Measuring methods of the corporate competitiveness, and those weaknesses

Tunde Orsolya Nagy 1 , Eva Darabos 2  and Istvan Labas 3
  • 1 University of Debrecen, Hungary
  • 2 University of Debrecen, Hungary
  • 3 University of Debrecen, Hungary

Abstract

This treatise was carried out with the aim of giving the reader an overview of different conceptual approaches of the competitiveness. It particularly deals with the competitiveness according to the “practical” approach, “environmental/system” approach, “capital reorganisation” approach and with the widely accepted closed definitions of competitiveness. To determine the components of competitiveness according to different aspects, to assess some empirical examinations regarding the analysis of the aforementioned aspects as well as to present the results of an own primer research are also important parts of the treatise.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for Diversification. Harvard Business Review, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 113-124.

  • 2. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99-120.

  • 3. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press. Cambridge, p.490

  • 4. Chikan, A. (2006). A vallalati versenykepesseg merese. Penzugyi Szemle, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 42-54.

  • 5. Czako, E. (2005). Versenykepessegi programok nehany tanulsaga a kormanyzati szfera szamara – az Ir Versenykepessegi Tanacs es a Lisszaboni Strategia, Versenyben a Vilaggal 2004 – 2006. 11. sz. műhelytanulmany. Versenykepesseg Kutato Kozpont. Budapest, p. 34

  • 6. Csaba L. (2008). Versenykepesseg – hitek es balhitek. Debreceni Szemle, vol.16, no. 2, pp.162-173.

  • 7. Csorba, L. (2009). Vazlat a verseny es versenykepesseg fogalmi tisztazasahoz. Kezirat, Kutatasi forum 2009. junius 18-20. Debreceni Egyetem, Kozgazdasagtudomanyi Doktori Iskola.

  • 8. Horvath, Gy. (2001). A magyar regiok es telepulesek versenykepessege az europai gazdasagi tersegben. Ter es Tarsadalom, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 203-231.

  • 9. Hovanyi, G. (1999). A vallalati versenykepesseg makrogazdasagi es globalis hattere – Michael Porter ket modelljenek tovabbfejlesztese. Kozgazdasagi Szemle, vol.46, no. 11, pp. 1013-1029.

  • 10. Hunyadi, L., Vita, L. (2008). Statisztika 1. Aula. Budapest, p. 348

  • 11. Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey, p. 788

  • 12. Lengyel, I. (1999). Regiok versenykepessege (A tersegek gazdasagfejlesztesenek főbb kozgazdasagi fogalmai, alapgondolatai, tenyezői az EU-ban). Kezirat. JATE Gazdasagtudomanyi Kar. Szeged, p. 66

  • 13. Meyer-Stamer J. (2008). Systematic Competitiveness and Local Economic Development, Retrieved from: http://www.meyer-stamer.de/2008/Systemic+LED_SouthAfrica.pdf

  • 14. Nelson, R. (1992). Recent Writing on competitiveness: Boxing the compass. California Management Review, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 127-137.

  • 15. Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 137-145.

  • 16. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, vol. 74, no. 6, pp.61-78.

  • 17. Porter, M. E. (1998). On competition. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, p. 320

  • 18. Porter, M. E., Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report 2008-2009. World Economic Forum Geneva, p. 500

  • 19. Schatzl, L. (1993). Wirtschaftsgeographie der Europaischen Gemeinschaft. Schoningh Verlag. Stuttgart, p. 224

  • 20. Szerb, L. (2010). A magyar mikro-, kis- es kozepvallalatok versenykepessegenek vizsgalata. Vezetestudomany, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 20-35.

  • 21. Torok, A. (1999). A versenykepesseg egyes jogi es szabalyozasi feltetelei Magyarorszagon. Kozgazdasagi Szemle, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 1066-1084.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search