Unraveling the resource‐based tangle

Abstract

Abstract Resource‐based theory (RBT) is a prime example of a theory that integrates a management perspective with an economics perspective. As such, its challenge is to keep its arguments logically consistent and clear, despite the risk of their becoming entangled, due to competing and possibly conflicting theoretical influences. We argue, in this paper, that to meet this challenge, it is essential to understand the limits to the domain of RBT. Unless RBT is understood as a resource‐level and efficiency‐oriented analytical tool, its contribution cannot be understood and appreciated fully. Incorporating aspects of economic theory that fall outside this domain will not increase its power and will only add to the confusion. Continued efforts to increase the analytic precision of RBT and to elaborate its economic logic, however, are worthwhile pursuits. To these aims, then, we provide a sharper definition of competitive advantage, linking this term to value creation and to demand side concerns. Similarly, we provide an economically meaningful definition of value and more precise definitions of critical resources and of economic rents. This allows us to trace a clearer trail of logic, consistent with both the management and the economics perspectives, leading from critical resources to the generation of rents. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1,663 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.