From the Editors: Introduction to the Emerging Discourse Incubator on the Topic of Research at the Intersection of Supply Chain Management and Public Policy and Government Regulation
介绍了JSCM第二期新兴话语孵化器，聚焦供应链管理与公共政策及政府规制的交叉研究，通过四篇特邀论文探讨了感知差距、网络视角、情境重要性和新理论应用等主题，旨在推动该领域学术对话。
This issue of JSCM contains four thought-provoking invited papers to launch our second Emerging Discourse Incubator (EDI). The topic for the second EDI is research at the Intersection of Supply Chain Management (SCM) and Public Policy and Government Regulation (PPGR). Public policy consists of what lawmakers and administrative agencies choose to do—or not do, in response to a perceived problem, on behalf of the public's interest, and government regulations are explicit mechanisms used to enact those decisions (Birkland, 2015). This discourse focuses on both the implications of PPGRs on SCM and how SCM scholarship can advance PPGRs. These invited papers provide a foundation for a year-long discussion that should lead to contributions that might not be possible with a typical special topic forum. As per the call for papers, we will continue accepting submissions to this EDI until December 31, 2019. There are already submissions under review, and we look forward to more. These invited articles offer unique perspectives on different phenomena within distinct contexts. Yet, they collectively underscore four themes important to research at the intersection of SCM and PPGR. One clear theme across the articles is that, as Harland, Telgen, Callender, Grimm and Patrucco (2019) states, "gaps in perceptions exist between policymakers, implementers, and targets of policy." To compound this challenge, as Tokar and Swink (2019) note, SCM researchers are generally not equipped nor expected to emulate economists, political scientists, or policymakers in conducting policy analyses or writing policy briefs. Therefore, theory-based empirical research has largely ignored research questions that stand at the intersection of PPGRs and SCM. However, Harland et al. (2019) provide a specific example of how SCM researchers could move into the policy-making space, and in the process, introduce a new theory and engaged methodology to the SCM literature. They apply Policy Feedback Theory (Mettler, 2002) to assess public procurement policy outcomes intended to engage and develop small businesses as suppliers. The perceptional gap between policymakers, implementers, and targets of policy was bridged by using 13 coproduced case studies representing 13 countries. Their exploratory research suggests that the perceptions of those who make and implement public procurement policies are not attuned to small suppliers, making many policy mechanisms largely ineffective and wasteful. However, because the methods engaged the policymakers, implementers, and targets, the process also provided a foundation for learning and creating more effective policy. As each of the invited articles articulates, SCM scholars have much to offer in informing the creation and implementation of PPGRs as they relate to SCM. SCM scholars will only make advances in this pursuit if we can broaden our scope of research and interact with those who make and implement PPGRs and those who are impacted by them. In our research and interactions with PPGR stakeholders, SCM researchers have the opportunity to bring to bear one of our discipline's distinct competencies—networks—which represents a second theme emerging from the invited articles. Each calls attention to SCM scholars' expertise in network level conceptualization and analyses (Carter, Rogers & Choi, 2015) as providing a unique contribution to inform PPGRs. In particular, Tokar and Swink (2019) contend that SCM's focus at the meso-level (firm-level networks) fills the gap between microeconomics (individual, firm) and macroeconomics (industry, aggregate economy). They note that SCM researchers' focus on interdependencies, processes, and systems thinking can provide a stronger understanding of the intended and unintended consequences of PPGRs. Gundlach, Frankel and Krotz (2019) further suggest that addressing this gap offers significant potential to distinctly augment other disciplines' contributions to PPGRs. They contend that SCM researchers have the opportunity, and perhaps duty, to inform not only the application but also the development of PPGRs, using the example of competition policy and antitrust law. Dobrzykowski (2019) highlights the importance of expanding our perspective of the supply chain beyond manufacturing and service settings to consider the full set of network actors that involves both government-to-business and government-to-consumer dynamics: in his specific context the downstream healthcare supply chain. This theme of the role of networks accentuates JSCM's first emerging discourse incubator on research where the focal actor in the network is not a for-profit firm (Pagell, Fugate & Flynn, 2018), within which Johnson, Dooley, Hyatt and Hutson (2018) and Gualandris and Klassen (2018) examined networks with an NGO as the focal actor. Similarly, Tokar and Swink (2019) call for SCM researchers to expand the full network of actors in their research to include government and nongovernment organizations, in order to address PPGRs in relation to environmental sustainability and larger societal outcomes. Third, all four articles emphasize the importance of regional/country and industry contexts when examining SCM and PPGR. As particularly exemplified by Harland et al. (2019), PPGRs vary internationally and within countries between central and local governments. Dobrzykowski (2019) further notes that the role of physician employment on healthcare supply chain coordination varies globally from vertically integrated hospitals and physicians to highly decentralized systems. Gundlach et al. (2019) provide the examples of European Union Directorate-General for Competition (2019) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2019) as competition-related PPGRs that would necessitate differential examinations. In combination, these reflect Dobrzykowski's (2019) contention that context matters. Thus, research should seek to understand and investigate the unique SCM and PPGR characteristics of a particular locale, explore comparative studies across countries and jurisdictions, and/or identify more generalizable timely and timeless phenomena at the intersection of SCM and PPGR. Finally, all four articles are theoretically motivated, and they generally bring new theoretical perspectives into the SCM literature. Harland et al. (2019) use Policy Feedback Theory as a means to understand why a PPGR does (not) work and how to change it. Gundlach et al. (2019) review important competition and antitrust supply chain characteristics and use procompetitive theories (free rider thesis) and anticompetitive theories (forestalling competition thesis), to develop nine propositions related to one common form of supply chain price constraint. Tokar and Swink (2019) offer Neo-Institutional Economics (North, 1994) as one perspective to explain the dynamic back-and-forth nature of institutions, organizations, and individuals (Darby, 2019). This suggests that, while the institutional pressures Dobrzykowski (2019) emphasizes may largely shape decision-making, the relationship is bidirectional such that supply chain-oriented actions and norms may also shape PPGRs. Combined the invited articles provide a rationale as to why SCM researchers need to engage in these debates, new theoretical perspectives to explore a host of important and presently overlooked issues, and some methodological guidance that should be of use to bridge the gap between the perceptions of policymakers and implementers and those who the policy targets. However, they raise more questions than they answer. For instance, Harland et al. (2019) recommend that researchers further examine the effectiveness of policy mechanisms in public procurement and other government-to-business contexts, such as customs, environmental sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and employment. Gundlach et al. (2019) conclude with potentially fruitful opportunities for SCM researchers to inform public policy and law, such as other forms of price and nonprice constraints, mergers, environmental law, consumer law, and commercial law. Dobrzykowski (2019) provides the impetus for healthcare supply chain research that is properly grounded in the unique institutional and regulatory environment. Finally, Tokar and Swink (2019) provide an extensive array of policy areas to which SCM scholars can contribute. These invited papers are only a few examples of research that JSCM's second Emerging Discourse Incubator is encouraging. No single collection of articles, however diverse, can begin to represent all of the possible fruitful avenues that could be explored in the overlap of SCM and PPGR. These articles do not even broach the complexity of the interrelationships between these two domains. Yet, these articles do spur scholarly SCM thought and leave us with important new directions and a host of unanswered questions. We hope that these invited articles incubate a discourse with major schools of thought in political economy that have been largely unexplored in our discipline and ultimately advance supply chain management and society.