IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v22y1998i4p479-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Competence-Based Approach: Veblenian Ideas in the Modern Theory of the Firm

Author

Listed:
  • Foss, Nicolai J

Abstract

The author argues that a contemporary stronghold of a number of Thorstein Veblen's crucial ideas can be found in the emerging competence-based approach to the firm (e.g., Penrose, Chandler, Winter). For example, the emphasis in this literature on firms as path-dependent entities characterized by their heterogenous and group-based knowledge bases can be linked with key themes in Veblen's work. Thus, the paper presents the competence-based approach as a modern Veblenian approach. Moreover, the Veblenian aspects of the competence-based approach are also those aspects that most differentiate it from the other dominant economic approach to the firm, the contractual approach (e.g., Alchian and Demsetz, Williamson, Grossman and Hart). The aim of the paper is both to make this historical point and to present a contemporary body of theory that may with some justice be called Veblenian. Copyright 1998 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Foss, Nicolai J, 1998. "The Competence-Based Approach: Veblenian Ideas in the Modern Theory of the Firm," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 22(4), pages 479-495, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:22:y:1998:i:4:p:479-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    2. Tae-Hee Jo, 2021. "Veblen’s evolutionary methodology and its implications for heterodox economics in the calculable future," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 277-295, July.
    3. Kapás, Judit, 1999. "Szükséges-e többdimenziós vállalatelmélet?. Az evolúciós vállalatelmélet kritikai összefoglalása [Is a multi-dimensional theory of the firm necessary?. A critical summary of the evolutionary theory," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 823-841.
    4. Viano Francesca Lidia, 2002. "Guesswork and knowledge in evolutionary economics: verblen revisited," CESMEP Working Papers 200205, University of Turin.
    5. Marjolein Caniëls & Henny Romijn, 2003. "SME Clusters, Acquisition of Technological Capabilities and Development: Concepts, Practice and Policy Lessons," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 187-210, September.
    6. Tae-Hee Jo, 2021. "A Veblenian Critique of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 1101-1117, October.
    7. Valentinov, Vladislav & Roth, Steffen, 2022. "Chester Barnard’s theory of the firm: An institutionalist view," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(3), pages 707-720.
    8. Fikret Adaman & Pat Devine, 2002. "A Reconsideration of the Theory of Entrepreneurship: A participatory approach," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 329-355.
    9. Raina, Rajeswari S., 2003. "Disciplines, institutions and organizations: impact assessments in context," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 185-211, November.
    10. Essiane, Patrick-Nelson Daniel, 2020. "De l'Ancienne Economie Institutionnelle à la Nouvelle Economie Institutionnelle: une introduction à quelques débats [Old Institutional Economics and New Institutional Economics: an Introduction to ," MPRA Paper 102858, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Javier Revilla Diez & Matthias Kiese, 2006. "Scaling Innovation in South East Asia: Empirical Evidence from Singapore, Penang (Malaysia) and Bangkok," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(9), pages 1005-1023.
    12. Damien Talbot, 2000. "Institutional Dynamics and Localized Inter-Firm Relations," Post-Print hal-02375061, HAL.
    13. Raspe, Otto & van Oort, Frank, 2008. "Firm Growth and Localized Knowledge Externalities," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-17.
    14. Teppo Felin & Nicolai J. Foss, 2004. "Organizational Routines A Sceptical Look," DRUID Working Papers 04-13, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    15. Raspe, Otto & van Oort, Frank G., 2011. "Firm heterogeneity, productivity and spatially bounded knowledge externalities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 38-47, March.
    16. Giuseppe Marzo, 2013. "Some Unintended Consequences of Metaphors: The Case of Capital in Intellectual Capital Research," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(3-4), pages 111-140.
    17. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2012. "Veblen, Commons and the Theory of the Firm," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Nicolaï Foss & Nils Stieglitz, 2012. "Modern Resource-based Theory(ies)," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Nicolai J. Foss, 1997. "Equilibrium vs Evolution in the Resource-Based Perspective The Conflicting Legacies of Demsetz and Penrose," DRUID Working Papers 97-10, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:22:y:1998:i:4:p:479-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.