(Hunt) General Theories and the Fundamental Explanada of marketing

The Evolution and Nature of Marketing Theory

After a period of stagnation in the $1950s$ and $1960s$, marketing has seen a resurgence in theoretical development. Marketing theory is defined as a systematically related set of statements, including law-like generalizations, that are empirically testable. Its primary purposes are to explain and predict phenomena. This perspective is rooted in logical empiricism, often called the "received view," which asserts that the goal of science is to provide systematically supported explanations where observable consequences follow from hypotheses.

Defining the Generality of Theories

A theory's generality is determined by three main criteria. First, the size of its domain or extension: a more general theory explains more phenomena, such as the integrated information response model encompassing both high and low involvement consumer behaviors. Second, the ability to unify laws: comprehensive theories, such as those by Newton, reveal disparate phenomena as special cases of the same principle. Third, the level of abstraction: general theories use abstract terms to encompass various special cases. However, excessive abstraction without clear relationships to observable reality can reduce a theory's predictive power and empirical testability.

The Four Fundamental Explananda of Marketing

Marketing science is the behavioral science that seeks to explain the exchange relationship. Shelby D. Hunt proposes four sets of fundamental explananda ($FE$) that every marketing phenomenon can be reduced to:

$FE1$: The behaviors of buyers directed at consummating exchanges (answering who, what, where, when, and how they purchase).

$FE2$: The behaviors of sellers directed at consummating exchanges (focusing on production, pricing, promotion, and distribution).

$FE3$: The institutional framework directed at consummating or facilitating exchanges (explaining the development and evolution of marketing systems and intermediaries).

$FE4$: The consequences on society of the behaviors of buyers, sellers, and the institutional framework (often categorized as macromarketing).

Structure and Current Status of General Theories

General theories can be hierarchical, where laws are deduced from a small set of axioms, or a collection of integrated sub-theories. Hunt suggests that a general theory of marketing is most likely to be achieved by integrating separate general theories for each of the four $FE$ sets. While progress has been made in buyer behavior (e.g., Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell $1973$; Howard and Sheth $1969$), other areas like seller behavior and societal consequences remain underdeveloped. Wroe Alderson's work on "competition for differential advantage" and Bucklin's ($1966$) "theory of distribution channel structure" represent significant but dated attempts to formalize seller and institutional behavior.

Questions & Discussion

1. In his preface, Hunt states, "It has been my belief that one of the major ways an academic discipline progresses is through a dialectical process of thesis-antithesis." Attempt to develop an alternative thesis to Hunt's thesis that there are four sets of fundamental explananda of marketing.

2. Hunt notes that no attempts have been made to develop a general theory of the consequences of marketing on society. Discuss the issues that such a theory would have to address.

3. Hunt argues that Alderson's theory of buyer behavior would be considered somewhat naive today. Attempt to modernize Alderson's theory by adding necessary theoretical constructs. Does the resulting theory differ markedly from existing buyer behavior models?