سیستم و خدمات توسعه اجتماعی و اقتصادی غالب:ظرفیت بازار ساختمان حقوقی، قضایی در بنگلادش
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|14051||2010||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7142 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Volume 18, Issue 4, November 2010, Pages 248–255
Greater understanding of marketing systems and sub-systems is imperative if living standards and the quality of life are to improve in developing economies. As part of a World Bank project to aid in legal capacity building and socio-economic development, the authors are administering a field study in Bangladesh to assess that country’s legal system, and other key elements of its marketing system. Site visits and depth interviews were conducted with numerous stakeholders of the legal system. Drawing on those observations and interviews, and literature from macromarketing systems analysis, marketing service encounters, and service-dominant logic (SDL) the authors propose a model for explication of the judicial system, with broader implications for the marketing system. In doing so it is hoped that insights can be gleaned to help judicial authorities and public policy makers involved in reform efforts in Bangladesh and other developing economies. Such perspective will enable interested change-agents to better examine the entire system and to create a more transparent and efficient legal process that will improve service provision, marketing system efficacy, and justice, and ultimately will enhance economic and societal well-being.
Service-dominant Logic (SDL) is a growing force in the marketing academy. Initiated by Vargo and Lusch (2004), SDL is a seminal change in perspective; a reconsideration of marketing and its processes. The marketing discipline increasingly was/is viewed as too narrowly focused; it had slipped into what can be characterized as a micro dominated field of study. As an alternative to this paradigm of micro focused exchange, Vargo and Lusch argued that the discipline needed to reorient itself; perhaps to be driven both theoretically and operationally by the greater marketing system (cf. Shultz, 2007) and the service logic that operates within that system. The emergence of SDL has sparked a great deal of discussion regarding how and where marketing must evolve to optimize its contributions (e.g., Lusch and Vargo, 2006a and Vargo and Lusch, 2006). A key ingredient in this suggested paradigm shift is to recognize the broader context and influence of marketing. Over the past five years, Lusch and Vargo (2006b) and Vargo and Lusch (2008) have inspired a reshaping of the discipline around the SDL conceptual framework, to better serve the consumer and to redefine the ways in which marketing both views and evaluates itself. A number of marketing scholars have contributed to this discourse through their publication of both theoretical and applied papers.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Emerging findings from this study suggest that the success of any marketing system is dependent upon the extent to which rules exist to ensure equitable exchanges and societal well-being. Markets and their processes ultimately interact with the other institutional elements of societies and, in essence, play reciprocal roles in the evolution of many of the structures and processes of a given society. This view is consistent with more recent SDL perspectives (see Vargo and Lusch, 2008) and with what Layton (2008b) refers to as System-Embedded Service-Dominant (SESD). In both these perspectives the marketing system, and its ability to contribute to the creation of value in a society, is subject to a variety of forces from the larger environment. For example, Jahan and Shahan (2008) examined how politicization and corruption severely damaged the performance of another crucial market facilitating institutional structure of Bangladesh, the bureaucracy. They conclude that the bureaucracy operated in a democratic model that was completely malfunctioning; that is, one that “takes little account of the existing social, political, or economic structure of the state” (p. 327).