Summary

Throughout this chapter the components of the proposed model of Transferred Demand

have been discussed vis-à-vis the organizational studies literature and the broader ecological literature. This chapter started with a focus upon the nature and type of harmful and non-harmful relations experienced by firms. This review has highlighted the inconsistencies between the organizational studies literature and the broader ecological literature in relation to what are regarded as competitive interaction, the extent to which resources may be shared, and proposed the likely existence of the facilitative processes. Three specific areas of focus have been suggested through which all forms of coactions may be considered. Those being, the type of resource pursued, the time of consumption, and the location of consumption.

Then, the need to accurately define the specific environment of individual firms and/or groups of firms experience was considered. To this end, Brandon’s (1996) conception of the environment as three interrelated dimensions has been suggested as a workable scheme. Next, an attempt was made to move beyond mere assumptions that firms could (or couldn’t) directly alter the environment they (or others) experience. Next was the contentious issue of if and how firms might be able to significantly influence their environment.

Moving beyond theoretical speculation, the concepts of niche construction and ecosystem engineering were offered as plausible processes through which explanation of how firms might alter their environment was possible. Two specific forms of engineering (i.e.

autogenic and allogenic) were discussed along with the intuitive notion that different cohorts may inherit a better ecological environment from previous cohorts, as a direct result of the past behaviours of earlier cohorts. Importantly, focusing upon the possibility of niche construction and ecosystem engineering provides the means to observe different environmental conditions, some of which may align to the speculated process of

Transferred Demand.

The issue of generative mechanisms was briefly discussed to highlight the possible place of Transferred Demand within the study. The inference made was that Transferred Demand would be neither a dependent nor independent variable, but rather a force acting to alter the relationship between any such variables. Lastly, the literature related to restaurant and fast food firm survival across the past 25 years was reviewed. The increasing importance of accommodating spatial heterogeneity was identified as was the importance of employing research methods capable of discovering and analyzing any such spatial heterogeneity.

3.8.1 Research proposition

Throughout the review, 17 postulates emerged. As will be explained in chapter four, the proposed generative mechanism (i.e. Transferred Demand) is argued to be an unobservable entity, hence the need to search for empirical support (or otherwise) for the related postulates. The degree to which the postulates are supported will provide confidence (or otherwise) for the following research proposition: Transferred Demand is a force capable of altering both selective and ecological environments, thereby

enhancing survival, and its influence is determined by the interaction between franchised and independent pizza firms and elements of the general environment they share across time and space.

3.7.1 An explanatory note

Throughout this chapter, a range of essentially evolutionary and ecological theories have been used to consider the events discussed in chapter 2 vis-à-vis the presence of a generative mechanism called Transferred Demand. This comment serves as a note to the reader to demonstrate the researcher’s overall understanding of such specific (and broad) literature; that is, the nature and scope of evolutionary theories in organizational studies; their genesis, development, and contemporary application. Aldrich (1999, p. 1) notes both the eclectic and inter-disciplinary nature of evolutionary theories in the field of organizational studies, observing that “evolutionary models encompass many levels and units of analysis”. From the researcher’s perspective, my engagement with this literature is demonstrated in Figure 3.4 (see over page). An unavoidable challenge of engaging with this specific literature, is acknowledging that the contemporary works so thoroughly reviewed by Aldrich (1999) and Baum (1996) and Baum and Shipilov (2006), are the direct artifacts of a long running ‘evolutionary play’ being played out on the stage of a

Figure 3.4 – A Selected Genealogy of Evolutionary Thought

L = Lamarckian influence D = Darwinian influence K = Kropotkinian influence

The above selected genealogy represents the researcher’s understanding and appreciation of this evolutionary play. The founding works of Lamarck (1809), Darwin (1859) and Kropotkin (1902) are cast as the inspiration to many an actor. The left hand column reveals the many new story lines introduced into plays that have gained irrefutable status in the broader ecological literature. In the main body of Figure 3.4 are listed many of the

Natural Sciences Social Sciences

Darwin Natural Selection

Comte, Spencer and Sumner D L - D D

Kropotkin

Mutual Aid

Lamarck Acquired Characteristics

Nelson & Winter D - L Marx D Hutchinson (1957) niche Park L - D - K Aldrich D Hawley D - K Hodgson L - D - K Baum D Carroll D McKelvey L - D Singh D Brandon (1990) types of environment Marshall D Boulding D Brown & Wilson (1956)

character displacement Durkheim L - D - K Odum E & H (1962) ecological systems Warming (1909) succession Levins (1969) metapopulation Astley D Schoener (1968) resource partitioning Olding-Smee et al, (1996) niche construction Clements (1916) climax theory Duncan D Wiens (1989) ecological scale Murmann D Lomi D Tansley (1935) ecosystem Campbell D Hull D Durham D Schumpeter Haskell coactions D -K Witt D Allee (1931) cooperative gains

Cyert & March

L Metcalfe D Gause (1934) competitive exclusion Alchian D

Hannan & Freeman D Veblen

L - D

Hamilton D

most recognised organizational studies ‘performers’, along with an indication of their reliance upon the works of the suggested founders of this play. Of the modern day performers, only the various works of Hodgson (e.g. 1999) reflect an appreciation and command of all three founders. Most other contemporary performers lean heavily towards a Darwinian view, ascribing the environment more power than individual firms20. Interestingly, despite the antecedents of human ecology (e.g. Durkheim, 1938 and Park, 1936) demonstrating an intimate appreciation and use of all three founders works; it is an appreciation that has seemingly disappeared over recent years (e.g. Aldrich, 1979; 1999, Hannan and Freeman, 1983 and Carroll, 1985).

From this perspective, Aldrich’s (1999) recent invitation to scholars21 is merely a call for more scenes to be added, scenes that may; 1) celebrate past performances; 2) add new interpretations to past performances; or 3), provide new energy to current and future performances. In the true spirit of Veblen (1925); a play that has neither a beginning nor an end. Therefore, the postulates related to the proposed model of Transferred Demand

that have been developed throughout this chapter merely seek to audition in this long running and never-ending play. It is however understood that the researcher enters onto the stage mid-performance to neither contribute a final scene or to repeat past scenes faithfully.

20 _{That is, they assume (to varying degrees that) firms are sorted by the environment on the basis of some}

degree of fit by the process of natural selection. However, typically, it is more likely that the properties of the environment (i.e. the nature of consumer taste and availability of resources, etc) rather than the properties of the firms (i.e. their strategies and capabilities etc) that would most likely explain their differential success (see Brandon, 1990).

21 _{Aldrich (1999, p. 346) notes that “these are exciting times for people interested in applying evolutionary}