Analysing Mearsheimers Critique Of Structural Realism Politics Essay

Analysing Mearsheimers Critique Of Structural Realism Politics Essay As discussed in the last section the Waltzian model of realism has had profound effects on international relations theory. However, even fellow realists have found problems and inconsistencies with Waltzs structural realism. John Mearsheimer is one of these theorists. He uses and adapts on Waltzs theory to paint a much more pessimistic and altogether darker picture of International relations theory. He expands on Waltzs idea of structure causing behaviour, but he rejects the status quo bias in Waltzs theory. (Mearsheimer, 2001, p. 20) Instead he favours a more aggressive form of state interaction forced by anarchic systems which lead states to become hegemonies. Mearsheimer still refers to himself as a structural realist because his assumptions are based on states acting in an anarchic system. While he uses Waltzs theory of structure he does have serious reservations about defensive realisms theoretical usefulness: Realist theories are invariably simple or parsimonious, which has an upside and a downside. Any simple theory, as we all know, can only explain so much about the world, because by definition it omits a variety of factors from its explanatory apparatus, and sometimes those factors matter a lot. (Mearsheimer, Booth, Wheeler, Williams, 2006, p. 107) He goes further to explain why this is a problem for Waltzs theory: My main problem with defensive realism is that it does not do a good job of explaining how the world actually works. It may be a good normative theory but it is not a good descriptive theory. (ibid., p. 111) Mearsheimer has attempted to rectify this problem by creating a new theory, or more accurately, amending the pre-existing theory. To do this he state the five key assumptions realism is based upon. The bulk of this section will attempt to critique his amendments to Waltzs structural realism and will attempt to show how they are also logically dubious. As stated in the previous section Waltz erred on the side of parsimony rather than providing a descriptive theory. (SÃ ¸rensen, 2011, p. 112) Mearsheimer starts his book with his five key assumptions, which he restates throughout his work. While he never explicitly ranks them, it is fair to say, based on his theory, that the following order is most important to least important. States are the key actors in World Politics and they operate in an anarchic system. Great powers invariably have some offensive military capability. States can never be certain whether other states have hostile intentions towards them. Great powers place a high premium on survival. States are rational actors who are reasonably effective at designing strategies that maximise their chances of survival. (ibid., pp. 362-363) Mearsheimer seems to add an addendum to his own work, that maximising chances for survival necessarily dictates that states are power-hungry. That they will attempt to gain power and try to achieve regional and perhaps global hegemony. He creates a set of mutually exclusive conditions tries to make them operate in concert to explain state behaviour. He claims in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics that the structure of the international system, not the particular characteristics of individual powers, causes them to think and act offensively and to seek hegemony. (ibid., p. 53) He argues that Waltzs self-help behaviour, created by security dilemmas within the international system, was not taken far enough. In anarchy the desire to survive encourages states to behave aggressively. (ibid., p. 54) He assumes that such behaviour does not accurately explain states primary motivation and that when given the opportunity that states will act to create superiority or hegemony. He make s very little effort to explain why an anarchic system forces these actions. He assumes that through a series of, arguably flawed, case studies that his reader will accept his assumption as an epistemological fact. This is counterintuitive when his first assumption of world politics tells that states act in anarchy. Mearsheimer explains that anarchy means that states have no higher authority above them. (2005, p. 2005) Hegemony is defined by Mearsheimer as a state that is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the system. (2001, p. 40) This would then prioritize the hegemon and it would act as a higher authority in the international system. This could conceivably create a hierarchic international system. Mearsheimer rejects this, and contradicts the logical extension of his theoretical assumptions in the process, when describing the present international system; we are not moving towards a hierarchic international system, which would effectively mean some kind of world government. In fact, anarchy looks like it will be with us for a long time. (2001, p. 365) Mearsheimer seems to be suggesting throughout his work that the hegemon would not be an authority above the states but more of a primus inter pares. His reasoning for hegemonic growth is based in the security dilemma international relations presents. The ultimate goal being survival states will attempt to gain enough relative power that they cannot be threatened. (Wang, 2004, pp. 176-177) Nevertheless, there is still no compelling argument given to show how anarchy relates to hegemonic stability theory. This apparent contradiction between theoretical assumptions warrants further consideration. To provide a critique that is both succinct and effective it is reasonable to use a few fundamental shortcuts in the following examination. The first of these is that this critique will assume that Mearsheimers underlying theoretical assumptions are correct (within the reaches of his own theory). In particular his first assumption that the structure of world politics is anarchical and the underlying premise of his work that states seek power to enhance security and that hegemony is the ultimate goal are the two theoretical assumptions that will be focused on. The second is to assume that he is correct when he labels America as a regional hegemony. It is important to note that neither of these conditions are as clear cut or simple as Mearsheimer would seem to believe, indeed the first will be challenged throughout this section. The critique will be examining the relationship between the Europea n Union and America. It will question whether the primus inter pares relationship described above is real or if hegemonic stability theory is anathema to anarchic structures. To begin it should be noted that it is very hard to make the case that Europe is one homogenous entity subject to the same rules and responsibilities of a state. This argument is largely born as a hypothetical situation. The following situation is being used to demonstrate a logical inconsistency and contradiction within Mearsheimers theory. I intend to question Mearsheimers conception of state actions and anarchy. Without considering other influencing factors (given that almost all realists assume that states are the main actors) the main actor that will be discussed is Germany. The situation will use Mearsheimers own arguments regarding potential hegemonies and the actions existing hegemonies take to prevent their rise. Mearsheimer argues that economic and political interdependence would not be enough to secure the rise of Germany within Europe. (1994-1995, pp. 6-8) America is the deciding factor when it comes to preventing war in Europe. (ibid. 6-8, 47-49) This is the action of a hegemonic entity he argues. States that achieve regional Hegemony seek to prevent great powers in other regions from duplicating their feat. Thus the United States, for example, played a key role in preventing imperial Japan, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union from gaining regional supremacy. (Mearsheimer J. J., 2001, p. 41) He goes on to explain how this is relevant to the example: If a potential hegemon emerges among them, the other great powers in that region might be able to contain it by themselves, allowing the distant hegemon to remain safely on the sidelines. Of course, if the local great powers were unable to do the job, the distant hegemon would take the appropriate measures. (ibid., p. 41) Mearsheimer states that this form of state (it is worthwhile to point out that a hegemon is substantially different to a state this point will be expanded upon later in the section) behaviour is more about balancing power and preventing a potential threat becoming an actual threat. This is broadly in keeping with realist assumptions of state action. However, if the term balancing is replaced with policing, which is equally applicable, the action becomes problematic if the system is meant to remain anarchic. He does in fact explicitly state that the peace in Europe today, is the result of the American pacifier, not the establishment of a security community. (Mearsheimer, Booth, Wheeler, Williams, 2006, p. 116) This is not the role of a hegemonic balancing act. It is the imposition of order by the hegemon on other states. There is an argument to be made that it does balance a perceived future threat, that argument is, however, unconvincing. The security dilemma does not stipulate that a state respond to an implied threat, the only response warranted is when there is a de facto threat. The degree of economic integration and interdependence in Europe necessarily precludes Germany from seeking power as it would lead to negative gain. Mearsheimer oddly goes further than this when discussing this problem I think you have peace in western Europe because there is a higher authority that maintains order. There is a 911 to call: the United States. (2006, p. 121) The contradiction becomes apparent; anarchy is the absence of a higher authority, hegemony is the imposition of it. There is little doubt that Mearsheimer would disagree with this interpretation of hegemony as he would regard America acting as a global policeman (absent the need to balance an aggressively growing potential hegemon) as ill advised and contrary to the underlying assumptions of his theory. (2001, pp. 50-51) The reason this example is so confused is also born out of a contradiction implicit within Mearsheimers work. Germany could never be a potential hegemon, irrespective of historical imperatives. The reasons for this are apparent in Mearsheimers own work the rational actor assumption would seem to stop a state from taking an action where the costs outweigh the potential gains. (ibid. p.37) This means, largely due to the level of economic interdependence that Germany is not likely to become an expansionistic power. The contradiction that comes out is that while the buffer that America provides (which Mearsheimer disagrees with profoundly (2006, pp. 118-121)) is not a response to a potential hegemon it is the imposition of hegemonic strength. However, this contradiction does not detract from the problem of hegemonic dominance necessarily translating the anarchic system into a hierarchical one. Quite aside from that particular theoretical inconsistency, there is a problem with Mearsheimers power lust vs. balancing theory. He has three conditions that control this form of state action: Great powers try to expand only when opportunities arise. They do so when the benefits clearly exceed the risks and costs. They will desist from expansion when blocked and wait for a more propitious moment (Snyder, 2002, p. 153) The causal root of this competitive balancing is deeply rooted in the structure (or so we are lead to believe) anarchy forces each state to assume a security dilemma. This is argument is never truly pursued in his work, it is assumed that the self-help nature that Ken Waltz puts forward and this security problem is the driver for the state action. When examined this explanation of state action is completely unsatisfactory. Richard Rosecrance explains the problem of this form of state action. At the turn of the century, the United States passed Great Britain without war. In economic terms, Japan moved ahead of the Soviet Union in 1983 but neither country was tempted to fight over the transition. The German rise vis-a-vis Britain at the end of the nineteenth century would not have been a problem had it not been that the Kaiser decided to build a great navy and challenge Britain both at home and overseas. If Germany had remained a land power as it opted to do under Bismarck it would not have caused British opposition or provoked an arms race. (2006, p. 32) Britain, from the mid 19th century to the start of the First World War was the regional hegemony. It had almost complete control of the sea and a huge empire to support itself. Both America and Wilhelmine Germany were potential regional hegemonies. Britain did not in any way try to challenge their growth. Similarly the Soviet Union did not balance the growing hegemony of Japan. This seems to ignore both the rational actor model and hegemonic stability theory, both of which are key parts Mearsheimers theory. Mearsheimers work on offensive realism is riddled with mutual exclusions and contradictions. It does still remain an interesting theory; it attempts to add broader explanatory assumptions to a set of normative principles. The problem is that the theory attempts to do too much. It tries to explain state motivations and actions as well as the outcomes produced. It, however, uses very narrow ontological assumptions to provide explanation. We are presented with the idea that states have a will to power driven by a security threat which is in turn driven by the anarchical system. Mearsheimer does not explain coherently why an anarchic structure forces states into such an aggressive competition, he serves it up as an epistemological fact and an eternal truth. With these problems in mind, it is also important to remember that Mearsheimer theory does cover some aspects of international relations. The addition of the rational actor model is likely a positive change in realist perspective, wit h the caveat that states can act irrationally at times. This section has provided a critique of Mearsheimers work using his own theories and examples. I have tried to remain as constant to Mearsheimers own theoretical assumptions as possible. While by no means conclusive it does serve to illustrate some severe problems with the theory that need to be rectified. The validity of his core assumptions are not what I have questioned, it is the underlying addition to these assumptions of hegemonic stability theory that I strongly disagree with. While Mearsheimer does give empirical evidence to support his claims, the validity of this evidence is up for debate.

Buyer and Seller Relationship in the retail industry Essay

1. Introduction For many years buyers and sellers in the clothing retail sector have been battling to answer the question as to why it is difficult to build a steady relationship with one another. This can be due to the knowledge gap that there is in a lack of understanding on the issue. We aim to thoroughly associate the concepts of Collaboration, Information Sharing, Joint Relationship Effort, Dedicated Investments, Commitment and Trust, Satisfaction and Performance with the different buyer – seller relationships that exist in the clothing retail sector. Thus the problem being investigated is the unsteady relationship that exists in the clothing retail sector between buyers and sellers. The study will be using a survey consisting of 37 questions that will be issued to buyers in the industry. A sample size of 500 clothing companies will be used in Cape Town, South Africa which was selected to answer the surveys. The research method is quantitative in nature. Thus the study aims to carefully examine how buyers and sellers interact within the supply chain relationship. Some papers have touched on supply chain relationship issues, but have not done the association with these particular concepts our study aims to use. The main objective of our research is to provide buyers and sellers with the necessary information to assist them as to why there are certain imperfections in the relationship. 2. Literature Review Some research has be done on the concepts collaboration, information sharing, joint relationship effort, dedicated investments, commitment and trust, satisfaction and performance, which gave an insight to how these variables develop, change and how they are maintained in the context of buyer-seller relationship. Therefore for the purpose of this study twelve (12) articles written in the context of buyer and seller relationship will be used to define and explain the above mentioned concepts and how it is used throughout our research study. Collaboration Collaboration can be defined as latest development in supply chain management which involves the process of working together with your suppliers, business partners or clientele in achieving a common goal that benefits all parties (McLaren, Head & Yuan, 2002). Ellinger, Daugherty & Keller (2000) observed what exactly links marketing and logistics within a company’s integration, as well as measures of performance that are both objective and subjective in nature. They found and identified collaboration as a variable that impacts a relationship in a progressive way in that it increases sharing information and ideas and leads to partners functioning together. Information sharing McLaren, Head & Yuan (2000) has identified information sharing as the exchange of important company information with your supply chain partner for purposes that would assist each partner in the future. McLaren et al. (2002) discusses how a partnership between the buyer and seller can be beneficial for both parties where information sharing is of key importance. Their findings were that, creating partnerships between buyers and sellers were beneficial for both parties and that the success of information sharing depends on the type and size of the company as well as which mechanism they used for information sharing. Joint relationship effort Joint relationship effort refers to the combined determination and drive that is put into collaboration between buyers and sellers. Monczka, Petersen, Handfield & Ragatz (1998) argued for example that when task organisation is performed between buyers and sellers, the buyer can then form a perceptive trust in their partner’s abilities which will later form a solid trust in their relationship. Dedicated investments Knemeyer, Corsi & Murphy (2003) defined dedicated investments as particular  resources and goods that are transferred to another party that is highly important towards producing services and products. They tried to prove that there are different levels of partnership development in logistics management by research done by previous researchers who have also done research on the existing topic and if there is in fact a difference between these levels. Their findings were that the more trust there is within the relationship, the more partners invest in the relationship which directly increases dedicated investment. Commitment and trust Commitment refers to buyers and sellers engaging themselves and maintaining a working relationship in a way that will benefit both their own organisation and the company they have an association with. Trust refers to the reliance, surety, confidence or ability in a person or thing. In this case, it is having the reliance, surety, confidence or ability in the working relationship of one or more organisations. Mohr and Spekman (1994) was the first to find that trust and commitment are of utmost importance in a buyer – seller relationship, and that these factors lead to the success of the relationship. Satisfaction and Performance Satisfaction can be defined as referred to Mohr & Spekman (1994) as the completion of a task by which the involved party is pleased with the quality and degree of work carried out and it meets the standard set by the partners. Performance on the other hand can be defined as the completion of a task by a degree higher than specifications set out by the individual involved. Mohr & Spekman (1994) argued that the buyer-seller relationship is a partnership which generates satisfaction when performance expectations have been achieved. A study had been conducted and showed that commitment and co-ordination are positively associated with satisfaction and an increase in profits would bring about satisfaction among those parties involved in the supply chain 3. Research Hypotheses The hypotheses are constructed with a purpose of assisting in answering the research question, which is seeks to find The Nature of Buyer-Seller Relationships in the Retail Sector. Based on the review of the relevant literature, our hypotheses are based on some of the important variables that exist in the supply chain relationships. The relationship variables focused on are: commitment and trust, performance, satisfaction, joint relationship effort and collaboration, and will be shown using the relevant hypotheses. These relationships form the basis of the research propositions that will be tested in the duration of this study. H1: Commitment and trust has a positive impact on collaboration. Since committed partners make an effort to achieve the goals of their business relationship, high levels of commitment are most likely to produce a good collaborated relationship. H2: Performance has a positive impact on collaboration. The strength of collaboration in a supply chain relationship depends on the power of the chain performance: short-term (performance within one year), medium-term (performance over one to three years) and long-term (performance over two to five years). H3: Satisfaction has a positive impact on collaboration. The extent to which the buyers and sellers in the supply chain relationship are satisfied, determines the strength of their relationship. Thus, when both parties are satisfied with the collaboration, their relationship will produce good results. H4: Joint relationship effort has a positive impact on collaboration. By engaging in a joint relationship effort that involves sharing resources and capabilities, buyers and sellers can achieve a profitable collaboration that they cannot create alone. 4. Research Methodology An exploratory-descriptive study was conducted to write this research report. The context selected for this study focused on the clothing retail sector. The unit of analysis in this study was the nature of buyer and seller relationship in the clothing retail sector. We focused on the buyer’s perceptions of the relationship as we were unable to collect data from both buyer and seller. Even though having data collected from both parties would have been more beneficial, time and finances were a constraint and had to be taken into consideration; therefore it resulted in focusing on one side of the relationship. Internet searches of various clothing companies were compiled. Each company was contacted by telephone so that we would be able to speak directly to a clothing buyer. They were notified beforehand as to the purpose of this study and that their participation would be fundamental in completing this research report. The clothing buyer had the choice as to receiving the questionnaire via email or an interview. Most questionnaires were sent via email as buyers had other commitments as well and preferred this form of communication. A sum of 500 questionnaires was sent to various companies within the clothing retail sector, of which, only 106 (response rate of 21%) responses were received that was used for analysis. This response rate was lower than we had anticipated but we had to work with the data provided and continue the process as it was a busy period for most buyers at that time. The surveys were coded and then uploaded on a spreadsheet as it was simpler to analyse the data and descriptive statistics had been implemented to construct the necessary graphs that would conclude the findings. The following chart was designed to illustrate the response rate of the survey. Figure 1: Percentage of Responses Coded 5. Data analysis and Findings In this section of the report there will be a detailed discussion on the data collected in the survey as well as a representation of the findings. There will be a detailed analysis of the hypothesis tested and also an explanation of how the findings were derived. To complete the report 500 surveys were distributed to companies across South Africa. Only 106 of the companies responded but there were a number of biases. With regards to the nature of the relationship with supplier 5 respondents didn’t answer, under the sections joint relationship effort, dedicated investments and commitment and  trust there was 1 respondent who didn’t answer the questions. Under the satisfaction section 7 answers were left blank and 2 of the questions were answered with incorrectly. Under the performance section 8 answers were left blank. The following table was designed to displaying the mean, median, mode and range. Below is the table 1 showing all the data. MEAN MEDIAN MODE RANGE 1. NO. YEARS AT COMPANY 8.738095 7 5 38 2. NO. YEARS IN CURRENT POSITION 6.629482 4 1 37 3. NO. YEARS WITH SUPPLIER 12.016 10 10 60 Table 1: Mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation The first row in the table 1 above illustrates the number of years the respondent has been with the company. This information shows that the average amount of years a respondent has been with the company is 8.738095 years, the middle frequent response was 7 years, the most frequent response was 5 years and the difference between the respondent who has been with the company the least amount of years and most amount of years is 38 years. Since the respondents have a number of years with the company it means that they are familiar with the company’s way of business, how they deal with suppliers, who all the suppliers are and also the type of relationship they have with the suppliers. The second row illustrates the number of years the respondents have been in the company. It shows that the average amount of years a respondent has been with the company is 6.629482 years, the middle frequent response was 4 years, the most frequent response was 1 year and the difference between the respondent who has been with the company the least amount of years and most amount of years is 37 years. The high number of years that some of the respondents have been in their current positions gives an indication the information given is reliable and that it will aid in answering the question at hand. The third row depicts the number of years the company has spent with the supplier. It shows that the average amount of years a respondent has been with the company is 12.016 years, the middle frequent response was 10 years, the most frequent response was 10 years and the difference between the respondent who has been with the company the least amount of years and most amount of years is 60 years. The high number of years with same supplier shows that the information collected depicts a mature relationship between the buyer and the seller. Seeing that the relationship is matured the main focus of both the buyer and the seller would then be to continue to build on the relationship so that they can be in business for even more years to come. The following chart illustrates the position of the respondents which in turn goes with the number of years the respondents have been in their current position. It shows that 5% are CEO’s, 1% COO’s, 7% directors, 10% sales manager’s or supervisors, 12% other employee’s and 48% buyer’s. The fact that such a high number of the respondents are buyers displays that the questions answered are quite accurate since they have a good understanding of the relationship with the supplier. The buyer’s best understand the relationship with the supplier and since the study at hand is looking at the collaboration of buyers and sellers, the information gathered will have a great impact in answering the given hypothesis. Figure 2: Current position Commitment and Trust Figure 3: Degree of respondents to questions about commitment and trust Description The above data represents responses pertaining to questions about commitment and trust amongst buyers and their suppliers in supply chain relationships in the clothing sector. The graph illustrates whether the buyers agree or disagree to the extent of commitment they have with their suppliers. The x-axis of the graph represents the scales between strongly disagree and strongly agree. Meanwhile, the y-axis of the graph represents the response scores of the buyers. Analysis When assessing the data, it is evident that seven hundred and forty one (741) responses were obtained in the commitment and trust section of the questionnaire. Taking a closer look at the responses, it is evident that 4% of the respondents strongly disagree that commitment and trust have a positive impact on collaboration. Meanwhile, 6% of the respondents have a neutral opinion, and 90% of the respondents strongly agree to the questions. The low 4% might have been supported by the fact that their companies are in business on a short-term basis. Thus, they do not foresee the business relationship continuing for a long time, very little investment has been injected to their relationship, thus commitment is very low. The slowly rising 6% response rate could have been due to the fact that buyers are not certain where their loyalties lie with that certain supplier. Another factor could be because they are still in early business with the supplier, so the supplier’s commitment and trust to the buyer’s company have not reached maximum levels yet. The very high response rate of 90% can be influenced by various factors. The supplier is genuinely concerned that the buyer’s company succeeds; buyers expect the business relationship to continue for a long time; the buyers are committed to their supplier; effort and investment have been made to build their relationship; they expect the relationships to strengthen over time, etc. These factors prove that these buyers support the hypotheses stated, that commitment and trust have a positive impact on collaboration. Therefore, this data proves Mohr and Spekman (1994) correct when they found that trust and commitment are of utmost importance in a buyer – seller relationship, and that these factors lead to the success of the relationship. Performance Figure 4: Degree of respondents to questions about performance Description The graph depicts the responses of clothing buyers to four questions relating to performance being a factor of a successful collaboration among buyer and seller relationships. The horizontal axis(x – axis) illustrates the Likert scale from 1 – 7 which ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The vertical axis(y – axis) depicts the score, which is the cumulative responses received from the clothing buyers. The above graphical representation shows the movements of responses to a set of questions aimed at performance and just by glancing at the graph; one can already notice that most respondents (about 74%) strongly agree that performance has a positive impact on collaboration. Analysis When assessing the data it can be seen that four hundred sixteen (416) responses were received that answered this section of the questionnaire. However on a scale of 1 – 3, 12% respondents strongly disagreed with the notion of performance enhances collaboration, 14%(scale 4) were neutral and 74 %( scale 5 – 7) strongly agreed on most of the questions that had been asked. The reasons that may have led to a 12% response rate could be that the buyers never had one focal supplier or were not in a long business relationship to determine if the relationship affected the business’s overall performance. Furthermore, the 74% response rate may have led to buyers agreeing with H2: performance has a positive impact on collaboration, as their relationship with the seller may have contributed to the increased performance of the overall relationship and company. Other factors contributing to the 74% response rate might have been that the relationship, reduced cycle times, improved order processing accuracy as well as punctual delivery of goods, this in turn increased the accuracy of forecasts that may have been conducted. According to Ellinger, Daugherty &Keller (2000) performance may be conceptualized as the extent to which the firm’s goals are achieved, and as illustrated in the above graph the percentage of respondents that strongly agreed already indicates that performance aids in positive collaboration which in turn would allow firms goals to be met effectively. Joint Relationship Effort Figure 5: Degree of Respondents to questions about joint relationship effort Description The above bar graph describes the number of respondents (clothing buyers) that disagree or agree that joint relationship plays an important factor in the buyer and seller relationship in the clothing sector. Respondents had to choose between a scale of 1 till 7 by which 1 stipulates strongly disagree and 7 refers to strongly agree. Thereafter the data was grouped together according to the number of individuals that did choose between the scales of  1 till 7. Respondents were asked three questions relating to joint relationship effort. These were as follows , whether the firm and supplier has: 1) joint teams 2) conduct joint planning to anticipate and resolve operational problems and whether they make 3) joint decisions about improving overall cost efficiency. When looking at the results, one can see that 49 respondents had a neutral view regarding joint relationship and 74 of the respondents strongly agrees that joint relationship plays an important role in the buyer and seller rel ationship. Analysis When assessing the data it can be seen that 307 responses were received that answered this section of the questionnaire. However on a scale of 1-3, 25% respondents strongly disagreed with the notion of joint relationship that enhances collaboration, 16% (scale 4) were neutral and 62% (scale 5-7) strongly agrees on most of the questions that had been asked. The reason that has led to a 25% response rate can be due to buyers and suppliers does not have joint teams and thus do not plan together as a team. Therefore they do not know the benefits of having joint teams. Therefore this data show case a broad view regarding joint relationship effort as being an important variable as the graph has an upward trend. Furthermore, the response rate of 62% may have led to buyers agreeing with H4: joint relationship effort has a positive impact on collaboration, as their effort and commitment in creating joint teams and planning together might have improved collaboration between buyer and supplier. Satisfaction Figure 6: Responses to Satisfaction in the Clothing Industry Description The above graph describes the number of respondents (clothing buyers) that disagree or agree that satisfaction plays an important factor in the buyer and supplier relationship in the clothing sector. Respondents had to choose  between a scale of 1 till 7 by which 1 stipulates strongly disagree and 7 refers to strongly agree. Thereafter the data was grouped together according to the number of individuals that did choose between the scales of 1 till 7. Respondents were asked eight (8) questions relating to satisfaction. The questions were as followed: whether the buyer was satisfied with the relationship in terms of 1) coordination of activities 2) participation in decision making, 3) level of commitment 4) level of information sharing 5) management of activities 6) profitability 7) market share and 8) sales growth. When looking at the results, one can see that 153 respondents had a neutral view regarding satisfaction and 448 of the respondents strongly agrees that satisfaction plays an important role in the buyer and supplier relationship. Analysis When assessing the data it can be seen that 1508 responses were received that answered this section of the questionnaire. However on a scale of 1-3, 6% respondents strongly disagreed with the notion of satisfaction enhances collaboration, 10% (scale 4) were neutral and 84% (scale 5-7) strongly agrees on most of the questions that had been asked. The reason that led to a 6% response rate can be due to buyers and suppliers having a young business relationship and thus not reaching satisfaction levels as yet. When looking at the data, the response rate of 84% may have led buyers agreeing with H3: satisfaction has a positive impact on collaboration. This can be due to respondents identifying market share and sales growth as being two of the most important factors being satisfied by the supplier. This relates to a study done by Mohr & Spekman (1994) as they identified the completion of a task by which the involved party is pleased with the quality and degree of work carried out and it meets the standard set by the partners, market share and sales growth being the standard set by the buyer. 6. Conclusion As mentioned above the problem being researched was the knowledge gap between buyers and sellers perspective of the nature of the supply chain relationship. The research study conducted on the nature of buyer-seller  relationship in the clothing industry was a lengthy procedure that involved plentiful of consultations and analysis of the data obtained. However, we have concluded that our data findings have committed to the hypotheses mentioned in the research report. As previously mentioned time and finances were major constraints for the duration of the study hence the weak response rate of 21%. Some of the other constraints were the buyers having their own responsibilities because of the short time frame given in which to complete the survey. In addition, 50% of the buyers were reluctant to answer some of the questions as they contained confidential company information. Furthermore, the report only focused on the buyers’ perspective of the relationship. The sellers’ perspective was not taken into account therefore a future study using this report in combination with conducting a survey of the sellers’ point of view can lead to a better understanding of the buyer – seller relationship. Bibliography Cannon, J.P. Doney, P.M. 1997. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-SellerRelationships.Journal of Marketing, April, pp.35-51. Dahlstorm, R. McNeilly, K.M. Speh, T.W. 1996. Buyer – Seller Relationships in theProcurement of Logistical Services.Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 24(2), pp.110–124. Disney, S., Holweg, M., Holmstrom, J. &Smaros, J. (year unkown). Supply chaincollaboration: Making sense of the strategy continuum. Ellinger, A., Daugherty, P., Keller, S., 2000. The Relationship BetweenMarketing/LogisticsInterdepartmental Integration And Performance In U.S.Manufacturing Firms: AnEmpirical Study. Journal Of Business Logistics, 21(1),pp.1-22. Handfield, R., Monczka, R., Petersen, K., &Ragatz, G., 1998. Success Factors inStrategic Supplier Alliances: The Buying Company Perspective. DecisionSciences, 29(3) pp.553-577. James, A.E. et al., 2004. An Assessment Of Supplier – Customer Relationships. JournalOf Business Logistic, 25(1), pp.25–62. Kauser, S. & Shaw, V. 2004.The influence of behavioural and organisationalcharacteristics on the success of international strategic alliances.InternationalMarketing Review.21(1): 17-52. Knemeyer, A. M., Corsi, T. M. & Murphy, P. R. 2003. Logistics outsourcing relationships:Customer perspectives. Journal of Business  Logistics.24 (1), pp.77-109. McLaren, T., Head, M. & Yuan, Y. 2002. Supply chain collaboration alternatives:Understanding the expected costs and benefits. Internet Research: Electro nicNetworking Applications and Policy. 12 (4), pp.348-364. Moberg, C. R. &Speh, T. W. 2003.Evaluating the relationship between questionablebusiness practices and the strength of supply chain relationships.Journal ofBusiness Logistics.24 (10), pp.1-19. Mohr, J. &Spekman, R. 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: Partnershipattributes, communication behaviour and conflict resolution techniques. StrategicManagementJournal.15 (1): 135-152. Simatupang, T.., Sridharan, R. 2002. The Supply Chain: A Scheme for InformationSharing and Incentive Alignment. The International Journal of LogisticsManagement.1, pp.1-32.

Do Gloves Help Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Wearing gloves may or may not help carpal  tunnel syndrome, which is commonly caused by repetitive stress injury to the wrist. They wont cure it, to be sure. Carpal tunnel syndrome is basically a swelling around or compression of the carpal tunnel inside the hand that presses on the median nerve at the wrist. This causes numbness, weakness, tingling, or pain in the hands and wrist. Symptoms include burning, tingling, or itchy numbness in the palm and fingers. Swelling wont necessarily be visible. People doing assembly work are highly susceptible  to carpal tunnel, even more so than data entry workers. The dominant hand is usually the one more likely affected or more severely affected. Gloves Pros Cons Gloves can help relieve symptoms, such as cold fingers, that are caused by poor circulation. Wearing them can help keep your hands and wrists warm by conserving body heat, which improves circulation without adding heat to the area. Warmth and the increased circulation it brings helps the healing process, especially with tendons and ligaments that do not receive a lot of blood flow to begin with.   Swelling or inflammation can be aggravated by heat packs and the like, but because you are just retaining natural warmth with the use of gloves, fingerless or otherwise, you are probably not going to hurt anything more by wearing them. When you are resting and healing, nonrestrictive gloves can help relieve the symptoms of the condition. Please note that wearing tight gloves can actually restrict circulation to your hands. Youll want to keep the gloves loose and comfortable. Thus, compression gloves worn for arthritis may actually exacerbate carpal tunnel syndrome rather than give relief to the problem. Other Remedies For relief of carpal tunnel, wrist splints and anti-inflammatory drugs may be worth trying. Splints will keep the tunnel from being compressed, and anti-inflammatories may reduce the pain, though they wont actually cure the problem. Icing the area can help if there is visible swelling in the wrist, but often the swelling is internal and cant be helped by applying ice. In severe cases of carpal tunnel, you may try cortisone shots, or your doctor may recommend surgery, which can take months to recover from and result in a loss of grip strength. If you have rheumatoid  arthritis, you may help relieve your carpal tunnel symptoms by treating arthritis. Preventive Measures   Work with proper ergonomics and posture, take breaks from repetitive tasks, and perform wrist and hand stretching exercises. An occupational therapist can give advice on proper form at your workstation and show you how to perform the exercises.   Other Causes of Carpal Tunnel Besides repetitive injury, carpal tunnel can be caused by physical injury to the wrist, such as a sprain or fracture as well as issues with the pituitary and thyroid gland. Its more common in women than in men, partially because of having smaller hands. Pregnant or menopausal women can experience it if they are retaining fluid, and people with diabetes or other disorders that affect their nerves are at a higher risk as well.