Research In Strategy, Economics, and Michael Porter
This article links up with recent discussions of the strategy/economics nexus. In contrast to most of the proponents and opponents of economics in strategy thinking, a balanced pluralist perspective is adopted. According to this, a discipline should strike a balance between the generation of new theoretical alternatives and the selection among them. Applying this general idea, I argue that the strategy field is too pluralistic, and that the unfortunate consequences of excessive pluralism and eclecticism may be remedied by economics playing a larger role in the conversation of strategy researchers. This does not necessarily mean standard neoclassical economics or new industrial organization economics; evolutionary economics, for example, is a serious contender, too. the evolution of Michael Porter's thinking is used as a case for demonstrating some of the advantages and some of the dangers of economics in the strategy field, and for illustrating points about eclecticism and pluralism. Copyright 1996 Basil Blackwell Ltd.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 33 (1996)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=00022-2380|