The Austrian school of economics has informed current thinking in strategy, such as in the area of dynamic competitive action and response. Austrian economics also is likely to contribute to theory development for the resource-based view of the firm. For example, entrepreneurial vision and activity are core constructs of the Austrian school that also play central roles in the relationship between resources and organizational capabilities that lead to competitive advantage. The Austrian school, however, needs to be interpreted and transposed to a managerial perspective if it is to be useful for theory development in strategy. Further, the Austrian school may be complementary with, rather than opposed to, other root disciplines of strategy, such as industrial organization economics. McWilliams and Smart (1995, this issue) and Hunt (1995, this issue) may be the beginning of an important ongoing dialogue that adds, rather than trims, constructs in the strategy field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amit, R.
, & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent.Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
2.
Bain, J. S.
(1951). Relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American manufacturing, 1936-1940. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(3), 293-324.
3.
Barney, J. B.
(1986). Types of competition and the theory of strategy: Toward an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 791-800.
4.
Barney, J. B.
(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
5.
Caldwell, B. J.
, & Boehm, S. (Eds.). (1992). Austrian economics: Tensions and new directions. Boston: Kluwer.
6.
Conner, K. R.
(1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm?Journal of Management, 17(1), 121-154.
7.
Cool, K. O.
, & Schendel, D. E. (1987). Strategic group formation and performance: U.S. pharmaceutical industry, 1963-1982. Management Science, 33(9), 1102-1124.
8.
D'Aveni, R. A.
(1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free Press.
9.
Dierickx, I.
, & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504-1511.
10.
Eisenhardt, K. M.
(1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.
11.
Ginsberg, A.
, & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421-434.
12.
Grant, R. M.
(1991, Spring). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, pp. 114-135.
13.
Hunt, S. D.
(1995). The resource-advantage theory of competition: Toward explaining productivity and economic growth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(4), 317-332.
14.
Hunt, S. D.
, & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59, 1-15.
15.
Jacobson, R.
(1992). The "Austrian" school of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 782-807.
16.
Khandwalla, P N.
(1981). Properties of competing organizations. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 409-432). New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Kirzner, I. M.
(1979). Perception, opportunity, and profit: Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Kirzner, I. M.
(1992). The meaning of market process: Essays in the development of modern Austrian economics. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
19.
Koh, J.
, & Venkatraman, N. (1991). Joint venture formations and stock market reactions: An assessment in the information technology sector. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 869-892.
20.
Kuhn, T. S.
(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Lenz, R. T.
(1980). Strategic capability: A concept and framework for analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 225-234.
22.
Mahoney, J, T.
, & Pandian, J. R. (1992) The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Maiagement Journal, 13363-380.
23.
Mariti, P.
, & Smiley, R. H. (1983). Cooperative agreements and the organization of industryJournal of Industrial Economics, 31(4), 437-451.
24.
McWilliams, A
, & Smart, D. L. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Does it go far enough in shredding the assumptions of the S-C-P paradigm?Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(4), 309-316.
25.
Nelson, R. R.
(1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?Strategic Management Journal, 12, 61-74.
26.
Nelson, R. R.
, & Winter, S. G. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
Nielsen, R. P
(1988). Cooperative strategy. Strategic Management journal, 9, 475-492.
28.
Peteraf M. A.
(1993). The conerstones of competitive advantages A resource-based view. Strategic Management journal, 14(3),179-191.
29.
Porter, M. E.
(1980) Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
30.
Porter, M. E.
(1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 609-620.
31.
Porter, M. E.
(1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117.
32.
Ricketts, M.
(1992). Kirzner's theory of entrepreneurship: A critique. In B. J. Caldwell & S. Boehm (Eds.), Austrian economics: Tensions and new directions (pp. 67-84). Boston: Kluwer.
33.
Scherer, F. M.
, & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
34.
Smith, K. G.
, Grimm, C. M., & Gannon, M. J.(1992). Dynamics of competitive strategy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Wermerfelt, B.
(1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
36.
Young, G.
, Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (in press). "Austrian" and industrial organization perspectives on firmlevel competitive activity and performanceOrganization Science.
