featured in most studies are solidarity, role integrity, and mutuality.
Relying on the extant studies on renationalize (see [15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [21] Boyle et al., 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [55] Ovens, 2006; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [88] Aswan et al., 1998), we adopt a multidimensional perspective of renationalize that uses Solidarity, Role Integrity, and Mutuality, as its three dimensions. Solidarity refers to the importance attached to the orderly exchange norms that are accepted by the majority and captures sentiments such as trust, future cooperation, and open communications versus discreet transaction orientation and arms length negotiation. Role integrity captures more complex expectations and roles associated with the relationships with trading partners versus an expectation of simplistic transactional role fulfillment by exchange partners. Finally, mutuality (originally labeled as reciprocity by McNeil) captures the importance associated with long-term payoffs where each party tries to balance the account book on a transaction by transaction basis; as is the case in discreet exchange relationships, by constantly monitoring, reconciling, and controlling every transaction with high degree of immediacy. In contrast, an exchange relationship based on relational norms will be characterized by high levels of trust and an expectation of continuous improvement over a pre-exchange position over an extended period of time ([15] Blois and Ovens, 2006, [16] 2007; [21] Boyle et al. , 1992; [32] Dent and School, 1992; [55] Ovens, 2006; [61] Kaufmann and Dent, 1992; [62] Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; [88] Aswan et al. , 1998). Marketing strategy
Two dominant typologies have emerged in the business strategy field - [79] Miles and Snow's (1978) typology (i.e. prospector, defender, analyzer, and reactor) and [91] Porter's (1980) typology (i.e. cost leadership, differentiation, and focus). Of these, it appears that [91] Porter's (1980) typology has been used extensively in marketing strategy literature ([94] Slater and Olson, 2000) probably because it captures the way in which firms create value (i.e. differentiation or low cost) and defines their scope of market coverage (i.e. focused or market-wide). However, in the marketing strategy literature, with the exception of [84] Murphy and Ennis (1986) and [95] Slater and Olson (2001), there is a lack of comprehensive marketing strategy classification schemes. [84] Murphy and Ennis (1986) use a framework for classifying products (i.e. convenience, preference, shopping, and specialty products) and integrate the remaining marketing mix elements (price, promotion, and distribution) into this framework. [95] Slater and Olson's (2001) typology of marketing strategy includes aggressive marketers, mass marketers, marketing minimizes, and value marketers. These authors also