선택하, , , ,

였다 본 연구에서는 특별히 일본과 중국시장에서의 차이를 분석하기 위해 중국과 일본으로 수출제.

조기업을 분석의 표본으로 선정하였으며 일본 수출기업 개 중국 수출기업 개가 실증분석에, 76 , 114

사용되었다.

분석결과 거래비용요소의 경우 중국시장에서는 거래특유투자가 일본시장에서는 외적환경의 불, ,

확실성과 거래특유투자가 관계의 몰입에 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다 한편 관계적 요소. ,

의 경우 일본시장에서는 공유가치 공정성 상호의존성이 관계적 몰입에 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으, ,

로 나타났다 자원기반요소의 경우 일본시장에서만 기술의 역량이 관계몰입에 유의한 영향을 미치. ,

는 것으로 나타났다 마지막으로 일본과 중국시장 모두에서 수출제조기업과 해외유통기업간의 관계.

의 몰입이 해당 시장에서의 성과를 향상사키는 것으로 나타났다 본 연구결과는 일본과 중국의 현.

경제적 현황 그대로 보여주는 내용으로 중국과 일본으로 수출활동을 하는 한국제조기업에게 매우

의미가 높은 시사점을 제공하였다.

주제어 관계 몰입 자원 역량 해외유통업체: , ,

A Study on the Relationship Commitment between Exporters and Importers : A Comparative Study of...

Documents

Transcript of A Study on the Relationship Commitment between Exporters and Importers : A Comparative Study of...