220 likes | 612 Views
Margaret Peteraf Kellogg – Tuck at Dartmouth. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: a RBV. Strategic Management Journal (1993). Presented by: Sandra Corredor. Cited: 5239 times (Google Scholar). Motivation.
E N D
Margaret Peteraf Kellogg – Tuck at Dartmouth The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: a RBV Strategic Management Journal (1993) Presented by: Sandra Corredor Cited: 5239 times (Google Scholar)
Motivation • Integration of the RBV model terminology and ideas: general model of resources and firm ability to generate rents and sustainable rents. • RBV complements the firm effect analysis (as opposed to the industry effect) • Understanding: • What are the origins of heterogeneity • What is the nature of valuable resources and rents • What is the relationship of resources with competitive advantage and what makes a competitive advantage sustainable.
Four individual-necessary-conditions for Competitive Advantage TOGETHER THEY ARE SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS TO C.A.
Ricardian Rent • Presence of superior productive factors which are in limited supply. • May be fixed factors which cannot be expanded. • More often, they are quasi-fixed: their supply cannot be expanded rapidly or without cost. • Characteristics: • Competitive behavior in the product market (firms are price-takers) • Inelastic supply curves: they cannot expand output rapidly, regardless of how high the price may be. High prices, however, do induce other less efficient firms to enter the industry. • Entrants will produce so long as P exceeds their marginal cost (MC). • In equilibrium, industry demand and supply are in balance, high-cost firms breakeven (P = AC), and low-cost firms earn supra-normal profits in the form of rents to their scarce resources (P > AC). • Not a market power theory (i.e. no restriction of output, no uniqueness or rareness on output).
Ricardian Rent • While superior productive factors might be limited in the short run, they may be renewed and expanded incrementally within the firm that utilizes them (Wernerfelt, Nelson & Winter). • Utilization of such resources may in fact augment them: i.e. learning. • Superior resources provide basis and direction of growth: path dependencies. • Current capabilities may both drive and constrain future learning and investment activity
Heterogeneity • Heterogeneity = origin or rents • Heterogeneity implies that firms of varying capabilities are able to compete in the marketplace “and, at least, breakeven” • Sources: • Ricardian rents • Monopoly rents: deliberate restriction of output. Spatial competition or product differentiation. Imply intra-industry mobility barriers, size advantages, irreversible commitments or other first mover advantage. Asymmetries must exist between incumbent and potential entrants. Homogeneous firms may also earn monopoly rents (Cournot behavior).
Ex-post limits • Ex-post limits to competition = Durability of heterogeneity • Competition may: • Increase the supply of scarce resources:makes industry supply more elastic. • Undermine a monopolist's (or oligopolists') attempts to restrict output: makes individual demand curves more elastic. • Imperfect imitability: Rumelt’s isolating mechanisms to isolate groups of similar firms in heterogeneous industries. • Rights & Quasi-rights to scarce resources: lags, info. asymmetries, frictions. • Producer learning, buyer switching costs, reputation, buyer search costs, channel crowding, and economies of scale when specialized assets. • Failures of competitive market due to: TC and info. asymmetries (Yao, 1988); time compression diseconomies, asset mass efficiencies, interconnectedness of asset stocks, and asset erosion (Dierickx and Cool, 1989) • Imperfect substitutability: Porter’s five forces • Causal ambiguity (Lippman and Rumelt, 1982): Uncertainty regarding the causes of efficiency differences among firms. Not sufficient condition: must be coupled with non-recoverable costs.
Ex-post limits “For the most part, ex post limits to competition imply heterogeneity, although heterogeneity does not imply ex post limits to competition” • Ex-post limits to competition = Durability of heterogeneity • Competition may: • Increase the supply of scarce resources:makes ind.supply more elastic. • Undermine a monopolist's (or oligopolists') attempts to restrict output: makes individual demand curves more elastic. • Imperfect imitability: Rumelt’s isolating mechanisms to isolate groups of similar firms in heterogeneous industries. • Rights & Quasi-rights to scarce resources: lags, info. asymmetries, frictions. • Producer learning, buyer switching costs, reputation, buyer search costs, channel crowding, and economies of scale when specialized assets. • Failures of competitive market due to: TC and info. asymmetries (Yao, 88); time compression diseconomies, asset mass efficiencies, interconnectedness of asset stocks, and asset erosion (Dierickx and Cool, 89) • Imperfect substitutability: Porter’s five forces • Causal ambiguity (Lippman and Rumelt, 82): Uncertainty regarding the causes of efficiency differences among firms. Not sufficient condition: must be coupled with non-recoverable costs.
Imperfect mobility • Imperfect mobility = Sustainability of rents • Opportunity cost of asset use is significantly less than their value to the present employer. • Pareto rents i.e. Quasi-rents: the excess of an asset's value over its salvage value or its value in its next best use. • Perfectly immobile: completely bounded to the firm. • Property rights are not well defined or with 'bookkeeping feasibility' problems (Dierickx and Cool 1989) • Idiosyncratic resources: they have no other use outside the firm • Imperfectly mobile: tradable but more valuable within the firm that currently employs them. • Switching costs (Montgomery and Wernerfelt 1988): firm specific investments that cement the trading relationship between a firm and the owners of factors. Sunk costs. • High transaction costs also lead to imperfect mobility (Williamson 1975; Rumelt 1987) • Co-specialized assets (Teece 1986): must be used in conjunction with one another or have higher economic value when employed together.
Imperfect mobility • Imperfect mobility = Sustainability of rents requires appropriability • ‘Appropriable quasi-rents’ or ‘A-Q rents’: the excess of an asset's value over its value to the second highest valuing potential user or bidder for the resource (Klein et al. 78). • NOT a sufficient condition for value. • It is entirely possible for a resource to generate AQ rents in the absence of either Ricardian or monopoly rents. • Differential value to possible users: • Rare • Inimitable • Other contingencies that are not source of competitive advantage (?) • A-Q rents as competitive advantage: differential value is appropriable a firm can appropriate AQ rents AQ rents are also Ricardian or monopoly rents. • Producer can fully appropriate quasi-rents (Williamson’s V.I.) • Bilateral monopoly: 50-50 rent distribution • The firm and the factor area team (Teece’s co-especialization)
Imperfect mobility “Again heterogeneous resources need not be imperfectly mobile. But it is hard to imagine any imperfectly mobile resources which are not also heterogeneous in nature.” • Imperfect mobility = Sustainability of rents requires appropriability • ‘Appropriable quasi-rents’ or ‘A-Q rents’: the excess of an asset's value over its value to the second highest valuing potential user or bidder for the resource (Klein et al. 78). • NOT a sufficient condition for value. • It is entirely possible for a resource to generate AQ rents in the absence of either Ricardian or monopoly rents. • Differential value to possible users: • Rare • Inimitable • Other contingencies that are not source of competitive advantage • A-Q rents as competitive advantage: differential value is appropriable a firm can appropriate AQ rents AQ rents are also Ricardian or monopoly rents. • Producer can fully appropriate quasi-rents (Williamson’s V.I.) • Bilateral monopoly: 50-50 rent distribution • The firm and the factor area team (Teece’s co-specialization) • c
Ex-ante limits • Ex-ante limits to competition = Space for creation of rents • Prior to any firm's establishing a superior resource position, there must be limited competition for that position. Imperfections in the strategic factor market. • Barney 86: returns from their strategies but also on the cost of implementing those strategies. • Profits come from ex ante uncertainty of the ex-post value of a venture • Uncertainty is solved favorably by luck or foresight. • Ex ante competition to develop strategic factor and/or imperfectly mobile resources (eg. reputation). • Demand: Value concept in Barney (91)?
The Scope of the Firm Application CORPORATE BUSINESS STRATEGY • Boundaries of the firm • Extent of diversification: excess capacity in a multiple-use resource, under a market failure. • Two problematic issues: • How “excess capacity” in resources may lead to “scarcity rents” for resource holders?: single product mkt. • Why firms do not expand more fully in initial markets before they enter additional ones?: 'specificity' or range of application & set of market opportunities. SINGLE BUSINESS STRATEGY • Differentiate between resources which might support a competitive advantage from other less valuable resources. • Sourcing choice: whether to license a new technology or whether to develop it internally. • Identify how imitable is firm’s innovation: develop/buy appropriability mechanisms. • In sum: how to target, develop & deploy assets (Amit&Schoemaker 1993)
Some notes… • Identifies commonalities on RBV. • Main assumptions for this explanation of Ricardian rents: long run, and no externalities. • What about co-existence of long term vs. short term … what could be the implications for rents?