The relative efficacy of a global marketing strategy vis-à-vis a tailored marketing strategy remains one of the hotly debated issues of international marketing. As is the case in any debate, polarizing arguments for (or against) each abound. Proponents of a global strategy point to the increasing homogenization of customer tastes and preferences and suggest that significant economies of scale can be attained by standardized products marketing world wide (Levitt 1983). Critics, on the other hand, dismiss the potential of a global strategy and underscore economic, environmental and other cultural differences among nations as impediments to its implementation. They argue that reflect adaptation strategy to market-country differences will generate improved response (Kotler 1986).

Often overlooked in this fierce debate is a middle ground approach that takes into account not only differences or similarities among both markets but. As Quelch and Hoff (1986) point out, the real issue is not whether to standardize but rather how to tailor the global marketing strategy. Indeed, reliance on a global strategy can result in missing out on important target markets and positioning inappropriate. Likewise customizing marketing strategy to individual countries implies loss of potential economies of scale as well as exploitation opportunities for product ideas on a scale against (White Lock and Chung 1989).

The writings of recent genre suggest that comprehensive and tailored strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that they can be used in tandem to reap the maximum benefits. In this vein, Jain (1989) and Kale and Sudharshan (1987) offers interactivity Market segmentation approach to world markets and point to the feasibility of identifying homogeneous segments which transcend national boundaries. Once identified these so-called strategic segments equivalent (Kale and Sudharshan 1987) can be reached via global marketing strategies aimed at different cross-national segments (Verhagen, Dahringer and Cundiff 1989). The idea of reconciling the different viewpoints of global marketing strategies and tailored intuitively appealing and is certainly represents a significant forward link in the design of multinational marketing strategies. However, the empirical support to middle ground viability of this approach is evidence to scanty and its Effect comes mainly in the form of anecdotes (Ohmae 1985, White Lock, 1987).

The study reported here is intended to partially fill in this void. Specifically, consumers in six countries including the United States, Mexico, The Netherlands, Turkey, Thai and Saudi Arabia were studied for InterBase Market segmentation on the basis of two criteria, perceived risk and brand loyalty (Kreutzer 1988). Consumers were questioned about their degree of perceived risk and loyalty for two brand products, bath soap and toothpaste. These products were chosen since they are widely available in different brands and are purchased on a frequent basis by the consumers in these countries. It was maintained that the consumers in these countries are not sufficiently similar regarding the effects of risk perception on brand loyalty, the underlying rationale for a single global marketing strategy at least within the context of products here would disappear under consideration. On the contrary, such a circumstance would render the middle ground approach feasible.

”The lack of political objectives,’’said Robert C. angel of the University of South Carolina,”has contributed, Japan terminal of the USA to achieve maximum benefits for Japan.”JAPANESE money in Academe

Up to 80 percent of studies in the USA-Japan-U.S. relations with universities and research institutes are funded at least in part, by Japanese society, foundations and government leaders.

The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, has a chair Nakasone, funded by the Japan Foundation.

James E. Auer, the Pentagon, a leading expert in Japan for most of this decade, and now director of the Center for USA-Japan-Studies and Cooperation in Vanderbilt University, is working on a study of defence transfer of technology between the two nations, funded by the Japanese.

Daiwa Securities $ 1 million grant to the Committee on Economic Development, a policy analysis group, for studies in education.

Is this the work of American scholar influenced by the source of their funding? It is important that the frequency increasing as Japan began, some spread the wealth of its trade surpluses in all the sciences.

John W. Rosenblum, a Japan specialist and dean of the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration from the University of Virginia, said:”I would think, and I think I have reason to believe that my colleagues have integrity and ” one arm - Length perspective, even if some of their funding comes directly or indirectly, from Japanese sources.”

But it is a question”que all scientists are waiting, because himself the appearance of conflicts of interest would be disastrous for science and universities to support the bourse,’’said M . Rosenblum. Each Zeit”eine institution as defined on a mine other institution, whether a country or company, a significant part of financial assistance, it is reasonable to assume that, given this type of conflict of interests.”

Each”,”, he added,”would benefit from wider disclosure could strengthen relations with the conclusions.”Questions on Capitol Hill

In collaboration with a number of other American econmists, Gary R. Saxon House serves the Board of the Institute of Economic Research funded by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry, but it is also a part-time economist at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and Head-Japan expert.

The position in Japan is not paid, and the board meets once every two years. Nevertheless, the link has received questions on Capitol Hill.

Eight members of the Assembly, headed by Helen Delich Bentley, Republican of Maryland, has recently requested an investigation into the White House. ”It is difficult to understand how each government of USA, an economist, so that important decisions on the future of this country, could participate as an adviser to a foreign government or foreign agency,”, she wrote. They said they were acting out”unsere deep concern about the USA lost the race for high-tech Japan.”

The White House dismissed the complaint based on a finding that Mr. Official Saxon House war””irrelevant accession, because of the rare meetings of Japanese board. Mr Saxon House is also a Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan.

The President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Michael J. Boskin, was in a position similar to board an institute funded by the Japanese Ministry of Finance. To avoid a possible conflict of interest, he joined before joining the Bush administration. But as a part-time employees of the borough council, Mr Saxon House is not the White House ethics rules, after a council spokesman, Steve field.

Realizing his 20 years as a student context of the Japanese economy, Mr Saxon House said that during his research, he developed associations with many Japanese scholars and government officials. ”It is precisely because these associations, my detailed knowledge about the Japanese economy, and my known and incomparable views on relations Japan-USA, that the Council of Economic advisers have sought to me as consultant with them,”he said