Ownership competence: The enabling and constraining role of institutions

Research Summary Monteiro and Miranda (2022) argue that owners differ in their ability to select and work within a particular institutional environment, suggesting “institutional competence” as a dimension of ownership competence distinct from what we call governance, matching, and timing competence. We agree that institutions matter and welcome the chance to describe their role in detail. However, rather than treating institutional competence as a separate channel by which owners create value from their assets, we think institutional features can be modeled as “shift parameters” that moderate the effect of ownership competencies on outcomes. In developing this argument, we reflect more broadly on the interplay between ownership competence and institutional uncertainty, noting that society at large benefits from individual‐level ownership competence, ownership by some owners may cause harm to other owners, and property‐rights enforcement and ownership competence are complements in generating private and societal benefits. Managerial Summary In “Ownership Competence” (Foss et al., 2021) we argued that business owners vary in their ability to create value out of the assets they own, distinguishing between governance, matching, and timing competence. Monteiro and Miranda (2022) argue that we should add “institutional competence” as a fourth kind of competence, describing the ability of owners to choose countries, regions, or environments where they can best exercise their ownership skills. We agree that these external conditions are important but argue that they work by modifying the impact of governance, matching, and timing competence rather than acting as an independent channel. In our response, we also comment on broader issues related to social and institutional aspects of ownership.