Search results

The intention of this article is to show possible contributions of the concept of autonomous cooperation to enable complex adaptive logistics systems (CALS) to cope with increasing complexity and dynamics and therefore to increase the systems' information-processing capacity by implementing autopoietic characteristics. In order to reach this target, the concepts of CALS and autopoietic systems will be introduced and connected. The underlying aim is to use the concept of self-organization as one of their essential similarities to lead over to the concept of autonomous cooperation as the most narrow view on self-organizing systems, which is discussed as a possible approach to enable systems to handle an increasing quantity of information. This will be analyzed from both a theoretical and an empirical point of view.

Flexibility is a basic requirement to cope with complexity and dynamics. The aim of this chapter is to analyze to which extent self-organization can support integrating flexibility in the processes of competence-building and competence-leveraging. The objective of this discussion is therefore to deduce possible contributions of the concept of self-organization to a strategic competence-based management in regard to effects of flexibilization.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze whether supply networks may be validly treated as complex adaptive systems (CAS). Finding this to be true, the paper turns into the latest concerns of complexity science like Pareto distributions to explain well‐known phenomena of extreme events in logistics, like the bullwhip effect. It aims to introduce a possible solution to handle these effects.

The method is a comparative analysis of current literature in the fields of logistics and complexity science. The discussion of CAS in supply networks is updated to include recent complexity research on power laws, non‐linear dynamics, extreme events, Pareto distribution, and long tails.

Based on recent findings of complexity science, the paper concludes that it is valid to call supply networks CAS. It then finds that supply networks are vulnerable to all the nonlinear and extreme dynamics found in CAS within the business world. These possible outcomes have to be considered in supply network management. It is found that the use of a neural network model could work to manage these new challenges.

Since, smart parts are the future of logistics systems, managers need to worry about the combination of human and smart parts, resulting design challenges, the learning effects of interacting smart parts, and possible exacerbation of the bullwhip effect. In doing so, the paper suggests several options concerning the design and management of supply networks.

The novel contribution of this paper lies in its analysis of supply networks from a new theoretical approach: complexity science, which the paper updates. It enhances and reflects on existing attempts in this field to describe supply networks as CAS through the comprehensive theoretical base of complexity science. More specifically, it suggests the likely vulnerability to extreme outcomes as the “parts” in supply networks become smarter. The paper also suggests different ways of using a neural network approach for their management – depending on how smart the logistics parts actually are.

This issue of Research in Competence-Based Management focuses on a range of fundamental issues in developing competence theory and undertaking competence-based research.

The Nationalökonomische Gesellschaft (Austrian Economic Association, NOeG) provides a prominent example of the Viennese economic circles and associations that more than academic economics dominated scientific discourse in the interwar years. For the first time this chapter gives a thorough account of its history, from its foundation in 1918 until the demise of its long-time president, Hans Mayer, 1955, based on official documents and archival material. The topics treated include its predecessor and rival, the Gesellschaft österreichischer Volkswirte, its foundation in 1918 soon to be followed by years of inactivity, the relaunch by Mayer and Mises, the survival under the NS-regime and the expulsion of its Jewish members and the slow restoration after 1945. In particular, an attempt is made to provide a list of the papers presented to the NOeG, as complete as possible, for the period 1918–1938.

This chapter explores the origins of the theme of competitive advantage in 19th and early 20th century economics. This theme, which forms the core of modern Strategic Management, was a battleground for debates about the value of abstract theory versus observations about real-life events. Intellectual genealogies, citations, and other sources show the central roles played by the University of Vienna and Harvard University. These two institutions strongly influenced the theory of monopolistic competition as well as all three modern views of competitive advantage – the industrial as expressed by Porter, the resource-based as expressed by Penrose, and the evolutionary as expressed by Schumpeter.

Over the last three quarters of a century, the discourse on economic and social policy has oscillated between two polar opposites: an interventionist approach and a free market-oriented one. The former led to the establishment of the Keynesian welfare state and was dominant in the post-war years, but the latter gained much ground beginning in the 1980s, forcing defenders of the welfare state to retreat into a more defensive position. In the wake of the ‘Great Recession’, however, these two visions are once again sustaining vigorous debates in the global public arena. Economists in their role as policy advisers and public intellectuals, in other words as ‘experts’, have participated actively in such debates; the gains made by (what its critics call) ‘neo-liberalism’ were due, in no small measure, to the growing prestige and influence of Austrian economics. The experts’ discourse tends to be a historical and arguments are often phrased in terms of supposedly ‘cutting edge’ theoretical and empirical advances.¹ Yesterday's theories are judged obsolete and irrelevant. I argue that a more historically informed perspective can actually be more rewarding.

The purpose of this paper is to correct Rozeff (2010). He contends that fractional-reserve banking is legitimate and efficacious. The authors demonstrate that it is not.

The design of this paper is to quote widely from Rozeff (2010) and then to expose his errors of analysis.

The authors demonstrate that fractional-reserve banking is neither legitimate nor efficacious.

Money is the lifeblood of the economy. If so, then banking is the marrow of the economy, since it is from that sector that money arises in the first place. It is crucially important, then, that the monetary system be based on sound principles. Fractional-reserve banking is a violation of these sound principles. Therefore, it is valuable to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.