HTML

ePub

PDF

1. Introduction

Mains Street Retail is a major format of store agglomeration. As it has been happening in Brazil and in many other countries around the globe, the fast expansion, which took place in the shopping center industry in the last decades, has been threatening the vitality and the survival of the traditional Main Street Retail agglomerations. Both are complex open systems made up of dozens or hundreds of stores which work as an integrated entity in intimate interaction with the surrounding market. The Main street business districts offer their communities opportunity for social interaction, increased pedestrian mobility, and are more likely to employ the services of other local businesses, and carry locally made goods (Presti, 2003). The function of the "Main Street" goes beyond just providing goods and services. The "Main Street" can make social, cultural, and economic, contributions to the quality-of-life and development of communities ( Pryor & Grossbart, 2005). The risk of the disappearance of local businesses would leave a social and economic void that is palpable and real (Milchen, 2005) and would decrease the vitality of the neighborhood. Considering the Main Street Retail agglomeration as a living system, a theoretical perspective based on the General Systems Theory might prove useful to help the understanding the vitality and the functioning of the main street retail agglomeration.

The System School of thought in marketing emerged since the 1960´S and proposed another form to analyze the role of the organizations and their form of interactions with other agents. The system’s concept can be a useful way for comprehending the environment and a way of thinking about the job of managing (Johnson, Kast, & Rosenzweig, 1964) as it provides an integrated view of all the variables that internally and externally influence the organization. The emphasis of systems in marketing, along the last decades, has focused in a comprehensive understanding the firm non-controllable variables interact with company marketing mix for creating a competitive advantage at market (Adler, 1967; Brien & Stafford, 1968; Forrester, 1958, 1959; Rideway, 1957).

The business scenario is increasingly competitive for the mains street retail agglomerations. They will need to develop competitive advantage, based on their ability to adequately map and interact with the environment (Dowling, 1982; Emery & Trist, 1965). These retail agglomerate’s long-term survival will be ensured by a high degree of involvement with the market, an ability to develop partnerships, a competence in structuring their forms of communication, and the ability to develop trusted strategic alliances with stakeholders (Boulding, 1956; Dixon, 1984; Phillips, 1972; Thayer, 1972).

The Systemic school allows a greater understanding of how businesses organize themselves, their interactions with the environment and presents forms the survival. Bertalanffy (1950a, 1950b, 1968) was a pioneer on the discussion the General System Theory (GST) and contributed to the advancement of inter-relationship among the different fields of sciences. For the researcher, the GST through the interaction among sciences could explain the phenomenon in greater depth. Thus, it is possible to replicate the concepts of GST for business context, especially for the retail environment. Retail is a complex system, with a high ability to interact with other agents and as a result may influence and is influenced throughout marketing process and the social system.

The overall purpose of this paper is, therefore, to develop theoretical contributions to the understanding of the Main Street Retail agglomeration phenomenon, based on the General Systems Theory. The specific purpose of this essay is threefold: First, to analyze e the essential concepts of the General System Theory and the Marketing System theory. Secondly, to demonstrated the integration of these two theories with application to the retail environment, with a focus to the Main Street System. Finally, to indicate some research propositions for future research integrating GST, marketing system and the Main Street Retail system.

2. The general systems theory (gst)

Bertalanffy has advanced the conception of the organism as an open system since 1932 and presented the General System Theory (GST) in the 60s. Bertalanffy met resistance in academia area with regard to the terminology of the General Systems Theory. To critics the term was too broad and could also be considered a “pseudo science”. But in 1953 Boulding wrote a letter declaring support to thoughts of Bertalanffy, as he found similar conceptual results of the GST, f a researcher from another field of science. Boulding reinforced in his letter: that there is a body of what I have been calling “general empirical theory”, or “general system theory” in your excellent terminology, which is of wide applicability in many different disciplines (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 14).

The GST would be a useful tool providing, on the one hand, models that can be used in, and transferred to different fields, and safeguarding, on the other hand, from vague analogies which often have marred the progress in these fields (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 34). Moreover, the science tried to explain the phenomena by reducing them to an interplay of elementary units which could be investigated independently of each other (Bertalanffy, 1950a, p. 134), but GST proposed to investigate not only the parts of the phenomenon:

It’s necessary to study not only parts and processes in isolation, but also to solve the decisive problems found in the organization and other unifying them, resulting from dynamic interaction of parts, and making the behavior of parts different when studied in isolation or within whole (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 31)

Such an approach is concerned with total-system performance even when a change in only one or a few of its parts is contemplated because there are some properties of systems that can only be treated adequately from a holistic point of view (Ackoff, 1971). This thought is also reinforced by Boulding (1956), Johnson et al. (1964), Peery (1972), Thayer (1972), Kast & Rosenzweig, (1972) and Phillips (1972). Bertalanffy (1950a, 1950b, 1968, 1972) also demonstrated that the systems could be open or closed and defined the concepts as:

From the physical point of view, the characteristic state of the living organism is that of an open system. A system is closed if no material enters or leaves it; it is open if there is import and exports and, therefore, changes of the components. Living systems are open systems, maintaining themselves in exchange of materials with environment, and in continuous building up and breaking down of their components (Bertalanffy, 1950b, p. 23).

Some processes are important for the maintenance of the open or closed system such as homeostasis and entropy. A homeostatic system is one that retains its state in a changing environment by internal adjustments (Ackoff, 1971) and entropy could be positive or negative. Entropy must increase in all irreversible processes and therefore, the change in entropy in a closed system must always be positive (Bertalanffy, 1950a). The tendency toward maximum entropy is a movement to disorder, complete lack of resource transformation, and death. However, in open biological or social systems, entropy can be arrested and may even be transformed into negative entropy—a process of more complete organization and ability to transform resources— because the system imports resources from its environment (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972).

The form of interaction, the entries and the information processing of the environment, define the balance of the system. A closed system eventually must attain an equilibrium state with maximum entropy—death or disorganization and an open system may attain a time- independent state where the system remains constant as a whole and in its phases, though there is a continuous flow of the component materials (Bertalanffy, 1950b; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Therefore, the character of an open system is a constant condition and ability to work to ensure its continuous negative entropy and maintain the balance.

In this sense, the reflections of Bertalanffy enabled new ways to analyze social sciences under the optics of GST and as an open system. Boulding (1956) has discussed about the general relationships of the empirical world. However, when science is broken into isolated sub-groups and with less communication among the disciplines, the consequence is a reduction the knowledge growth. The General Systems Theory proposes an interaction and builds a theoretical framework that allows the researcher an overview and how to establish a more integrated communication between the various areas of knowledge to explain the researched phenomena. . Sometimes the results of this interaction of disciplines can derivate another area of knowledge.

This is due to the characteristics of the phenomena and their different forms of macro- level and individual interactions. Boulding (1956) demonstrated the more relevance in this interrelationship is the areas of communication and information. Both areas are unquestionably essential in the development of an organization through a dynamic flow of action and interaction. The relevance in this process highlights the social organization perspective, and the role of the individual in their own way to communicate and interact through systemic levels. For Boulding, marketing problems belong to a class of systems characterized by communication and adaptation of social organization and their confusing relationships can be organized into a coherent and unified perspective (Sheth, Gardener, & Garrett, 1988).

Kast & Rosenzweig (1972) clearly showed the challenges of GST and its application in management. The authors demonstrate some precautions that the researcher should attain, such as the risk of directly replicating the concepts of biology to a different field as business environment. Organizations are social systems that may be partially closed and partially open. Therefore purposeful elements within the social organization may initiate activities and adaptations, which are difficult to subsume under a steady state of feedback. In this sense, the researcher when using systems theory should try to be more accurate in delineating the specific system under study. This will depend on the proposed level of analysis. So the main contribution of the authors refers to the ability and challenge for researchers to define which system level will be researched: environmental, social organization and/or subsystems.

Peery (1972) noted some paradigms in the design of the GST. Specifically, the issues of interest here are: (a) the implicit assumption of consensus, (b) the role of growth, and (c) the need for hierarchical structures in the GST formulations of organization theory (Peery, 1972, p. 501). Regarding the consensus paradigm, existing subsystems may have different objectives of the overall system. Thus, the implicit assumption of consensus in biological system formulations may not apply to other living systems, such as social systems. The premise of consensus is to minimize organizational conflicts and reduce dysfunctional aspects, Peery (1972) explained that systems may receive negative feedback (corrections) and positive (amplifying activities), but both can be harmful to the system. It is necessary to ensure control and as a result continued to maintain stability and dynamic balance, or homeostasis system for stable expansion.

The vision of the system growth can ensure a better relationship between the subsystems and other systems. Growing systems can perform side negotiations to individuals that do not have consensus with the overall objective of the system. The growth sustains the maintenance and adjustment of the consensus system. However, one of the precautions proposed by Peery (1972) is regarding the limits of organizational growth due to the restrictions and scarcity of resources. Another critical point is related to consensus hierarchy in social systems due to internal conflicts of authority. Even if there is conflict and opposition, the hierarchy is needed to coordinate the activities of the whole system. To minimize these differences are ideological arguments that assist in the justification of organizational arrangements, based on their contribution to the overall effectiveness of the system.

For Thayer (1972) there was always be the hierarchy and conflicts in GST. The author conducts an explanation and the influence for example larger hierarchies, like the market, the state and the organizations. The greatest risk in the implementation of the GST is to apply a mechanistic vision. To ensure the main objective of the system and its survival the larger hierarchy can reduce an individual to a position of less importance and relevance. In this same vein, Phillips (1972) noted that reducing the phenomenon only under the mechanistic perspective on social systems, it can destroy the essential parts due to the relationship of parts to the whole system. However, he reinforced “there is a case for claiming that every method used by adherents of systems theory must be an extension rather than a replacement of the mechanistic view” (Phillips, 1972, p. 476).

3. Antecedent theories of marketing systems

The seeds of this systems school were actually planted in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Sheth et al., 1988) as presented in Table 1. Based on the thoughts of Boulding (1956) and Bertalanffy (1969), Johnson et al. (1964) presents that the aim of the systems theory for business is to develop an objective, understandable environment for decision making; that is, if the system within which managers make the decisions can be provided as an explicit framework, then such decision making should be easier to handle. Johnson et al. (1964) contact with the concept of social systems and their interactions with other agents involved in the marketing system, but superficially. Its focus was present in demonstrating the dynamics, interaction and the systemic form of organization between internal areas of the company to ensure the objectives established.

The postwar influenced some authors as Rideway (1957), Forrester (1958, 1959) and Brien and Stafford (1968) on how organizations can develop their strategies in a systematic way in relation to organizational interdependence, and the complex problems process information. Rideway (1957), on the other hand showed the external relationship between the manufacturer and its suppliers and / or distributors and their interdependence to ensure the survival of the system. And most importantly, for the system to operate effectively in an integrated way, there must be some system administration as a whole, not just the administration of separate bodies within that system (Rideway, 1957, p. 466). In another way, Forrester (1958, 1959) shows an inside view of the organization with respect to its way of interacting with more complex variables to ensure better control of their organizational decisions. For him business success depends on the interaction of the flow of information, materials, money, manpower and capital equipment. The administrator must be able to inter- relate these variables and generate positive results. In this scenario, for the author, organizations can use quantitative data to solve more complex problems through systems and market simulations methods. The application of this science in the organization allows for greater comprehension of how to resolve the critical issues identified in the main room. However, this flow must be fed by information constantly.

It is a continuous and regenerative process, to ensure control of decisions. In addition, due to technological advancement and speed, corporate management should focus more on strategic issues and less on operational. This allows for greater adaptability due to strategic amplitude, noted Forrester (1958, 1959). In the same line of thought Brien & Stafford (1968) defined demonstrated the relevance of the process of information to organizations and especially for marketing. The marketing management is continuous, dynamic systems, and the company needs to develop a sensitivity to market changes. The process of information should be applied in a strategic, systematic, coordinated and predictive manner. For the authors, when the company performs periodic studies of market information and the decisions made, the organization can reshape their strategies and ensure a more efficient feedback. Brien & Stafford (1968) defined the system of marketing information assists in developing a consistent flow of information to the organization.

Additionally, the organization could generate competitive advantages over competitors due to performance monitoring strategies and conducted internal control of information, such as inventory or sales. In order to understand how organizations and their management can apply the system concept, Adler (1967) discussed the utilization of the system concept in marketing and presents the specific parts or subsystems of the total marketing systems. The integration of product functions, new product development, distribution channels, physical distribution, field sales, marketing intelligence, marketing administration, advertising, sales promotion and merchandising, publicity and public relations form the marketing system. He presents the relevance of each function in the marketing process and established a schematic of these relationships.

However, in Adler perspective, marketing systems is more endogenous and it would be way for organization obtains higher competitive advantages at market. For that, it’s necessary establish a sequence of steps for identify the problem, test the definition of the problem, build a model, set concrete objectives, develop alternative solutions, set up criteria, manipulate the model, interpret the results and verify the results. This perspective demonstrates a form of survival of the organization within the market and enhances its internal variables for making e keeping customer at a profit. Fisk (1967) adopted the concept of “systems is any set of interacting variables and a set is a group of elements with common properties” (p.12). The system can be closed if set which the interaction never change and in marketing, however, new variables are always entering an old one frequently leaving. Such is called an open system. Fisk commented on the application of general systems theory to marketing problems:

By viewing marketing problems in a system context, decision-makers can find a set of problems of which a part1cular problem is a member sharing at least some common properties. For many sets of problems much is known about acceptable solutions so that if a decision-maker is dissatisfied with h.1 s own solution or if he cannot find any solution he can refer to the set of problems to see if existing solutions apply. In this way, a tremendous body of information becomes more accessible. A preliminary examination of General Systems Theory approach will provide a helpful frame of reference for its use in subsequent analyses of marketing systems. (p.12)

Marketing problems as a class belong to systems characterized by communication and adaptation in social organizations. For identify the interactions between companies and nations, Fisk (1967) proposed, a logical flow diagram to perform comparisons with seven prerequisites: goals, organization an input, constraints, output, efficiency and effectiveness. For study complex problems systems such as marketing are know as macroscopic and microscopic and Bartels & Jenkins (1977) considered the both are differentiated on two bases: “the organizational unit involved and the function of management.” (p.7). Microscopic analysis focuses on the minute structure of certain subsystems of interest and macroscopic analysis on the other hand, focuses on the behavior of the systems as a whole (Dowling, 1982).

However, both perspectives are relevant to understanding the interaction of marketing systems phenomena and the environment. Emery & Trist (1965) explored more this concept and proposed four-dimension framework outlining the characteristics of an enterprise’s environment as Table 2. In their view, a main problem in the study of organizational change is that the environmental contexts in which organizations exists are themselves changing and depending on the texture of the environment, the organization has the capacity to change their strategies and adaptations.

Dowling (1982) applied the concept by Emery & Trist (1965) with a focus on marketing system. For him, the system evolution occurs from self-induced changes and/or environment- induced changes. These changes can occur either by chance or because the system senses that by changing it will function more efficiently in its environment (Dowling, 1982, p. 28). Dixon (1984) proposed the most important for the social system is the capacity of relationship and the forms of interaction with other societal system. Each social system produce’s output for some one and inputs from others. For maintenance the function of the system its important four functions as Table 3. All these interrelationships can be analyzed on the AGIP perspectives and Dixon (1984) concluded that the marketing system influence others social systems, the cultural systems and material environment (p.13-14). Furthermore, for him, social system involves a complex exchange of information and the communication is an important within the parties.

Reidenbach & Oliva (1983) proposed the comparison with the for proved theoretical framework for examine the effects of marketing system. For researcher, marketing as a facilitator in providing products and services performs an essential function in human adaptation and existence by increasing our ability to live within our environment (Reidenbach & Oliva, 1983, p. 36). However, not all products and services are used to ensure the well being of society and production processes can harm the environment. This process of loss of energy in the production process of products and services for marketing is based on the law of thermodynamics and entropy. There will always be a waste of resources to productive development, which tends to disorder, due to time and resource constraints of the environment. Another researcher, Kadirov (2011) demonstrated that marketing system confirms that there exists a negative long-run relationship between environmental entropy and sustainable welfare with marketing positively associated with environmental entropy

Dixon & Wilkinson (1989) “the system of action which is studied in marketing is not a single system but nested hierarchy of systems of action in which system levels are differentiated in terms of their interaction” (p.64) and proposed seven levels for marketing system. Such low-level can generate theirs outputs and can be used for the next level, the inputs. In order for comprehends the relationship system, the author’s proposed four forms: intra-system relations, the impact of environment on the systems, the impact of the system on the environment and finally the interaction of parts of the environment. From a perspective of macro marketing Meade & Nason (1991) present three logical ways to analyze the phenomenon when placed in the context of systems: “cause of poor performance in exchange systems, how economic interests, cultural, and institutions both structure and control exchange system and their evolution, and how intervention could improve performance by changing system structure or control” (p. 73).

Wilkie & Moore (1999) discussed the aggregate marketing system for the society and demonstrated and “its operations converge and coordinate with the operations of other aggregate systems within a society's larger economic system” (p. 199). They show in details that aggregate marketing system presents ten propositions keys: incorporates many activities, composed of planned and continuous flows, is extensive, sophisticated structurally, is a key basis for resources allocation in a market economy, is governed by forces for efficiency, is constrained by social forces, relies on coordinated processes, operates through human interactions, experiences and trust and finally, is an open systems, geared toward growth and innovation.

The “aggregate marketing system benefits to economic well-being, benefits to buyers, and several broader perspectives on benefits (p.206)”. In the same line of thought, an important research, Layton (2007, 2009, 2011) analyzed the marketing systems with a macro perspective. For him the marketing systems moves between various levels of transactions but always in search of social development:

They range from a single act of exchange involving a seller and buyer, to complex interactions involving multiple sellers, many buyers, and an ever-widening range of traded objects. They include value chains and service systems, peasant markets and shopping malls, artisans and business eco-systems, networks for private gain and for social benefit (Layton, 2011, p. 260)

Layton (2011, p. 260) noted that they are dynamic, rarely in equilibrium.They are multilevel, recursive in nature, with systems forming and reforming within systems, interacting with systems at higher and lower levels of aggregation. They influence and are influenced by the institutional and knowledge environments in which they are active. Thus, for Layton, when a marketing system is poorly adapted to the environments in which they operate, or lack in health, with low response, resilient or responsiveness, then growth and quality of life or well-being will be directly affected (Layton, 2009, p. 349). Other researchers also present their reflections with the importance and influence of the marketing system, such as Kadirov & Varey (2013) with the significance of contemporary philosophy in clarifying challenging issues related to social business theory and Giesler (2013) demonstrated how social marketing system can be developed with the prevailing social norms and congruence ideals or for other interested parties interested in undermining your marketing success.

This brief literature review of the GST showed T that there is a consensus about the need for organizations to adapt to different environmental stimuli, in its different hierarchical levels of institutional relationships (micro, meso, macro perspectives). But, the literature review has revealed, however, low practical applicability. Some researchers as has ben previously mentioned, have already worked trying to bridge this gap. In this sense, the next section is proposed to expand this theoretical opportunity.

4. General system, marketing system and retail agglomeration

As demonstrated, the GST conceptual frameworks are capable of being replicated to other sciences. However, this must be performed consistently by the researcher to avoid superficiality of application and interpretation (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Thayer, 1972). GST allows a greater understanding about the dynamics of the system (Bertalanffy, 1950a, 1950b, 1968; Phillips, (1972); Thayer, 1972), its forms of relationships (Boulding, 1956), ability to capture and transform resources to ensure its process of entropy (Ackoff, 1971; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Kadyrov, 2011) and their internal sense of maintenance to manage the entire process (Peery, 1972). Within this perspective, to transpose the GST theoretical conceptions and reflections to the retail environment, would allow a their practical applicability for the understanding of business management situations. This theoretical transposition process to empirical real world situations would minimizes the perception of Kast & Rosenzweig (1972) and Sheth et al.(1988) about the low applicability of the l Systems Approach.

In this way, this essay proposes a theoretical discussion on "Main Street" retail on the perspectives of the GST and Marketing System, as proposed in Figure 1. The Main Street can be considered an open system and Presti (2003) reinforced the relevance of this retail format with respect to its social impact. Thus, analysis was divided into three hierarchical levels that complement each other. Kast & Rosenzweig, (1972) proposed subsytem, social organization and environmental and Layton (2011) noted the micro, meso and macro levels. In each level the perspectives has different approaches, but there are points of convergence on all levels, as shown below.

Convergence perspective

The concept of entropy means “a state of disorder” (Reidenbach & Oliva, 1983) and the tendency toward maximum entropy is a movement to disorder, complete lack of resource transformation, and death (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). In other words, the natural environment is the ecosystem in perfect order, while an increase in entropy means an increasing magnitude of disorder (Kadirov, 2011). However, entropy is present in any type of system (open or closed) and their levels (micro / meso / macro). But the system can minimize the impact of entropy, and tends to get its homeostatic balance (Bertalanffy, 1950a; Ackoff, 1971; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Peery, 1972) and the essence of this process is its dynamic interaction and relationship internally among its components or subsystems (Bertalanffy (1950a, 1950b, 1968; Thayer .1972; Phillips, 1972) in their different levels (Dixon & Wilkinson, 1989) and externally with other systems (Dixon, 1984).

In addition, the interaction and the relationship are structured information processing and communication (Boulding, 1956), since the outputs of a system generate inputs for system above. Therefore, the retail main street agglomerate, according to the systemic view, is in the process of constant entropy and must maintain the homeostatic system search. For that, there is a need to create relationships, forms of interaction with other systems (society, customers, suppliers, Government) to ensure its survival in the face of environmental changes in their different levels of expertise in order to contribute to the overall growth of the social system.

Level 1 – Subsystem or Micro System

Micro-level system contemplates the marketing function itself with focus to its internal areas. At this level, the role of each retailer is extremely relevant being responsible for setting his or her own marketing strategies. In this way, to ensure its survival within the Meso/Macro system, street retailers must ensure their integration and dynamic interactions of functional areas, as proposed Adler (1967) and Johnson et al. (1964). Each department is responsible for ensuring the flow of information, generate products/services for sales, providing financial resources, have qualified manpower and adequate infrastructure, according to the dimensions proposed by Forrester (1958, 1959), but with a systemic vision.

When the street retail receives external stimuli, but has a systemic integration, retailers can structure more coherently their marketing strategies and ensure its survival and growth in the market. Adler (1967) demonstrated that a systemic vision allows a structured framework of analysis. In this line of thinking, t, if the retail street has an inefficient management, and without market processes to verify the profitability and performance indicators, these factors would make the system more vulnerable to external changes due to internal organizational weaknesses and consequently an increase in its entropy. In this sense, based on the reflections of Adler (1967), Johnson et al. (1964) and Forrester (1958, 1959), the first proposition to the marketing of systems theory can be stated as follows:

P1: Main Street Retailer with low integration and dynamic interaction has high entropy in its organizational system.

Level 2 – Social Organization or Meso System

For Layton (2011), the meso level is where micro level systems are aggregated into complex sequences of offers and acceptances. All the main street retailer and their operations converge and coordinate (Wilkie & Moore, 1999), to form the Main Street Business agglomerate characteristics. In this level the most relevant factors are the general system performance indicators and the relationships between systems. The first presents high correlation with the level 1, so if the retailer has a low performance in their management, the Main Street System will be structured with fragile components and probably with difficult for relationship with the other systems. Meade & Nason (1991) observed it’s necessary to verify the performance and Fisk (1967) the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. However how can one do it when there are various interests involved?

To reduce this problem and based at Peery (1972) thought, all the retailers need to create some implicit assumption of consensus, for maintenance of the growth, and a hierarchical structures is necessary for coordinate both. To create a retail association that represents the Main Street System could be an alternative to defend the interests of the retailers and to guarantee the survival of all the system. This point is relevant because other systems have their objectives and interests (Giesler, 2013), which could be different from and even against the Main Street System. So, for example, when City Government decides to implement urban restructuration at a neighborhood where a Main Street Retail agglomeration is installed, it’s necessary to establish a communication forum to discuss the local business impact. If a local retail association does not exist, to defend their view, probably the Main Street entire system will suffer.

Another example was demonstrated by Presti (2003, p. 21). In response to the increase of chain store business the decline of smaller independent locally owned retailer, many communities across the country have formed independent business alliances, or local nonprofit organizations that serve to improve their community or neighborhood business districts. In both examples if the Main Street System creates a stronger form of relationship with other systems (Rideway, 1957), they will increase their vitality and probability to survive. So, an understanding of meso level marketing systems will typically turn on an analysis of the interactions between and among systems at higer and lower levels of aggregation (Layton, 2011). With this mind, the second proposition to the marketing of systems theory can be proposed:

P2: Main Street System with low performance, without assumption of consensus for maintenance the growth and difficulty of interaction with other systems tends to decline.

Level 3 – Environmental or Macro System

At a macro, economy-wide level the aggregate marketing system offers and provides the recourses for the meso and micro systems and the organization’s need receive the inputs, process and transform for maintain the balance (Bertalanffy, 1950a, 1950b, 1968; Ackoff, 1971; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). The environment induce the changes (Dowling, 1982) and the retailer (micro level) and main street (meso level) needs to develop the ability to survive at dynamic market and create the sensibility for comprehends the market changes (Brien & Stafford, 1968). Thus, Brien & Stafford (1968) proposed an constantly analyze about the environment and how the information’s could be transform to generate competitive advantage. In this case, its only possible if the retailer presents a background as demonstrated at Level 1. Otherwise, the retailer and Main Street may be vulnerable at the distinct context of the environment (Emery & Trist, 1965). So, when the environment is more complex to comprehend their interactions, more resources and skills will be required of the systems below.

However, when systems below are not organized and unstructured decisions are made with low interaction and communication, without a systemic view of the risks involved, the social system is directly impacted. Many laws and policies in place at all levels of government are weakening communities, local economies, the environment, and democracy by fostering concentrated economic power and suppressing local authority as noted by Presti (2003, p. 20). So, de-socialization, raise urban crime, unemployment, decline of the neighborhood (Pryor & Grossbart, 2005) as some examples that can emerge at social system level. But all these social impacts can be controlled and analyzed when all systems fail to establish communication to expose their interests discuss the risks involved to ensure the survival of the social system. Otherwise, the positive entropy of the system may cause social irreversible results. These considerations lead to the third proposition:

P3: Retail Systems, Level 1 and 2, with low sensitivity to change and interaction with the environment, tend to raise the positive entropy of the social system.

5. Discussion

Generally, as science advances, there is a tendency of breaking into sub-groups with less communication among the disciplines (Boulding, 1956, 198), The proposal from General Systems Theory, however, is to integrate the disciplines of knowledge and ensure that the phenomenon is researched, analyzed as completely as possible as noted by Bertalanffy (1950a, 1950b, 1968). So, this research offers theoretical perspective on General System Theory, Marketing System and the possible application on retail environment with focus on Main Street Retail. The Main Street is important social organization for providing a social development in local business but their survival is directly related to the system below (micro) and above (macro). The micro system should ensure sustainability of the entrepreneurial business through interaction and relationship of their internal marketing functions. In addition, it’s necessary to maintaining control over business performance.

Thus, the retailers units should ensure a strong coherent interrelation among them in order to strengthen and offer the growth conditions of the Main Street Retail Agglomerate. However, for this to happen, at this level, there is a need for coordination and articulation to unite interests and to keep them in balance. Thus, partnerships and strong flow of exchanges with other social systems should be developed to ensure the strengthening of the retail system. Otherwise, the entropy tends to be irreversible for the social system.

Retailers should reduce the impact of entropy and as proposed, the process of interaction and proper relationship can ensure the survival of the system. In this context, the essay suggests three propositions for future research, and their composition could be stated as a general research question: “How the Main Street Retail can control the systemic entropy to increase the development of the social system in different levels of interaction and relationship?”. The investigation of this issue should shed more light about the growth and survival of the Main Street Retail system. Moreover, the search for a broader perspective in science becomes necessary, as noted by General Systems Theory.

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a System of Systems Concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–671. doi:10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661

Adler, L. (1967). Systems approach to marketing. Harvard Business Review, 45, 104–111.

Bartels, R., & Jenkins, R. L. (1977). Macromarketing What is it ? What should it be ? How should it be managed and taught ? Journal of Macromarketing, 41(4), 17–20.

Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1950a). An Outline of General System Theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, I(2), 134–165. doi:10.1093/bjps/I.2.134

Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1950b). The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology. Science (New York, N.Y), 111 (2872)(Jan 13), 23–29.

Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (p. 295). New York: George Braziller, Inc.

Bertalanffy, L. Von. (1972). The History and Status of General Systems Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426. doi:10.2307/255139

Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory-the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3)(April), 197–208.

Brien, R., & Stafford, J. (1968). Marketing information systems: a new dimension for marketing research. The Journal of Marketing, 32(3), 19–23.

Dixon, D. F. (1984). Macromarketing: a social systems perspective. Journal of Macromarketing, 4(3), 4–17.

Dixon, D. F., & Wilkinson, I. (1989). An alternative paradigm for marketing theory. European Journal of Marketing, 8(23), 59–69.

Dowling, G. (1982). The application of general systems theory to an analysis of marketing systems. Journal of Macromarketing, 3(2), 22–32.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32. doi:10.1177/001872676501800103

Fisk, G. (1967). Marketing system: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper.

Forrester, J. (1958). Industrial Dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Business Review, 36(July-August), 37–66.

Forrester, J. (1959). Advertising-A Problem in Industrial Dynamics. Harvard Business Review, 59, 100–111.

Giesler, M. (2013). Social Systems in Marketing by Markus Giesler Social Systems in Marketing Social Systems in Marketing by Markus Giesler, (1993), 249–256.

Johnson, R. A., Kast, F., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems Theory and Management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384.

Kadirov, D. (2011). Macro-Systems Role of Marketing: Do We Trade Environment for Welfare? Journal of Macromarketing, 4(May), 359–375. doi:10.1177/0276146711409944

Kadirov, D., & Varey, R. J. (2011). Symbolism in Marketing Systems. Journal of Macromarketing. doi:10.1177/0276146710393519

Kadirov, D., & Varey, R. J. (2013). Social systems, social provisioning, and marketing’s purpose. Social Business, 3(3), 185–199. doi:10.1362/204440813X13778729134246

Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General System Theory: Applications for Organization and Management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465. doi:10.2307/255141

Layton, R. A. (2007). Marketing Systems A Core Macromarketing Concept. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(3), 227–242. doi:10.1177/0276146707302836

Layton, R. A. (2009). On Economic Growth, Marketing Systems, and the Quality of Life. Journal of Macromarketing, 29(4), 349–362. doi:10.1177/0276146709345108

Layton, R. A. (2011). Towards a theory of marketing systems. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 259–276. doi:10.1108/03090561111095694

Meade, W., & Nason, R. (1991). Toward a unified theory of macromarketing: A systems theoretic approach. Journal of Macromarketing, 11(2), 72–82.

Milchen, J. (2005). The benefits of doing business locally. American Institute of Business Alliances, Boseman, MT., 1–2.

Peery, N. S. (1972). General Systems Theory: An Inquiry into Its Social Philosophy. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 495–510. doi:10.2307/255144

Phillips, D. C. (1972). The Methodological Basis of Systems Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 469–477. doi:10.2307/255142

Presti, J. (2003). Neighborhood Business District Analysis: Pioneer Square Business Improvement Area, Seattle. professional project submitted in partial fulfillment of …. University of Washington.

Pryor, S., & Grossbart, S. (2005). Ethnography of an American Main Street. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(11), 806–823. doi:10.1108/09590550510629400

Reidenbach, R., & Oliva, T. (1983). Toward a theory of the macro systemic effects of the marketing function. Journal of Macromarketing, 3, 33–40.

Rideway, V. (1957). Administration of manufacturer-dealer systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(4), 464–483.

Sheth, J., Gardener, D., & Garrett, D. (1988). Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation. In Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation (1st ed., p. 256). Wiley.

Thayer, F. (1972). General System(s) Theory: The Promise That Could Not Be Kept. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 481–493. doi:10.2307/255143

Wilkie, W., & Moore, E. (1999). Marketing’s contributions to society. Journal of Marketing, 63(1999), 198–218.

Información adicional

How to cite the article:: Silva, A. L. B. da, & Parente, J. (2019). Main street retail system: theoretical contributions drawn from the general systems theory. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 18(3), 178-198

IR