Resource-based competition: three schools of thought and thirteen criticisms

Abstract

Purpose

The field of research on resource-based competition is full of nuanced terminology and misunderstandings. This has led to confusion, and thus the authors offer a critical review, which provides a structure and clarity to this subject. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

This analysis structures the literature on resources, capabilities, and competences into three distinct schools of thought: the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, the rational-equilibrium school; the dynamic capability-based view of the firm, the behavioural-evolutionary school; and the competence-based view of the firm, the social constructionist school.

Findings

The authors uncover 13 criticisms of the most widely adopted theoretical framework of the RBV of the firm – Valuable-Rare-Imperfectly imitable-Organisation (VRIO).

Research limitations/implications

The misinterpretation and neglect of the classic scholarly work may help to explain why the VRIO framework has been elevated from a view to a theory and why it has received so much attention.

Practical implications

The authors show how the relative ease of measuring resources as compared to (dynamic) capabilities and (core) competencies has helped raise the profile of RBV.

Originality/value

This analysis contributes to management research by illustrating the deviation among the three schools of thought; the authors show how this has contributed to wide terminological confusion and offer a structure to help researchers situate their work within the relevant school of thought.

Citation

El Shafeey, T. and Trott, P. (2014), "Resource-based competition: three schools of thought and thirteen criticisms", European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 122-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-07-2013-0096