Research In Strategy, Economics, and Michael Porter*

Nicolai Foss ()

Journal of Management Studies, 1996, vol. 33, issue 1, 1-24

Abstract: This article links up with recent discussions of the strategy/economics nexus. In contrast to most of the proponents and opponents of economics in strategy thinking, a balanced pluralist perspective is adopted. According to this, a discipline should strike a balance between the generation of new theoretical alternatives and the selection among them. Applying this general idea, I argue that the strategy field is too pluralistic, and that the unfortunate consequences of excessive pluralism and eclecticism may be remedied by economics playing a larger role in the conversation of strategy researchers. This does not necessarily mean standard neoclassical economics or new industrial organization economics; evolutionary economics, for example, is a serious contender, too. the evolution of Michael Porter's thinking is used as a case for demonstrating some of the advantages and some of the dangers of economics in the strategy field, and for illustrating points about eclecticism and pluralism.

Date: 1996
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (22)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00796.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:33:y:1996:i:1:p:1-24

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... s.asp?ref=00022-2380

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Management Studies is currently edited by Timothy Clark, Steven W. Floyd and Mike Wright

More articles in Journal of Management Studies from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().