Abstract：The global production or local production networks are becoming more and more popular, and factors affecting the investment spatial decision should be re-considered accordingly. More and more attention is put to the relationships between geographical spatial form and industrial organization structure. The author analyzes the spatial behavior of enterprise under the influence of network power relationship, arguing that network power means a kind of ability to mobilize or drive other members of network to fulfill desires of its own or to meet the needs of self-interest. For a network enterprise, its possession situation of market power, also means its power-order sequence in network. The enterprise owning core competency and key resources becomes the principal initiative and supervisor of network. Leading company is at the highest level of network power, the members act according to their own positions in the structure of power which often have to take actions actively or passively to meet the leading company's need under the threat of withdrawing funding or withdrawing from the organization. In global production network, there are two kinds of basic power centers:leading producer and leading buyer, and global production network (GPN) shows itself as a pattern of two-dimension authority center including global leading company and local leading firm. The spatial shift or extension of GPN is always driven by the global leading company and the local leading firm controlled by the former one. When global leading company expands abroad, its network power will impact the other members to agglomerate with itself or with its subsidiaries, and the network power of global leading buyer has an obvious impact on local leading firm and local network members to transfer towards the region of lower cost or target market of global leading company.
景秀艳. 网络权力与企业投资空间决策——以台资网络为例[J]. 人文地理, 2009, 24(4): 50-55,86.
JING Xiu-yan. NETWORK POWER AND ENTERPRISE'S SPATIAL DECISION ON IVESTMENT——A Case Study of Taiwan-funded Enterprise Network. HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, 2009, 24(4): 50-55,86.
