Master Anaïs Volin

Introduction

"The film industry is a business like any other" 1 . This quotation from the last Czech president Vaclav Klaus shows the situation of the cinema industry in Czech Republic nowadays. The country of many famous producers since 1920's 2 from Karel Lamac 3 to Viru Gunaratna 4 knows a lot of restructuration in its cinema, as the other economic sector. Indeed, the cinema industry became an important source of financial gain and especially since the fall of Communism. That is to say, the cinema will be not mostly seen as a cultural activity but as a business activity to prove the Vaclav Klaus' thinking. In this paper, our interest is not about Cultural geography 5 but about the Geography of culture. The difference between these two sections in the geographic world is the basis of our essay. Cultural geography in the tradition of the French geographic school with Paul Claval 6 and Joël Bonnemaison 7 deals with representations and identity according to the place. Some people as Augustin Berque 8 wanted to put the culture as the central point for a geographic analysis. But others like Roger Brunet preferred to consider the culture as one factor among many others, for example economy or politic. On the opposite side, the Geography of culture seems to have a different vision of the culture. English geographers more especially are into this like Allen J. Scott 9 who doesn't think the culture as an art but as a cultural industry. They focus on the economic impact of the cultural industry, for examples theatre, cinema, museum, on space and place 10 . 1 Hames P. (2009), Czech and Slovak cinema. Themes and tradition. Edimbourg, Edinburgh University Press, 264p. [START_REF] Liehm | Les cinémas de l'Est. De 1945 à nos jours[END_REF] Cf Chapters about Czechoslovakia in: Liehm, Mira et Liehm, Antonin (1989), Les cinémas de l'Est. De 1945 à nos jours.

Paris, Les éditions du CERF, 7art. 468p. 3 Czech producer in 1920's 4 New czech talent for cinema in 2012 5 Or Cultural geography and Kulturgeographie 6 Claval, P. (2003), Géographie culturelle. Une nouvelle approche des sociétés et des milieux. Paris, Armand Colin, Collection U. 287p. 7 Bonnemaison J. (2000), La géographie culturelle. Paris, CTHS, 152p. Our specific topic comes from this school of geography of culture because we decided to study the Czech film industry since 1989, from the state monopole to the privatization, through a global perspective of geography about the film production. We choose this subject in connection with our interest for our master thesis and because we can observe directly what happens in Prague about the film production through our Erasmus semester. The issue is about the Czech film industry. We focus only on the production of films and not about all of the cinema industry. Actually cinema industry is including "Production, exchange and communication around films, that is to say the three sections of the cinematographic sectors: production, diffusion, exploitation"11 . I decided to focus on the production because I think that it will be very interesting to study it as a geographer and not as cinema specialist. I would like to establish mapping of the film production in Prague as a case study. So my problematic is:

How the cinema industry, the film production, follows the general economic transformation in Czech Republic between 1989 and 2013? The cartography of the film production involved with the economic transformations that is the link we would like to prove. First, we study changes in the Czech cinema industry since 1989 to 2013: on the way to privatization, then we concentrate on Prague and the Czech cinema industry: metropolitan phenomenon and finally we analyze the perspectives and limits of the Czech film industry.

I. About changes in the Czech cinema industry since 1989: on the way to privatization and globalization

A. During the communist era: the cinema industry under the state monopole

Before the fall of communism in 1989 in Czech Republic and mostly after the independence of the Czech Republic in 1993 after the division of Czechoslovakia, the film production was an important part of the state monopole. At the beginning, under the socialist regime in Russia, Lenin considered "cinema as the most important art" 12 . Since the 11 th august 1945, the film production was nationalized 13 in Czechoslovakia. The studios in the country were under the communist regime and Barrandov studios were, for example, reorganized to be exactly in the communist way. The communist era knew also a lot of censorship of Czech films and foreign films 14 . We estimate that half of the films produced 15 were not shown because the regime prohibited the diffusion. The producer Frantisek Vlacil who produced Holubice in 1960 was especially censored. If we create a map of the film production places, I think that they were only in big cities during the communist era. Producers were not allowed to create studio by themselves, everything needed to be controlled by the regime. In fact, this is a method for the regime to produce where they want and what they want.

The film production knew a prolific era in which around 30 films were produced per year, mostly in Barrandov studios. Actually, the majority of these films were propaganda films or films without real interest because most of the good producers were censored. Often, producers decided to leave Czechoslovakia like Forman to keep on producing good films abroad. Since 1960's, Czech producers tried to be more self-contained to produce what they want and where they want. They also tried to be known out of the East-Bloc and wanted to participate to west cinema festivals but it was very difficult. The market was small in East- like to create small production company in which we can produce around 5 films per year 16 .

Finally something began to change in 1980's with the era of "détente" wanted by Mikhaïl Gorbatchev. The film production was gradually denationalized and the state monopole to the culture decreased also until the end of the communist regime.

B. After 1989, the restructuration of the cinema industry: on the way to privatization

The geography of film production in the world changed with the end of the East-bloc in Europe because borders are now open and producers can go everywhere to shoot. Why is it so important for Czech Republic? The most important reason is that Czech producers who shoot abroad and foreign producers can again shoot in Czech Republic without state control.

Nevertheless, this opportunity to produce in Czech Republic arrived while a striking crisis happened 17 in Czech film production. Czech state decided to privatize the cinema industry, sell studios and productions companies to private firms. So, during the beginning of 1990's, the film production in Czech Republic decreased around half per cent with around 15 films per year 18 (to compare with 30 films per year during communist regime). For example in 1993, 14 films 19 were produced in Czech Republic. But after an increase in 1995, the film production came back to 13 in 1998. The most important reason of the decrease is the lack of state money because since 1989, state did not support any more the film production. The film production needs an important budget, that is why if producers do not have state support, it becomes very difficult to produce films. Joël Chapron wonders in his article 20 : without help, which cinema can we produce? This question represents the central topic for producers in 1990's.

The restructuration of the cinema industry was made through different processes: denationalization 21 , privatization and opening to competition. First Czech state with the president Vaclav Havel stopped to be the owner of the studios and stopped also to support the film production. That is why the film production in Barrandov studios at the beginning of the 1990's was insignificant, for example one foreign film in 1990 and two in 1991 22 . Before the 16 Liehm, Mira et Liehm, Antonin (1989) end of the communist regime, some foreign films were already produced in Czechoslovakia.

For example Amadeus from Milos Forman was produced in Prague, even if the borders were closed. Then, Barrandov studios were privatized and with private funds, the studios managed to attract producers to shoot in Czech Republic. They succeeded well and gradually Czech Republic had a better situation with 16 films produced in 1999 23 . Privatization means that a company became the own of a private owner and not any more a public resource. One other important fact was the opening to competition with the world and mostly with central European countries. Hungary and Poland are identified as the most competing countries. In 2000, when Czech Republic produced 13 films, Hungary produced 21 and Poland 19 24 , so we can deduce that these countries are more attractive than Czech Republic. Nevertheless, we need to be careful because the restructuration of the cinema industry was made by state, so the film production depends also on the engagement of the state. Apparently, the state was more active in Poland and in Hungary and especially in 2000's.

C. The new decade (2000's), the cinema industry as a globalized industry

In 2000's, the Czech cinema industry became a real globalized industry. Why do we use this term? Globalization is connected with internationalization "refers to a growth of transactions and interdependence between countries" 25 , liberalization "a process of removing officially imposed restrictions on movements of resources between countries in order to form an 'open' and 'borderless' world economy" and westernization 26 "as a particular type of universalization, one in which the social structures of modernity (capitalism, industrialism, rationalism, urbanism, etc.) are spread the world over, destroying pre-existent cultures and local self-determination in the process". The next figure illustrates how the restructuration of the Czech film production is a part of the world process of globalization. There are a lot of exchanges between several countries through the non-Czech producers and private companies. Nowadays, there are more money transfers that contribute to film production in Czech Republic. Many private compagnies support Czech film and foreign film production. Now we can focus on the case of Prague to understand the importance of a capital in the film production in Czech Republic. 23 Number from the Lumières database 24 Ibid. 25 Three quotations from Scholte, Jan A. (2002). What is globalization? The Definitional Issue-again. Working paper.

Coventry, UK: Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick. 34 p. 26 The three concepts were also developed during different courses; contemporary human geography of Czechia

Czech Producers

Film production

A. Volin (2013)

II. Prague and the Czech cinema industry: cultural industry and metropolisation

A. Prague is the most important Czech center for the cinema industry

How could we prove that Prague is the most important centre in Czech Republic for the Czech film industry? What is the special connection between this 1.3 million inhabitants city and an important film production? In fact, there are many reasons and the first one is the dominant position of Prague in Czech Republic through historical reasons. Prague was the capital of the Bohemian Kingdom since 1198 to 1918 27 . Now Prague is always the most important economic, politic and populated centre in Czech Republic. That is also why the biggest Czech studio was constructed in Prague, in south-west of Prague, Prague 5 in a very huge space. I create a map with the entire city of Prague and the location of Barrandov studio in the city, to show where the studios are exactly (Appendice). We could also find a lot of others studios for production and post-production, for example: Gatteo studio in Hostivar, Stillking in Hlubočeny, Negativ in Nove Město or Pokrok in Žižkov. In Barrandov studios only, we can observe the number of production 28 per year in figure 1. In 2000's, the number of film production was high even if there was a decrease of foreign film because many of foreign producers went to Hungary. We will talk about this in the second part of this chapter.

Number of film production in Barrandov studios

It is important to understand what are the reasons to choose Prague for shooting?

During an interview with the dean of the Czech film commission 29 , she gave me several reasons. First, locations in Prague are beautiful and very different with historical building, cultural building, with parks and so on. Producers can also have countryside very closed to Prague in Central Bohemia Region. For example the National Museum appears in Casino Royale from Martin Campbell (2006). This argument proves the connection between space and place, so geography, with the film production more considered as art study usually.

Secondly, Prague attracts productions companies with production and post-production studios. It means that a producer can entirely make his film in Prague. Third, people and cinema crew "are renowned for their skill and creativity" 30 with a lot of different jobs (technical job: for light, creative job: costumes, casting agency…). Moreover actors and producers can stay in Prague during the shooting in hostels and eat in famous restaurants.

Everything is concentrated in the Czech capital. Prague became a metropole which constitutes «espace urbain qui tout en permettant la participation des acteurs aux processus d'échelle mondiale, reste une société locale» 31 . As a metropole, Prague attracts value-added production 32 like film production. Is the dominant situation of Prague in Czech Republic the same in central European Europe? What are the other film production centres?

B. Statement of Prague as an important European center for the cinema industry

With the fall of communism and the opening of the borders, capitalism came in Central Europe, through privatization of industrial companies and increase of services sector 33 . We can establish a link with the increase of the importance of film production in central European countries. A lot of possibilities are now offered to producers to shoot where they want. In this liberalization, that is to say that state doesn't control the market, the concurrence between cities to attract producers increased a lot 34 . Prague and the Czech Republic are mostly in concurrence with Poland and cities of Łódź and Varsovie, also with 29 Interview on 29th April 2013 with Ludmila Claussova, Dean of the Czech film commission 30 Quick guide to shooting in the Czech Republic, books made by National Film Archive (2013) 31 Lévy J. et Lussault M. (éd.), ( 2003), Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l'espace des sociétés. Paris, Belin, 1033p. 32 Calenge, P. ( 2006) «Les dynamiques spatiales de la production de biens culturels sous les effets de la mondialisation».

Espaces et sociétés. n°124-125. p.33-54 33 In connection with courses in Contemporary human geography of Czechia 34 Iordanova, D. (1999) «East Europe's cinema industries since 1989: financing structure and studios». The public. Vol.2.

Hungary and city of Budapest. The concurrence with Slovakia does not really exist because the structures for producing were destructed in Slovakia after the independence in 1993.

Romania held also as a competing country with the city of Bucharest.

Why are the reasons to produce in these countries? The answer is that for the same reason to produce in Prague and mostly because it is cheaper 35 to shoot here than in Western Europe or America. Producers can find beautiful and different locations, big crew, structures to shoot (studios and post-productions studios) and financial incentives. Even if Hungary and Poland had incentives before Czech Republic, this country keeps on producing films because Prague has a good reputation and an important historical background which are significant for producers. The number of coproductions produced in Prague explains also why Prague is always a competing city. Producers from Scandinavia, France or Germany appreciate to shoot in Prague. For example Faubourg 26 from Christophe Barratier (2008) was shot in Prague or La Môme from Olivier Dahan (2007), which represent important movies in France. In truth, the most important reason to shoot in Prague is money. In this way, Prague joins the global mapping of film production with big production centre like Hollywood and some small production centre like Budapest.

C. A new competitive center for the cinema industry: Prague versus Hollywood 36

In global geography of film production, we can observe there is one big centre: Hollywood. That is why Kristian Feigelson talks about "American hegemony and European concurrence" 37 . It is the most famous place in the world to produce. Then we can observe the important position of India in Asia to produce and Paris and London are the most important locations in Europe. Some American investors come to Prague to buy production companies because it is cheaper and the crews appear well-trained. For example Rick Macculum founded his own production company called Film united in 2013, company which is located in First, every producer can have 20% rebates to the final budget if the film is produced in Czech Republic. Second, Czech producers can have money from a Czech cinematography fund. This fund promotes the development of Czech cinema, helps the production and postproduction and also contributes to the digitalisation of films. This second fund is reserved for Czech producers and Czech coproductions (minority or majority) 45 . We don't know yet how many CZK, will be distributed but at least it will be not a lot. It constitutes a help for producers (foreign and Czech), nevertheless Czech producers need always to find other support. It means Czech producers take funds from private companies. Oftenly private companies want to support a certain kind of films (comedy, action films, romance…). Czech producers want keep on producing art movies, but with which support?

C. Which future for the Czech cinema industry: culture or business

As geographers, we could think about the connection between production and place's production. This topic can be seen through different geographic processes like globalization and metropolisation. Prague knows, for almost twenty years, big transformations in her economic system with an important increase of services. In this way, certain sectors like film production are now considered more as an economic activity than a cultural activity. This is a good question in connection with the changes of consumption behaviour and also with the global exchange of informations in the world. Prague became a big capitalist city in Central Europe. The position closed to Germany and Austria gives her more chance to attract producers. We can consider culture still exists through the cinema festivals. In Czech Republic, the most important events are festivals in Karlovy Vary and Plzen 46 . We can also mention Czech centres 47 in Prague and in 21 other cities in the world, for example Berlin, Paris, New-York and so on. This institution presents and promotes Czech culture abroad. Culture versus business is not really effective, Czech film production tries to find compromises. 45

Conclusion

Our general problematic was: How the cinema industry, the film production, follows the general economic transformation in Czech Republic between 1989 and 2013? We prove how the privatization and the globalization are present in Czech Republic in a lot of sectors.

The film production was also concerned by this change because producers need to find some private support. Since 1989 and 2012, it did not exist state support for film production like in the other European countries. Czech Republic lost some shooting because of the non-state support. Hopefully, since last year, the government decided to support Czech film production through tax incentives and the creation of a new fund for Czech cinematography. Now, we need to wait to observe the results. Czech state and production companies hope an increase of production in Czech Republic. Czech producers hope to have more money to produce art movies, but they seem to be always sceptic.

  8 Chivallon, C. (2003) «Une vision de la géographie sociale et culturelle en France». Annales de géographie. n°634. p.646-657 9 Géneau de la Martière, I. (2004) «L'espace et le lieu dans la géographie culturelle». Géographie et cultures. n°49 Economie et culture : nouveaux enjeux géographiques? 10 Calenge, P. (2004) «Pour une géographie de la production des biens culturels». Géographie et cultures. n°49 Economie et Culture : nouveaux enjeux géographiques?

  bloc and totally closed to the west-bloc market. However producers wanted to change the film production's structure, so change the geography of the production, almost by a delocalisation of the film production outside of State studios. Since the end of the 1960's, producers would 12 Quotation in French from: Chapron, J. (2006) «L'Europe centrale en arrêt sur images». Culture et musées. Point de vue. 7. p.181-186 13 For all of this part, see chapter 8 « Hongrie, Pologne, Tchécoslovaquie (1945-1995), au-delà du rideau en Europe centrale » in Muller R. et Wieder T. (éd.), (2008), Cinéma et régimes autoritaires au XXème siècle. Ecrans sous influence. Paris, Editions ENS rue d'Ulm, Presses Universitaires de France, Les rencontres de Normale Sup'. 213p. 14 Zaoralova E. et Passek J. (éd.), (1996), Le Cinéma tchèque et slovaque. Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, Cinéma pluriel. 288p. 15 Ibid.

  Figure 1 : Number of film production in Barrandov studios (Prague, Czech Republic) [Conception and realisation: A.Volin, 2013]

Prague 38 .

 38 What about the perspectives for the film production in Prague because the concurrence increases always and Czech producers do not have state support? How can they manage to stay competitive? What are the limits of the Czech film industry now? More fund? Decrease of Czech film production? 35 "I mean of course it is still cheaper than somewhere else like in USA" Interview with employees of the Czech film Commission, on 20 th march 2013 36 Elsaesser T. (éd.), (2005), European cinema : face to face with Hollywood. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, Film culture in transition. 563p. 37 Feigelson, K. (2006) «Le cinéma à l'Est. Des politiques publiques fragmentées.» (Opus quoted) 38 Ponikelska, L. (17 janvier 2013) «Star wars producer raps communists in killer heroes movies». Bloomberg. Consultation: 19 mai 2013. business like the other". The parliament accepted the new law last December and now Czech Republic have tax incentives.

,

  Les cinémas de l'Est. De 1945 à nos jours. (Opus quoted) 17 Feigelson, K. (2006) «Le cinéma à l'Est. Des politiques publiques fragmentées». Le courrier des pays de l'Est. 6. n°1058.

	p.18-28

18

Muller R. et Wieder T.

(éd.), (2008)

, Cinéma et régimes autoritaires au XXème siècle. Ecrans sous influence. (Opus quoted) 19 Number from the Lumière database 20 Chapron, J. (2006) «L'Europe centrale en arrêt sur images» (opus quoted) 21 Hames, P. (2000) "The Velvet Generation" Central Europe Review. Vol 2, n° 41

The cinema production in Czech Republic: Restructuration of the system since 1989 Legend

	Czech state (Ministry of culture, ministry of foreign office)	Non Czech producers (Hungary, Poland, USA, Germany)
	Productions studios (Barrandov…)	Private companies
	Czech
	Television
	People acting in film production
	Contribution to production
	Money transfers
	State support (support for the production through the institution)
	Support to Czech culture (historical reason…)
	People producing films (directors and employees from the studio)
		7

  Ibid. Interview on 29th April 2013 with Ludmila Claussova, Dean of the Czech film commission 46 Portuges, C. (1992) «Border crossings: recent trends in East and Central European cinema». Slavic review. Vol 51. p.531-535 47 Interview with Eva Pribylova, film projects coordinator in Czech centres, on 26 th March 2013

Quotation in french : « logiques de la production, de l'échange et de la communication qui correspondent aux trois stades de la filière cinématographique : production, diffusion, exploitation » from Aumont J. et Marie M. (éd.), (2001), Dictionnaire théorique et critique du cinéma. Paris, Nathan, Analyse/théorie. 245p.

Number from the website of Barrandov studios: http://www.barrandov.cz/en/clanek/references-international-film/

III.Perspectives and limits of the Czech film industry

A. The concurrence with the other central European cities: Prague VS Budapest

At the beginning of 2000's and until 2004, Prague was the most competing city in Central Europe to produce. We can observe a decrease of films produced in figure 1 (Appendice). In 2004, Czech Republic produced 16 films and Hungary 25. In 2005, Czech Republic produced 15 films and Hungary 20 39 . After 2004, Budapest became more competitive than Prague thanks to the new tax incentives. Some state support help film production through state money 40 . However the fund is not so important and Hungary TV does not support the film production contrary to Poland. State support 41 is for Hungarian film and also for coproductions. That is to say that foreign producers like German, Italian or Greek have an interest in producing in Hungary and not in Czech Republic.

The competition 42 is especially between Prague and Budapest because there are comparable cities. Producers can find same locations with historical buildings and beautiful countrysides, same crews and structures (studios). So the most important argument focuses on incentives. A lot of cinema specialists in Czech Republic think about this concurrence and how to attract again producers in Prague. The Czech film center was created to attract foreign producers in Prague with the mission to "promote Czech film and industry abroad" 43 . Finally, the most important argument to attract producers is money. Czech producers wanted a new law about film production support for a long time ago. They succeeded in 2012 with the new film financing law.

B. The new situation in East Central Europe with Czech new law


Joe Miemczyk
email: jmiemczyk@audencia.com

Thomas Johnsen
email: tjohnsen@audencia.com

Katri Karjalainen
email: katri.karjalainen@mbs.ac.uk

Asta Salmi
email: asta.salmi@aalto.fi

Federico Caniato
email: federico.caniato@polimi.it

Global sourcing: linking categories to the geographical scope of sourcing

One of the key debates in purchasing management today relates to the decision to source products on a global basis. However, there is little research that goes beyond asking what are the drivers and barriers to global sourcing. This paper attempts to address part of this gap by asking whether variables associated with a category's strategy, characteristics and supply markets are related to specific sourcing location choices that range from a purely local to a global basis. This is done by testing whether there are significant differences among these variables across a range of sourcing scenarios.

Introduction

An increasing number of firms are combining domestic and global sourcing as a means of achieving a sustainable competitive advantage [START_REF] Bozarth | Stages of global sourcing strategy evolution: an exploratory study[END_REF]. Although the optimal balance of global and domestic sourcing can have a significant effect on competitiveness, it has received little attention by academia [START_REF] Jin | Achieving an optimal global versus domestic sourcing balance under demand uncertainty[END_REF]. Many firms struggle with global sourcing and need to better understand the requirements for effective global sourcing strategies [START_REF] Petersen | An empirical investigation of global sourcing strategy effectiveness[END_REF].

Global sourcing is increasingly understood as a dynamic process, which is affected by company-specific dynamics and the environmental context [START_REF] Quintens | Purchasing internationalization on both sides of the Atlantic[END_REF]. Several stage models investigate the development from local sourcing to international and global sourcing (Monczka andTrent 1991 a,b, 1992), and it has been suggested that firms as a whole advance on a continuum from domestic to global sourcing [START_REF] Trent | International purchasing and global sourcing -what are the differences?[END_REF]. Most of these studies, however, focus only on development and enabling conditions of global sourcing on a firm level.

There is a scarcity of studies examining the differences in products that are selected for geographic sourcing scopes, despite the fact that product characteristics have early on been identified as a factor determining the scope of international sourcing [START_REF] Birou | International purchasing: Benefits, requirements, and challenges[END_REF]. The development of global purchasing has raised many questions about the appropriateness of specific types of products or services being sourced on a global basis [START_REF] Birou | International purchasing: Benefits, requirements, and challenges[END_REF][START_REF] Salmi | Organising international supplier relations: An exploratory study of Western purchasing in China[END_REF][START_REF] Demirbag | Factors Determining Offshore Location Choice for R&D Projects: A Comparative Study of Developed and Emerging Regions[END_REF]. Using purchasing categoriesand the more general use of portfolios as a means to simplify the management of a large range of purchased products -has been suggested as a useful lens in the study of sourcing decisions [START_REF] Gelderman | Managing the global supply base through purchasing portfolio management[END_REF]. Interest in regional aspects of sourcing is evident [START_REF] Mol | Antecedents and performance consequences of international outsourcing[END_REF][START_REF] Kedia | Understanding offshoring: A research framework based on disintegration, location and externalization advantages[END_REF][START_REF] Demirbag | Factors Determining Offshore Location Choice for R&D Projects: A Comparative Study of Developed and Emerging Regions[END_REF]) The location choice and different sourcing regions have been investigated by analyzing the firm, home and host country factors [START_REF] Demirbag | Factors Determining Offshore Location Choice for R&D Projects: A Comparative Study of Developed and Emerging Regions[END_REF], thus building on the frameworks in the international business discipline (e.g. [START_REF] Dunning | Some macro-data on the regionalisation/globalisation debate: a comment on the Rugman/Verbeke analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Rugman | A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises[END_REF]) However, the focus on the macro and firm level determinants still leaves a gap as comes to studies at the product category level. Another gap relates to empirical analysis: despite the increasing importance of global sourcing in the field, the literature lacks empirical theory testing (Quintens et.al. 2006) and empirical investigations that give references on the phenomenon [START_REF] Nassimbeni | International Sourcing: Empirical Evidence from a Sample of Italian Firms[END_REF]. We address these gaps by exploring the relationship between category strategic focus, category characteristics, supply market characteristics and the (selected) scope of global sourcing (ranging from fully domestic to fully global) based on a large scale multinational empirical study. .

Literature Review

For the purpose of this paper we focus on three issues at the category level which potentially affect the decision to source locally or on a more global basis. We argue that the particular strategy priority for a category will be a principle driver for sourcing location decisions. We also argue that the characteristics of the category and the nature of the supply market will also have an influence on sourcing location choices.

Category strategies

Purchasing portfolio models are popular tools that are used for analyzing and categorizing purchase items according to common characteristics and a plethora of portfolio models have been suggested in the literature (Day et al, 2010). Kraljic's (1983) seminal model specified that purchasing decisions be taken according to supply market complexity and the importance of the purchase. Later adaptations of the Kraljic model have modified the two dimensions into 'difficulty of managing purchase situation' and 'strategic importance of the purchase' (Olsen and Ellram, 1997), and more recently 'supply risk' and 'profit impact' (e.g. Gelderman and van Weele, 2003), the latter sometimes translated into 'value'. Another type of portfolio model focuses on the nature of supplier relationship instead of the purchase item, for instance highlighting buyer-supplier dependence (and thus power) as a key dimension (e.g. Cousins, 2002;Caniels and Gelderman, 2005).

Given that different categories may require differentiated strategic approaches, we argue that decisions on location of sourcing will be dependent on the strategy priority for a specific category. It is clear that one of the principle strategies relates to reducing costs, and indeed cost reductions and lower prices are the most frequently cited drivers for global sourcing [START_REF] Bozarth | Stages of global sourcing strategy evolution: an exploratory study[END_REF][START_REF] Contractor | Reconceptualizing the Firm in a World of Outsourcing and Offshoring: The Organizational and Geographical Relocation of High-Value Company Functions[END_REF]. In fact the empirical study by Alguire et al (1994) demonstrated that the most important motivator for global sourcing of the companies they sampled was cost, although this situation may well have changed since their study was conducted and since then research has identified a wide range of drivers for global sourcing (e.g. [START_REF] Quintens | Global purchasing: State of the art and research directions[END_REF]. Hence, there are many other motivations, including, e.g., local content and counter-trade, access to new markets or technology and shorter product development and life cycles [START_REF] Bozarth | Stages of global sourcing strategy evolution: an exploratory study[END_REF] and better quality (Monczka et al 2005). On the other hand, those strategies more linked to faster delivery times and greater reliability would favour sourcing from closer to home [START_REF] Manuj | Global supply chain risk management strategies[END_REF] reinforcing this, buying from a foreign supplier through an extended delivery chain increases the risk of delay [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF]. In addition to these more or less classic priorities others have also been cited primarily related to innovation and sustainability [START_REF] Monczka | Category strategies and supplier management[END_REF], but the link to sourcing location has not been made.

Category characteristics and supply markets

The appropriate choice on sourcing location depends on various demand, supply and productrelated characteristics that have a substantial impact on the actual cost of global sourcing decisions (Holweg et al. in press). Selecting those items for which buying internationally offers the maximum benefit, whilst choosing local sourcing for those which are likely to manifest the greatest obstacles, gives the opportunity to maximize the advantages of the global market at the lowest risk [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF]. From this call, we investigate the characteristics of categories and how these may influence the decision on where they are sourced from.

Category strategic importance

Very few papers so far [START_REF] Jin | Achieving an optimal global versus domestic sourcing balance under demand uncertainty[END_REF][START_REF] Mol | A technological contingency perspective on the depth and scope of international outsourcing[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF] focus on which products are or should be chosen for domestic, regional or global sourcing. Some research suggests that global sourcing tends to concern low value and low risk items (e.g. Steinle and Schiele, 2008;Alquire et al, 1994), hence non strategic items from a portfolio perspective. However, the link between global sourcing and purchase categories identified through purchasing portfolio models remains relatively unexplored. Product type is more than an antecedent to global sourcing; it should be one of the key decision variables in choosing whether to source from domestic, regional or global sources or from some combination of them. The ultimate aim is not to have more global purchasing as such but depending on elements such as competition, customer demands and product value versus transportation costs, intermediate stages of globalization may be better options [START_REF] Quintens | Global purchasing: State of the art and research directions[END_REF]. Supplier power within the category Power and dependence are persistent themes in purchasing research, however, power is not explicitly taken into account in Kraljic's (1983) model (Caniels andGelderman 2005). Nevertheless, the supply market complexity or risk dimension of his model goes some way to consider power, as for example, high supply market complexity is usually a function of a small number of (powerful) suppliers: bottleneck and strategic suppliers are in a powerful position because there are few alternatives and thus high dependency. Kraljic's second matrix, which concerns only strategic item strategies, focuses more explicitly on power in recommending three strategies: exploit, balance and diversify. Supplier power may also relate to entry barriers for new suppliers to enter the supply market, level of concentration of the supply market, and the cost of switching suppliers (Caniels and Gelderman ibid). Therefore we may reasonably expect that where supplier power is higher, purchasers have to look further afield to find competitive sources and hence may wish to source globally.

Customisation within the category

In their case study in the automotive industry, [START_REF] Nellore | Lean supply and price-based global sourcing-the interconnection[END_REF] suggest that global sourcing can be disadvantageous for components that differentiate the final vehicle from competitors or contribute to brand identity, components that need specific supplier-based core competencies, components where innovation is a key success factor or components where technology is undergoing rapid evolution and change.

From these discussions we would expect there to be relationship between the strategic importance of the category, the level of supplier power and category customisation on the decision to source either locally or globally. However, the supply markets within each category are also likely to have an effect, so we discuss this possible influence next.

Supply market issues

The supply market itself is also likely to influence decisions on sourcing location. There are a number paths through which supply markets may affect these decisions ranging from uncertainty and volatility of the market itself through to risks, uncertainty and change of the main technology involved. Volume uncertainty refers to uncertainty in the demand for the final product and thus in the materials, components and services used in producing it. [START_REF] Mol | A technological contingency perspective on the depth and scope of international outsourcing[END_REF] suggest that to compensate for increasing volume uncertainty, firms prefer close-to-home suppliers. For items with very volatile demand patterns, strong arguments exist for buying from suppliers who are close at hand and are able to respond to the fluctuating circumstances [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF]. Products with a stable and predictable demand can take advantages of cost benefits potentially achieved through global sourcing [START_REF] Jin | Achieving an optimal global versus domestic sourcing balance under demand uncertainty[END_REF]. Linking to Kraljic's, (1983) view of pace of technological advance, it is clear that sourcing decisions will be influenced by the amount of change and uncertainty of technologies within a category. [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF] suggest that the higher the rate of change of the technology, the greater the case for working through local sellers [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF]. When specifications are volatile and subject to change, the use of local or national distributors can offer ways to reduce the exposure from variation at relatively short notice [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF]. Greater the need to have regular contact between buyer and supplier at technical and commercial levels points towards the preference to procure from close-by suppliers [START_REF] Smith | Item selection for global purchasing[END_REF]. Products in their mature and declining phase are often manufactured in developing countries [START_REF] Swamidass | Component Sourcing Strategies of Multinationals: An Empirical Study of European and Japanese Multinationals[END_REF]. Companies may also not want to manufacture a new product in a developed nation for fear of disclosing its technological secrets [START_REF] Swamidass | Component Sourcing Strategies of Multinationals: An Empirical Study of European and Japanese Multinationals[END_REF].

In summary, from the literature we can state that decisions on location of sourcing will be multi-dimensional taking into account many issues. Key elements of this relate to the chosen strategy objectives and how these can be achieved through sourcing decisions, i.e. low cost sourcing. Equally important however are also the specificities of the product being sourced (in our case category level specificities). The actual characteristics of the category especially the strategic importance is likely to be a key determinant. However, alongside this the supply market, its volatility, technological change rates and so on, are also likely to have an effect. Hence our approach is to explore these dimensions and find out which of them actually has an effect (or not) on the actual geographic location of category sourcing. Hence, the aim of this paper is to test whether variables associated with category strategy, category characteristics and supply market characteristics are related to specific location choices for sourcing ranging from a purely local to a global basis.

Method

There is a lack of data on global sourcing overall; specifically most empirical measurement has taken place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and most of the firm level data are from one country, typically the United States [START_REF] Nassimbeni | International Sourcing: Empirical Evidence from a Sample of Italian Firms[END_REF][START_REF] Mol | Antecedents and performance consequences of international outsourcing[END_REF]. Sourcing research in the EU has mostly been confined to descriptions of particular sourcing relations and networks and there is no systematic evidence on the performance of international sourcing strategies of firms in European countries; few studies offer a sophisticated account of the location dimension of sourcing [START_REF] Mol | Antecedents and performance consequences of international outsourcing[END_REF].

The data used in this paper is collected with the International Purchasing Survey (IPS) instrument. This is a survey designed to study purchasing and supply management practices and their effects on purchasing and business performance. The survey has been developed by a community of universities in eleven European and North American countries and data has been collected in Finland, Sweden, Spain, England, France, Germany, Italy, United States, Canada and Netherlands. The data collection took place in 2009 and a total of 681 usable responses were received to the survey. The IPS tool included multiple questions on firm level, purchasing unit level and purchasing category level; the respondents selected a purchasing category of which they have intimate knowledge. This study focuses on the category level items in the survey, specifically concentrating on responses where it was indicated that the category in question was part of direct spend. Additionally, only the European data is used for analysis. This means the total number of responses used for analysis in this study is 548.

The countries involved in the IPS used slightly different approaches in data collection, specifically in terms of determining the population for study, and the method used in contacting respondents. To ensure that these different approaches, or the multinational nature of the data itself, do not interfere with the findings derived from the data analysis, steps have been taken pre and post data collection to ensure data equivalence in all its forms (construct equivalence, measurement equivalence, and data collection equivalence, see e.g. Hult et al. 2008). The analysis is based on grouping European companies (at the category level) according to the scope of their sourcing for a specific category. In this study we compare 7 groups. Group 1 consists of company categories that are only sourced locally (n=126). Group 2 consists of those which source from home and the region including western and eastern Europe (n=134). Group 3 includes those categories that are sourced from Europe only, not in the home country (n=57). Group 4 includes categories that are sourced from home and on a global basis but not within Europe (n=33). Group 5 includes categories that are sourced only globally, i.e. not from home or from Europe (n=22). Group 6 includes categories that are sourced from both Europe and outside, not from home (n=41). Group 7 includes categories that are sourced from home, Europe and outside (n=137). The four groups are compared, by means of ANOVA, in terms of the following multi-item constructs (Caniato et al., 2010): category strategy, category characteristics, and supply market characteristics. Such constructs are measured through the factors obtained by mean of an exploratory principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation, as shown in the following tables (variables are measured through Likert-like scales from 1extremely low to 6extremely high). The strongest difference concerns the Cost strategic objective, which is more important for categories sourced globally, compared to those sourced locally. This is not a surprising evidence, since it is in line with the recommendations found in the literature [START_REF] Bozarth | Stages of global sourcing strategy evolution: an exploratory study[END_REF][START_REF] Contractor | Reconceptualizing the Firm in a World of Outsourcing and Offshoring: The Organizational and Geographical Relocation of High-Value Company Functions[END_REF], since the most common reason for sourcing globally is to reduce costs. However it is worth noticing that cost reduction, in comparison with the other goals, is the most important one also for the "Home only" group, which shows how cost is still "the" priority for purchasing managers, in particular if we consider that data have been collected during the global crisis. The other significant value refers to the delivery goal, for which we also find higher values for global categories compared to local ones, despite no significant pairwise difference is found. This is quite interesting, since a common issue with global sourcing is indeed delivery speed and reliability [START_REF] Manuj | Global supply chain risk management strategies[END_REF], given the distance and the complexity due to transportation, customs, etc. Therefore it is quite clear that improving delivery for categories sourced globally is a higher priority for purchasing managers compared to local categories. A similar line of reasoning can be applied to quality, for which there are no significant differences, although the highest average is found in the "Global only" group (low significance is probably related to the small group size), suggesting that quality is an issue for these categories.

While "traditional" priorities (cost, delivery and quality) show indeed some difference between local and global sourcing categories, values for the three more "innovative" priorities (efficiency, innovation and sustainability) are almost identical and definitely lower. The lack of difference among the groups seems related to the less focus on these priorities in general, no matter where the sourcing takes place.

  ResultsThe ANOVA on category strategy provided the results shown in the following table.

	Category Characteristics
	Group 1 Home only 2 Home & Europe	N 124 134	Strategic Impact Cost Efficiency Quality Delivery Innovation Sustainability Supplier Power Customization 3.99* 3.33 3.58 3.70 3.08 2.90 Supplier Threat 4.15 3.10 3.63 3.96 3.25 2.84
	3 Europe only	57	4.49	3.16	3.58	3.94			3.22	2.81
	Category's impact on the cost of your products/services 4 Home & global 33 4.29 3.18	3.56	.775 3.88			3.33	2.67
	Category's impact on the quality of your internal processes 5 Global only 22 4.23 3.30	4.00	.717 4.02			3.52	2.95
	Category's impact on perceived quality of your products/services Entry barriers for new suppliers to enter the supply market 6 Europe & global 41 4.44 3.38 Level of concentration of the supply market 7 Home & Europe & 137 4.44* 3.33 The cost for your organization to switch suppliers global The extent to which this category is customized Total 548 4.25 3.25 The extent to which suppliers of this category know each other Sig. .002 .534	3.68 3.85 3.69 .249	.683 4.29 4.13 3.96 .025		3.40 .741 3.42 .732 .646 3.28 .314	.892	3.11 3.04 2.91 .851 .585
	The extent to which suppliers of this category provide unique resources ANOVA on category strategy. *pairwise difference is significant at p<.05 (Scheffè test) .623
	The threat of a supplier of this category buying your firm							.969
	Cronbach's Alpha						0.605	0.601	n.a. 0.440 n.a.
	Mean						4.66		3.79	n.a.
	Lowest Eigenvalue 0.877 Total Variance Explained 70%
	The Factor with low Alpha is split into the original variables
	Category Strategy Supply Market Characteristics
					Delivery	Sustainabil	ity Technology	Cost uncertainty	Market	Innovation Volatility	Efficiency 3	Quality 4	Company	experience
	Improving supplier accuracy in delivery dates The extent to which products/services are new to your firm	.885		.884
	Improving supplier lead-time The extent to which technologies in this category are new to your firm .847		.876
	Reducing ecological impact for this category The extent to which technologies change in this category		.904	.822
	Improving compliance with social and ethical guide The volatility of volumes The volatility of prices Reducing product/service unit prices The average time-span of supplier relationships			.881	.896	.807 .765	-.835
	Reducing total cost of ownership of purchased inputs The rate with which you change suppliers for this category			.812			.817
	Improving introduction rates of new/improved products The extent to which products/services can be specified unambiguously					.845	.913
	Improving time-to-market with suppliers The accuracy of demand forecasting for this category							.752	.551
	Reducing asset utilization for this category The level of experience of your purchasing function with this category						.867	.953
	Reducing (internal) purchasing process cost Cronbach's Alpha				0.827 0.526	.792 n.a	0.337 n.a.
	Improving specifications and functionality of purchases Mean			2.79		3.72	.828 n.a.
	Improving conformance quality of purchased inputs Lowest Eigenvalue 0.812 Total Variance Explained 72%	.						.767
	Cronbach's Alpha The Factor with low Alpha is split into the original variables	0.844 0.857 0.714 0.803 0.693 0.753
	Mean				3.96	2.91	4.25		3.28	3.25	3.69
	Lowest Eigenvalue: 0.664 Total Variance Explained: 83%

The results of the ANOVA on category and supply market characteristics are shown in the following table:

ANOVA on category and supply market characteristics

We find four characteristics with significant values, although no significant pairwise difference is observed: strategic impact, supplier power, market volatility and supplier change rate.

The first significant characteristic is the Strategic impact of the category, whose highest values appear in the global groups (6 and 7), while the lowest ones refer to the "Home only" and "Home & global" group. It should be noted that such differences are very small (hence probably the absence of pairwise differences), however this result seems to contradict several previous contributions that suggest that strategic categories are preferable sourced locally (Arnold 1999, Steinle andSchiele, 2008). On the contrary, our results show that strategic categories are indeed sourced also internationally, generally with a mix of regional (i.e. Europe) and global sourcing, probably to keep closer alternative sources as backup. Supplier power is also not very clear, since there is no strong difference between local and global categories. The highest values are anyway associated to the European and global categories, suggesting that such international sourcing categories are offered by strong suppliers, which is also in line with their strategic impact. Therefore global sourcing is not associated with "easy" markets, as it may be implied by the broader offering available. Supply market volatility also presents contradicting results, since the highest values are in groups 3 and 7, while the lowest in groups 1 and 5, which are the opposite (Home only and global only). Therefore no clear pattern of relationship between market volatility and local vs. global sourcing can be identified, suggesting that market volatility is not a strong driver in the choice.

Finally, supplier change rate is significant, despite the very low value on average. The relatively higher values can be found for global categories, while the lowest refers to local ones. This may be explained with strongest relationships with local suppliers, while global ones are more unstable. Customization, despite not being statistically significant, shows a higher value in the "Global only" group (again, the small group size explains the lack of significance). This is quite interesting since often customization is associated with local sourcing [START_REF] Nellore | Lean supply and price-based global sourcing-the interconnection[END_REF], which is definitely not our case.

It is also interesting to notice that no significant difference can be found for all the other characteristics, despite some of them are generally considered as relevant in the local vs. global decision.