Historical Change And The Competitive Advantage Of Firms PDF Download

Excerpt from Untangling the Origins of Competitive Advantage What are the origins of competitive advantage? Although this question is fundamental to strategy research, it is one to which we lack a clear answer. As strategy researchers we believe that some firms consistently outperform others, and we have some evidence consistent with this belief (Rumelt, 1991; McGahan and Porter, 1997). We also have a number of well developed theories as to why, at any given moment, it is possible for some firms (and some industries) to earn supranormal returns. As of yet, however, we have no generally accepted theory - and certainly no systematic evidence - as to the origins or the dynamics of such differences in performance. We know, for example, why high barriers to entry coupled with a differentiated product positioning obtained through unique organizational competencies may provide a firm with competitive advantage. But we know much less about how barriers to entry are built: about why this firm and not that one developed the competencies that underlie advantage, and about the dynamic process out of which competitive advantage first arises and then erodes over time. This conceptual ambiguity has always been problematic for many economists, who have tended to view persistent differences in performance as a function of "unobserved heterogeneity" (Mundlak, 1961; Gnliches, 1986).For example, empirical work in industrial organization routinely controls for "firm fixed effects." These are usually statistically significant and often account for a substantial fraction of the total variation in firm productivity or performance. Whereas strategy researchers tend to emphasize the degree to which these kinds of results offer support for the importance of "capabilities" or "positioning" (Rumelt, 1991;Henderson and Cockbum, 1994; McGahan and Porter, 1997; Lieberman and Dhawan, 2000), economists tend to emphasize the possibility that fixed effects are simply controlling for a series of much more mundane measurement problems, ranging from the difficulty of computing appropriately depreciated capital stocks and of measuring firm-specific input and output price schedules, to the problem of controlling for difficult-to-observe factors such as worker effort or worker quality. In short, the evidence which strategy researchers view as the motivation for their intellectual agenda are interpreted by many economists in terms of "nuisance" parameters - things which must be controlled for but which are not of intrinsic interest. This implicit critique has been reinforced by theoretical and empirical research in the tradition of population ecology (see for example Hannan and Freeman, 1989). In summarizing the contributions of this literature and its application to strategy, Stinchcombe (2000)charges that the preponderance of strategy scholars have simply failed to understand (and certainly to systematically account for) the implications of population dynamics for performance heterogeneity. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.