Search results

The chapter aims to enhance the understanding of the development of Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship. To do so, elements in Kirzner’s works published up until 1973 that enclose the central points of this theory are studied. The chapter has four sections, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, that highlight the arguments that relate to Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship: (i) before the publication of his 1967 paper that presents the entrepreneurial function in the market process (1960–1967); between the 1967 paper and the publication of his most important book, Competition and Entrepreneurship, in 1973 (1967–1973); (iii) in Kirzner’s latest version of entrepreneurship theory as presented in his 1973 book; and (iv) the evolution of Kirzner’s thinking. The evolution of the author’s thinking regarding equilibrium and the entrepreneur is highlighted by presenting the different stages of his theory of entrepreneurship between 1960 and 1973.

The term “dynamics of interventionism” refers to a social process, i.e., a sequence of adjustments to change over time, among a great many individuals, who largely share a common set of rules of interaction.¹ It is constituted by the unintended consequences at the interface between the governmental and market processes, when the scope of government is either expanding or contracting in relation to the market. Interventionism is the doctrine or system based on the limited use of political means (i.e., legitimized violent aggression (Oppenheimer, 1975[1914])) to address problems identified with laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, an intervention refers to the use of, or the threat of using, political means to influence non-violent actions and exchanges. Supporters of interventionism do not completely reject the institutions of capitalism, such as private property and the price system, but do favor using piecemeal interventions that extend beyond so-called minimal-state capitalism² in order to combat suspected failures or abuses they associate with the unhampered market. Examples of this would include, but are not limited to, market power, externality, asymmetric information, income inequality, racial and sexual discrimination, and the business cycle.

This chapter provides a comprehensive survey of the contributions of the Austrian school of economics, with specific emphasis on post-WWII developments. We provide a brief history and overview of the original theorists of the Austrian school in order to set the stage for the subsequent development of their ideas by Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek. In discussing the main ideas of Mises and Hayek, we focus on how their work provided the foundations for the modern Austrian school, which included Ludwig Lachmann, Murray Rothbard and Israel Kirzner. These scholars contributed to the Austrian revival in the 1960s and 1970s, which, in turn, set the stage for the emergence of the contemporary Austrian school in the 1980s. We review the contemporary development of the Austrian school and, in doing so, discuss the tensions, alternative paths, and the promising future of Austrian economics.

Using the framework of the philosophy of science, this chapter explores some basic theoretical issues that must be recognized and addressed in developing theory within the competence perspective. We first develop an overview of resource-based and competence-based research to highlight some fundamental theoretical issues. We then identify a set of basic assumptions for conducting a research program focused on development of a “competence-based theory of the firm.” Working from these basic assumptions, we argue for a shift in the epistemological aim of competence theory development from explaining market success to explaining firm competitiveness. We explain how such a shift theoretical focus and approach can remedy the problem of circular reasoning often observed in resource-based thinking that tries to contribute to the competence literature.

Theories on industrial buying behavior differ fundamentally with regard to motivation and direction of industrial purchasing decisions. This becomes extremely in the case of new institutional economics, highlighting administrative aspects, and market process theory, focusing on entrepreneurial aspects of buying decisions. This paper aims to challenge these approaches by setting up an experimental design. Decisions of sales and purchasing managers were investigated with respect to their motivation of self‐protection or opportunity seeking.

The contribution is based on an experimental design. The design is based on a prospect theory scenario. Prospect theory states that successful economic agents show a stronger tendency towards self‐protection, whereas under‐performing economic agents are willing to bear greater risks in search for opportunities.

The results suggest that indeed out‐performers show a tendency to risk avoidance and under‐performers are willing to bear more risks. The most important implication is that new institutional economics‐based approaches to buying behavior are not universally valid. However, they apply to specific situations. In that respect the contribution shows a direction for the proper application of transaction cost‐based concepts.

Managers are advised to take the economic performance of their customer companies into account. Outperforming companies are more responsive to measures for self‐protection. Under‐performing customers may be more tolerant towards risk if it is compensated with the expectation of better opportunities.

The empirical research is new in so far as it is the first to apply a prospect theory framework to a business market environment. The results show clearly that the methodology, as originally applied in prospect theory, needs refinement when transferred to a business market context.

The received Austrian theory of entrepreneurship is considered in light of the generation of knowledge. It is suggested that learning involving more than the discovery of profit opportunities provides a way to endogenize knowledge and to expand the scope of entrepreneurial activity. The theoretical and applied aspects for entrepreneurial studies of this approach are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how theories evolve within scientific fields: why they receive attention and why they eventually become less attractive.

The paper is based on a literature review and focusses on the theoretical structure developed by Wroe Alderson. His contributions were highly appreciated and generally considered as “the” marketing theory. However, in few years his broad perspective was more or less neglected within the field where it was developed. At the same time, Alderson’s basic thinking was adopted by the evolving IMP approach. The specific objective of the study is to analyse why researchers in marketing abandoned Alderson, while IMP adopted many of his ideas.

The paper illustrates significant aspects of the evolution of theories. First, the paper shows how well-established conceptualisations, like Alderson’s total systems approach, may lose impact when the focus of research shifts. Alderson’s holistic framing was found too broad and all-encompassing to be useful when research attention was directed to specific aspects of marketing management and the socio-behavioural approach to distribution. Second, the paper shows in what respect IMP found support in concepts and models presented by Alderson in the challenging of fragmented mainstream framings of the business landscape.

This paper relates the rise and fall of Alderson’s concepts and frameworks to the evolution of theories of other schools-of-thought. Furthermore, the study shows how Alderson’s ideas were adapted to other research fields than where it was originally developed.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal retrospective on six of the key events/experiences that influenced the development of the structure, foundational premises, and models of the resource‐advantage theory of competition.

The paper uses a personal retrospective approach.

The paper finds that six key events influenced the development of resource‐advantage theory: B.J. “Bud” LaLonde emphasizes the works of Alderson; Rob Morgan suggests an article on the resource‐based theory of the firm; Roy Howell suggests a presentation on R‐A theory; Randy Sparks shows a “socialist calculation” article; Kim Boal suggests the Journal of Management Inquiry as a publication outlet; and Bob Phillips discusses his work on “firm effects vs industry effects”. The paper then relates each of the six events to the paths, routes, or procedures that are often proposed as (or reported to be) likely to lead to the development of theories.

By providing the evolutionary history of resource‐advantage theory, the paper provides implications for developing marketing theories.

Sustainability has long been known to present an epistemic challenge. In the corporate setting, this challenge translates into the difficulties experienced by managers not only in devising solutions to corporate sustainability problems, but even in developing the awareness of the latter. The paper explores how these difficulties may be overcome by corporate stakeholder management policies.

The paper develops a conceptual framework that reconstructs the Hayekian theory of market process in the context of Williamson's (1996) distinction between autonomous and cooperative adaptation.

Applying the Hayekian theory of market process to the process of engagement and collaboration of corporate stakeholders, the paper shows how the latter process may address the epistemic challenge of corporate sustainability and derives implications for the design of business models for sustainability.

The paper informs stakeholder theory in two ways: first, stakeholder theory is given a novel justification in terms of reflecting the growing prominence of cooperative adaptation and second, corporate stakeholder management is shown to be crucial for maximizing not only economic but also sustainability performance.