. . JOURNAL OF Pergamon MANAGEMENT Journal of Management 27 (2001) 643-650 Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten- year retrospective on the resource-based view Jay B. Barney Fisher College of Business The Ohio State University, Columbus. OH 43210. U.S.A. Received 3 April 2001; received in revised form 19 June 2001; accepted 20 September 2001 Abstract __ The resource-based view can be positioned relative to at least three theoretical traditions: SCP- based theories of industry determinants of firm perfonnance, neo-classical microeconomics, and evolutionary economies. In the 1991 article, only the first of these ways of positioning the resource- based View is explored. This article briefly discusses some of the implications of positioning the resource-based View relative to these other two literatures; it also discusses some of the empirical implications of each of these different resource—based theories. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction . Positioning an argument relative to the received literature is, perhaps, the most difficult part of writing a theoretical essay. Not only does positioning help define and limit an argument’s contribution, it also goes a long way in determining the structure of that argument and the issues that it will and will not address. All this is made more complicated by the fact that any one theoretical argument can be positioned in alternative ways and that each of these alternatives can generate important, but different, insights. That is, there typically is no “one best way” of positioning a theoretical essay, and Whatever choice is made with respect to positioning necessarily involves empha- sizing some insights at the expense of others. Indeed, altering the positioning of an essay can * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-614-688-3161; fax: +1-614-292-7062. E-mail address: barney.8@osu.edu (J.B. Barney). 0149-2063/Ol/S — see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S0149-2063(01)00115-5 ~ Downloaded from )1r:::tIi«x1u
_:!.';tx1:.s:ag;t::v-:b.:;m: a1 SAGE ?ublicatEor1s on Me)’ 33. 3009 646 J.B. Barney /Journal of Management 2 7 (2001) 643- 650 when these markets are perfectly competitive, acquiring the resources necessary to create imperfectly competitive product markets will absorb all the profits that: this imperfect’ competition would otherwise create. Thus, for firms to obtain economic rents, they must acquire the resources and capabilities needed to conceive of and implement strategies in imperfectly competitive strategic factor markets——the kinds of markets studied by Ricardo. The paper concludes by describing the attributes of such markets. ' However, by the late 1980s, it became clear to me that positioning the resource-based View relative to neo—c1assical microeconomics. did not effectively address issues that were critical to many strategic management scholars. Thus, in the I991 paper, I adopted what might be considered a more “main stream” positioning of the argument, a positioning that spoke to some of these central concerns. In so doing, I knew that I would not be able to generate the same insights that I felt I had generated in the 1986 Management Science article. On the other hand, I felt that some new insights might be forthcoming by adopting this alternative positioning. 3. The resource-based view and evolutionary economics It is not widely known, but the first draft of the 1991 Journal of Management article was originally titled “An Evolutionary Theory of Competitive Advantage.” Indeed, I was sorely tempted to position the 1991 argument relative to evolutionary economics. That I chose not to meant that some of the insights that I felt I had developed in more evolutionary versions of this argument would be lost, so that other insights that might be more relevant to main stream strategy scholars could be highlighted. - Evolutionary economics has a long history in the field of economics. However, the most influential work in this area is undoubtedly Nelson and Winter (1982). Like all evolutionary theories, Nelson and Winter’s theory examines the implications of three fundamental pro- cesses: variation, selection, and retention. Indeed, this is what makes Nelson and Winter’s Work evolutionary in character. In the Nelson and Winter framework, firms vary in the routines they have developed to conduct their business. In this sense, routines become the fundamental unit of analysis in Nelson and Winter’s work. In the face of competition——NeIson and Winter’s selection Inechanisrn——some of these routines are revealed to be more efficient and effective than others. The least eflicient and effective routines are either abandoned or changed or a firm is likely to not be able to survive in the long run. The most efficient and effective routines generate competitive advantages for firms. Unlike neo-c1assicalrnicroeconomics, this evolutionary theory does not apply equilibrium analysis. Instead, through the use of simulations and other methods, Nelson and Winter are able to demonstrate the conditions under which some routines will provide more sustainable competitive advantages than other routines. In this sense, the performance that a routine generates ensures its survival, and thus a routine within a finn is also the mechanism through which retention occurs. There are obviously numerous analogies between the resource—based view and this evolutionary theory. Routines are an example of firm resources and capabilities. Indeed, if . Downloaded torn hesp::r,«.m.«:sge;»n,:ma at saee Publications on May 13. 2009 646 J.B. Barney /Journal of Management 2 7 (2001) 643- 650 when these markets are perfectly competitive, acquiring the resources necessary to create imperfectly competitive product markets will absorb all the profits that: this imperfect’ competition would otherwise create. Thus, for firms to obtain economic rents, they must acquire the resources and capabilities needed to conceive of and implement strategies in imperfectly competitive strategic factor markets——the kinds of markets studied by Ricardo. The paper concludes by describing the attributes of such markets. ' However, by the late 1980s, it became clear to me that positioning the resource-based View relative to neo—c1assical microeconomics. did not effectively address issues that were critical to many strategic management scholars. Thus, in the I991 paper, I adopted what might be considered a more “main stream” positioning of the argument, a positioning that spoke to some of these central concerns. In so doing, I knew that I would not be able to generate the same insights that I felt I had generated in the 1986 Management Science article. On the other hand, I felt that some new insights might be forthcoming by adopting this alternative positioning. 3. The resource-based view and evolutionary economics It is not widely known, but the first draft of the 1991 Journal of Management article was originally titled “An Evolutionary Theory of Competitive Advantage.” Indeed, I was sorely tempted to position the 1991 argument relative to evolutionary economics. That I chose not to meant that some of the insights that I felt I had developed in more evolutionary versions of this argument would be lost, so that other insights that might be more relevant to main stream strategy scholars could be highlighted. - Evolutionary economics has a long history in the field of economics. However, the most influential work in this area is undoubtedly Nelson and Winter (1982). Like all evolutionary theories, Nelson and Winter’s theory examines the implications of three fundamental pro- cesses: variation, selection, and retention. Indeed, this is what makes Nelson and Winter’s Work evolutionary in character. In the Nelson and Winter framework, firms vary in the routines they have developed to conduct their business. In this sense, routines become the fundamental unit of analysis in Nelson and Winter’s work. In the face of competition——NeIson and Winter’s selection Inechanisrn——some of these routines are revealed to be more efficient and effective than others. The least eflicient and effective routines are either abandoned or changed or a firm is likely to not be able to survive in the long run. The most efficient and effective routines generate competitive advantages for firms. Unlike neo«-classical Inicroeconomics, this evolutionary theory does not apply equilibrium analysis. Instead, through the use of simulations and other methods, Nelson and Winter are able to demonstrate the conditions under which some routines will provide more sustainable « competitive advantages than other routines. In this sense, the performance that a routine generates ensures its survival, and thus a routine within a finn is also the mechanism through which retention occurs. There are obviously numerous analogies between the resource—based view and this evolutionary theory. Routines are an example of firm resources and capabilities. Indeed, if . Downloaded torn hesp::r,«.m.«:sge;»n,:ma at saee Publications on May 13. 2009 J.B. Barney /Journal of Management 2 7 (2001) 643- 650 647 one adopts the definition of capabilities as the ability of firms to use their resources to generate competitive advantages, then the definitions of routines and capabilities are virtually indistinguishable. Firm heterogeneity—as a function of history or initial firm endow- rnents—is an important part of both theories, as is competition and the role of superior performance and sustainable competitive advantage. While the sustainability of competitive advantage in evolutionary theory is not defined with respect to equilibrium conditions, it is clear that this notion of sustainability is much closer to the concept of sustained competitive advantage, as it is used in the resource-based view, than the equilibrium notions of zero economic profit used in non-Ricardian neo-classical rnicroeconomios. Given the close links between the resource-based view and evolutionary economics, why did I not choose to pursue this positioning for the 1991 article‘? As was the case with positioning the resource-based View relative to neo-classical microeconomics, I believed that this positioning would not address many of the central issues in the field of strategic management in the late 1980s. Indeed, during this time period, the most influential version of evolutionary thinking was population ecology theory. In its most extreme version, population ecology theory suggested that firms could not change, that strategic choice was not possible, and that the study of populations of firms was the only legitimate application of evolutionary thinking (Harman & Freeman, 1977). None of these assertions were consis- tent with the research interests or objectives of strategic management scholars. Of course, since the mid-19803, population ecology theorizing has become much more sophisticated and distinctions between evolutionary economics and population ecology theories have broken down. There are currently several efforts under way to more completely develop an evolutionary version of the resource-based view (e. g., Barnett, Greve & Park, 1994; Levinthal &~Myatt, 1994; Karim & Mitchell, 2000)— efforts I support (Barney, 2001). 4. Implications of the three resource-based theories ' While the resource-based view is positioned relative to only SCP-based models of competitive advantage in the 1991 article, all three of these resource-based theories have been developed in the literature. Indeed, recognizing these different resource-based theories can help organize this growing literature and can help explain differences among different resource-based scholars. « Several authors, besides Barney (1991), have examined the relationship between the resource-based view and SCP logic, including Conner (1991), and Peteraf (1993).'Empiri— cally, research by Hansen and Wernerfelt (1989), Rumelt (1991), McGahan and Porter (1997), and others has estimated the relative impact of industry and firm attributes on firm performance. And while there is apparently some variance across industries, overall, firm effects seem to be larger than industry effects—in a way consistent with the expectations developed in the 1991 paper. Those who have explored the positioning of the resource—based view relative to neo- classical microeconomics have focused their efforts on describing and measuring the at- tributes of resources and capabilities that lead them to be inelastic in supply. Important theoretical developments in this area of work include Peteraf (I993), Dierickx and Cool Downloaded from h11i1Zf°'i0fiI5:1;l'5!T'J1'J.::clH1 at SAGE Publications on May 13, 2009 648 ./.B. Barney / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 643-650 (1989), and Barney (l986b). Empirically, numerous studies have attempted to measure these attributes of a finn’s resources and capabilities, and then to correlate these measures with a firm’s performance. Examples of this work include Robins and Wiserma (1995), Henderson and Cockburn (1994), and Makadok (1999), among many others (Barney & Arikan, 2001). Overall, this work shows that firms that build their strategies on path dependent, causally ' ambiguous, socially complex, and intangible assets outperform firms that build their strat- egies only on tangible assets. These results are also generally consistent with expectations outlined in the 1991 article. Because this version of the resource-based View focuses mostly on how firms exploit their valuable, rare, and costly to imitate resources and capabilities to generate economic rents, Makadok (2001) calls these resource-based theories “resource- picking” theories. Finally, evolutionary versions of resource-based logic have been developed by those scholars who are‘ most interested in how the capabilities of firms change over time, and the competitive implications of those changes. Some of the most important theoretical work in this area includes Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997). Empirical research by Barnett, Greve and Park (1994), Levinthal and Myatt (1994), and Karim and Mitchell (2000) all adopt this evolutionary point of view. Makadok (2001) calls these theories “capability building” theories. 5. Conclusion So,'which was the best way to position the resource-based view? Given the context within which I was writing in the mid 1980s, I think Imade the right choice. But this does not mean that these other alternatives were wrong. Given the importance of path dependence in the development of an academic discipline, choosing one of these alternative ways to position the argument probably has had profound implications for how the resource-based view has evolved. For example, entirely different controversies might dominate the current literature if a different approach to positioning had been adopted. Or it may have even been the case that the 1991 article would have been ignored if one of these different positioning approaches had been adopted. In this situation, some other paper or special issue might have marked the beginning of a more general discourse about the resource-based view. Or maybe an entirely different theory would have arisen to challenge the theoretical hegemony of SCP-based models. These are questions without answers. A more important question becomes: will there ever be a grand, unified resource-based theory of competitive advantages? Of course, I don’t know. On the one hand, it is possible to make some arguments about how these three theories are related. For example, in economics, SCP logic has either been abandoned outright or fully integrated into neo- classical economics (Besanko, Dranove & Shanley, 1996). It seems likely, therefore, that the resource-based theory developed relative to SCP logic could be fully subsumed by the resource-based theory developed relative to neo-classical economics. In fact, this is What I have tried to do in Barney (2002). Also, while the resource-based theory developed relative to evolutionary economics Downloaded from htfp:.'!j:;r;n,s;ag.;z:;.v:!:.:;t'.m at SAGE Publications on May 13. 2009 _ ./.8. Barney / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 643-65 0 649 explains sustained superipr firm performance by focusing on the differential ability of firms to develop new capabilities as environments change, rents generated by this differential ability to develop new capabilities are still Ricardian in nature. Thus, neo-classical economic resource based theory may be appropriate for studying rents generated by the ability to develop new capabilities, while evolutionary resource-based theory may be appropriate for studying the process by which these new capabilities are developed. On the other hand, such a grand, unified resource-—based theory may not be all that helpful. Rather, What may be more helpful is to understand that the resource-based view can be applied in several different ways, and that the way it should be applied depends mostly on the empirical context of the application. Those interested in firm versus indusny effects can apply the resource-based View as it was developed in the 1991 and related papers. Those interested in studying the specific sources of sustained competitive advantage for a firm can take the basic logic in the 1991 paper and link it with articles by Dierickx and Cool (1989) and Peteraf (1993), among others, and use this approach to help guide their work-. Finally, those interested in studying how resources and capabilities evolve over time can take the logic outlined in the 1991 paper and link it with Nelson and Winter (1982) and Teece, Pisano and Shucn (1997) to help guide their research. Thus, what marks these theories “resource-based” are not these differences in application, but rather, the assumptions they share. These include the assumption that resources and capabilities can be heterogeneously distributed across competing firms, that these differences can be long lasting, and that they can help explain why some firms consistently outperform other firms. From this ‘perspective, the resource-based view actually consists of a rich body of related, yet distinct, theoretical tools with which to analyze firm level sources of sustained competitive advantage. - ' ~ -- Jay E. Barney received his Ph.D. in Administrative Sciences and Sociology from Yale University in 1982. He is currently Professor of Management and the Bank One Chair for Excellence in Corporate Strategy at The Ohio State University as Well as the Academic Program Director of the MBA program. His research interest is the resource-based view of the firm, focusing on the relationship between firm skills and capabilities and sustained competitive advantage. He has published in the Academy. of Management Review, the Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, the Journal of Management, and the Sloan Management Review, among other journals, and the second edition of his book, Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, has recently been published. Professor Barney has also delivered scholarly papers at many universities Worldwide, and has con- sulted with a wide variety of public and private organizations. References ' Barnett, W. P., Greve, H. R., & Park, D. Y. (1994). An Evolutionary Model of Organizational Performance. Strategic Management Joumaf, 15, 11-28. _ Barney, J. B. (l986a). Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science. 32. 1231-1241. ' Downloaded torn r-t!;):fliom.s:v,|eI>-:b.cez=: a1 SAGE Publicalions on May 13. Z309 650 J.B. Barney / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 643- 650 Barney, J. B. (l986b). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review. 11 (3), 656-665. 3 ' Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99 -120. Barney, J. (2001). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academic of Management Review, 2 (1), January, 41-56. Barney, J. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. 2”“ Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barney, J., & Arikan, A. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. Handbook of Strategic Management, forthcoming. Besanko, D., Dranove, D., & Shanley, M. (1996). Economics of Strategy. New York: Wiley. Conner, K. (1991). An historical comparison of resource-based logic and five schools of thought Within industrial organization economies: Do we have a new theory of the firm here? Journal of Management, 17. 121-154. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Man- agement Science, 35. 1504-1511. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 929-964. Hansen, G. S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational. factors. Strategic Management Journal. 10, 399~—-411." , Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal. 15. 63-84. Karim, S., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Path-dependent and path-breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the U.S. medical sector, 1978-1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10), 1061-1081. Levinthal, D., & Myatt, J. (1994). Co-evolution of capabilities and INDUSTRY: The evolution of mutual fund processing. Strategic Management Journal. 15, 45-62. Mahoney, J ., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 13. 363-380. Makadok, R. (1999). Interfirm differences in scale economies and the evolution of market shares. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (10), 935-952. . Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic—capabi1ity views of rent creation. Strategic Managemetzt Journai. 22. 387-401. McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. (1997). How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal. 18 (Summer Special Issue), 15-30. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic behavior and capabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 195-307. , Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journai, 14, 179-192. - ' Porter, M. E. (1980). Generic competitive strategies. Competitive strategy. New York.’ Free Press. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource~based “view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review. 26 (1), 22-40. Ricardo, D. (1817). Principles of politicai economy and taxation. London: J. Murray. Robins, J., & Wiersema, M. F. (1 995). ‘A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: Empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 277-299. Rumelt, R. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12, 167-185. Schulze, W. (1994). Two schools of thought in resource-based theory. In: P. Shrivastiva et a1., Advances in = strategic management (pp. 127-151). New York: JAI Press. Teece, D. 1., Pisano, (3., & Simon, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 18 (7), 509—533.
From Dr.Sabar Sutia SE.MM
KLIK Journal-of-Business-and-Management-Invention
- Untuk tabel edit sendiri karena jam Istirahat telah tiba Wassalam''
Translet Indo 2
