1,721,044 research outputs found
Marshall’s scissors and a post-classical human organisation and praxis theory of value
No full textWe revisit Marshall’s scissors analogy to the theory of value in economics and his discussion of human actors and other determinants of value creation. We build critically upon Marshall and related literature in economics and organizations to propose a novel post classical human organization and praxis theory of value. The theory reinstates the role of entrepreneurs, managers and workers discussed by Marshall and incorporates and develops key Marshallian ideas on organization, knowledge and innovation, increasing returns to scale, inter-firm cooperation and (in) industrial districts, and their subsequent developments. In so doing the post classical theory of value helps address limitations of extant theories and provides opportunities for theory development and implications for public polic
The (new) nature and essence of the firm
Full text linkExtant explanations of the nature and scope of firms, such as transaction costs, property rights, metering and “resources” can be integrated into a more general (capability based) theory of the nature and essence of the firm that recognizes the importance to the firm of creating (and capturing) value from innovation. We note that the appropriability of returns from creative and innovative activity often requires the entrepreneurial creation and co-creation of markets. Accordingly, market failure and transaction costs approaches need to be revamped to capture the essence of entrepreneurial and managerial activity that extends beyond the mere exercise of authority. We suggest that the nature and objective of the firm in an economy with innovation and incomplete markets is to capture value (profit) from its advantages and actions; and that the way in which the firm tries to achieve this (by establishing quasisustainable competitive advantage) is its essence. This is non-separable from its nature and objectives.firm, nature, essence, innovation, dynamic capabilities
FDI, competitiveness and industrial development: the case of Greek investments to the CEECs
No full textTowards a better understanding of the interrelationship between dynamic capabilities and international Entrepreneurship
No full textThe dynamic capabilities view (DCV) and international entrepreneurship perspective (IEP) are major, relatively recent advances in international business (IB), strategy, and entrepreneurship. Despite their different disciplinary backgrounds—DCV in evolutionary economics and the resource-based view and the IEP in entrepreneurship and marketing—they share many themes and ideas in common, which have only recently started being acknowledged. In this article, we explore the contribution of, and interrelationship between, the two approaches, their limitations and scope for further development. Key insights include that the DCV helps complement IEP in terms of its focus on value co-creation and the requisite reconfiguration of resources to help bring about value capture. In turn, IEP complements DCV in terms of its exploration of the nature of opportunities and the entrepreneurial capabilities to sense these, and in terms of providing supporting evidence about these capabilities.</p
Is it all in Marshall, still? An appreciation of Marshall's contribution to modern Economics
No full textThis Special Issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics (CJE) marks the centenary of the death of Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), a founding father of modern economics. The publication of Marshall’s (1890) Principles of Economics is widely acknowledged as having shaped the teaching of economics and economic research in the twentieth century. The Principles helped formalise the discipline and establish the marginalist turn in economics. It is still regarded by many as the foundation stone of neo-classical economics. Yet, as a scholar, Marshall was full of apparent contradictions. Throughout his writings he sought to maintain continuity with the classical tradition of Smith, Ricardo and Marx, while anticipating or developing ideas critical to it, notably in the theory of value and distribution. Marshall subjected the key extant and hitherto non-formalised ideas in mathematical language, and yet he was dismissive both of mathematical formalism, and the notion that economics should be modelled along the lines of sciences such as Physics. Instead, Marshall emphasised the social and communitarian elements of production, markets and industrial districts, and famously viewed economics as the ‘study of man in the ordinary business of life’ (Marshall, 2011 (1890), Book 1, Chapter II pp. 35). He appreciated interdisciplinary perspectives and would often explore interests in sociology and philosophy. This Editorial opens with a portrait of Marshall’s life and times to provide context for his intellectual contributions. It then focuses on some of his less explored contributions to economics, which are gradually acquiring more interest and importance. It then introduces the papers in the Special Issue, before concluding with some critical reflection on the contemporary relevance of Marshall for policy and areas for scholarly development
A critical re-evaluation of Hymer's contribution to the theory of the transnational corporation
Full text linkIn Yamin (1991), we provided a reassessment of Hymer’s contribution to the theory of the transnational corporation (TNC) shaped largely by the debate in the mid-1980s relating to the nature of market imperfections that were held to be the drivers of the TNC. Dunning and Rugman (1985) and Casson (1987), for example, had criticised Hymer for over-emphasising structural market imperfections at the expense of transaction costs, although even in his doctoral dissertation, Hymer (1960, published in 1976) did not totally ignore transaction costs (Yamin, 1991:74). Furthermore, in a paper written in 1968 (that came to light in 1990) he explicitly utilised Coase’s framework. Partly as a result of the discovery of this paper, it is now generally acknowledged that Hymer is the pioneer of the economic theory of the multinational company (Horaguchi and Toyne, 1990). It is significant that John Dunning, commenting on the early theoretical work on TNCs, has recently remarked that ‘considering Hymer’s work as a whole, he has probably come nearest to identifying the ingredients of a general theory’ (Dunning, 1996:33). Controversy over which type of market failure (transactional or structural) underpins the TNC has clearly subsided and most scholars of the TNC would now view that debate as sterile. Buckley (1990:658) has summed up the issue succinctly: ‘the internalisation and the market power explanations of the [TNC] should not be viewed as mutually exclusive or competing theories but should be combined to give a full and rich explanation of the growth of multinational firms’. A key issue in current debates on the TNC is whether market failure per se, and irrespective of its forms, is necessarily as pivotal a concept as has hitherto been supposed. Kogut and Zander (1993), in particular, question whether market failure and hence ‘internalisation’ is necessary to explain the TNC. This view is highly pertinent to any re-assessment of Hymer’s contribution, as market failures were central to Hymer’s analyses of the TNC. Hymer’s thesis (1976) incorporated two explanations of what he called ‘international operations’. One emphasised the possession of advantages by firms and the other the removal of conflict between them. Both explanations were heavily premised on the prevalence of structural market failures. For a number of reasons—some of which were discussed in Yamin (1991)—during the 1970s and 1980s, the advantage explanation proved highly influential while the removal of conflict explanation was virtually ignored. In Yamin (1991) it was argued that the latter explanation was likely to be the more enduring aspect of Hymer’s contribution. As explained below, in the section entitled ‘Removal of conflict’, subsequent developments seem to have confirmed that expectation. This is not to argue, however, that this aspect of Hymer’s analyses did not suffer from any weaknesses or that it can be applied without any major alteration to current issues or problems in the world economy. On the contrary, this chapter argues that both aspects of Hymer’ s contribution suffer from an over-reliance on the concept of market failure. However, this is more acute in the case of the advantage explanation
A critical re-evaluation of Hymer's contribution to the theory of the transnational corporation
Full text linkIn Yamin (1991), we provided a reassessment of Hymer’s contribution to the theory of the transnational corporation (TNC) shaped largely by the debate in the mid-1980s relating to the nature of market imperfections that were held to be the drivers of the TNC. Dunning and Rugman (1985) and Casson (1987), for example, had criticised Hymer for over-emphasising structural market imperfections at the expense of transaction costs, although even in his doctoral dissertation, Hymer (1960, published in 1976) did not totally ignore transaction costs (Yamin, 1991:74). Furthermore, in a paper written in 1968 (that came to light in 1990) he explicitly utilised Coase’s framework. Partly as a result of the discovery of this paper, it is now generally acknowledged that Hymer is the pioneer of the economic theory of the multinational company (Horaguchi and Toyne, 1990). It is significant that John Dunning, commenting on the early theoretical work on TNCs, has recently remarked that ‘considering Hymer’s work as a whole, he has probably come nearest to identifying the ingredients of a general theory’ (Dunning, 1996:33). Controversy over which type of market failure (transactional or structural) underpins the TNC has clearly subsided and most scholars of the TNC would now view that debate as sterile. Buckley (1990:658) has summed up the issue succinctly: ‘the internalisation and the market power explanations of the [TNC] should not be viewed as mutually exclusive or competing theories but should be combined to give a full and rich explanation of the growth of multinational firms’. A key issue in current debates on the TNC is whether market failure per se, and irrespective of its forms, is necessarily as pivotal a concept as has hitherto been supposed. Kogut and Zander (1993), in particular, question whether market failure and hence ‘internalisation’ is necessary to explain the TNC. This view is highly pertinent to any re-assessment of Hymer’s contribution, as market failures were central to Hymer’s analyses of the TNC. Hymer’s thesis (1976) incorporated two explanations of what he called ‘international operations’. One emphasised the possession of advantages by firms and the other the removal of conflict between them. Both explanations were heavily premised on the prevalence of structural market failures. For a number of reasons—some of which were discussed in Yamin (1991)—during the 1970s and 1980s, the advantage explanation proved highly influential while the removal of conflict explanation was virtually ignored. In Yamin (1991) it was argued that the latter explanation was likely to be the more enduring aspect of Hymer’s contribution. As explained below, in the section entitled ‘Removal of conflict’, subsequent developments seem to have confirmed that expectation. This is not to argue, however, that this aspect of Hymer’s analyses did not suffer from any weaknesses or that it can be applied without any major alteration to current issues or problems in the world economy. On the contrary, this chapter argues that both aspects of Hymer’ s contribution suffer from an over-reliance on the concept of market failure. However, this is more acute in the case of the advantage explanation
- …
