Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JM96 - RA Theory of Comp, Dynamics... - 2
JM96 - RA Theory of Comp, Dynamics... - 2
JM96 - RA Theory of Comp, Dynamics... - 2
Morgan
S
ince its first publication (Hunt and Morgan 1995, 3. If R-A theory is process-oriented, is it also an evolutionary
hereafter H&M), our resource-advantage (hereafter, theory with path dependencies?
R-A) theory of competition has proved even more 4. If R-A theory contributes to explaining the superior produc-
provocative than we originally expected.' Although the tivity of market-based economies relative to command
communications we have received from marketers, manage- economies, how does R-A theory relate to endogenous
growth models?
ment scholars, economists, executives, and govemment offi-
5. If R-A theory is superior to neoclassical theory in explain-
cials have been generally supportive, almost everyone
ing firm diversity and the differences in productivity, inno-
expresses some concems. Similar to Dickson (1996), most vation, and product quality between market-based and com-
have constructively criticized how R-A theory addresses mand economies, how does perfect competition relate to
specific issues. Five questions surface time and again: R-A theory?
1. If R-A theory is dynamic, then why does its depiction in Dickson (1996) focuses on the static appearance of Fig-
Figure 2 in H&M (p. 9) appear so static? ure 2 in H&M (p. 9) and the importance, for him, of higher-
2. If R-A theory draws on Austrian economics, why is there no order leaming processes and path dependencies (i.e., ques-
discussion of competition as a leaming process? tions 1-3). Accordingly, our reply focuses on these issues and
points readers toward other works that address questions 4-5.
'As we indicated in footnote 1 of H&M, we view comparative
advantage theory and resource-advantage theory as equally appro-
priate labels for our theory. We have come to realize, however, that Competitive Dynamics, Inriovation,
the label comparative advantage is so strongly associated with the Organizational Learning
comparative advantage theory of trade that many readers misinter- At first glance, Dickson's (1996) claim that R-A theory is
preted our theory as focusing on a comparative advantage in phys-
insufficiently dynamic will strike readers as curious. After
ical resources—the focus of neoclassical trade theory. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Our theory focuses on the compar- all, he argues well in his 1992 JM article that consumers'
ative advantage that a firm might have in both tangible and intan- tastes and preferences are always changing, and we cite his
gible resources. Indeed, organizational competencies, which are article to support our view that industry demand is "signifi-
intangible resources in our view, play a major role in our theory. cantly heterogeneous and dynamic" (H&M 1995, p. 5). We
Therefore, because of the confusion that the label comparative also cite his (1992) article and Jacobson's (1992) article for
advantage has caused, we now refer to the theory as the resource- our view that "markets are never in equilibrium" (H&M
advantage theory of competition.
1995, p. 6). We believed that citations to his work would be
sufficient and that JM readers would not need a recapitula-
Shelby D. Hunt is the J. B. Hoskins and P. W. Horn Professor of Marketing, tion of his convincing argument on dynamics.
Department of Marketing, Texas Tech University. Robert M. Morgan is Nonetheless, Dickson (1996) is correct in pointing out
Assistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Coilege of Figure 2's deficiencies. Because the reviewing process
Commerce & Business Administration, University of Alabama. The authors
revealed difficulties in communicating the precise nature of
thank Phani Tej Adidam, Dennis B. Arnett, James B. Wilcox, and three
anonymous JM reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this our theory, we believed a schematic depiction would help.
article. Alas, though no box and arrow model ever does justice to a
theory's underlying complexity. Figure 2 is even worse than
Journat of Marketing
Vol. 60 (October 1996), 107-114 Resource-Advantage Theory /107
most. Dickson is also correct that we poorly explicate orga- firms sbould implement current calls to be "leaming organi-
nizational leaming processes and how competition con- zations" (Day 1994; Glazer 1991; Sinkula 1994; Stata 1989;
tributes to those processes. His concem is understandable, Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar 1994). Indeed, he concludes that
because he views higher-order leaming processes as his the- mastering higher-order leaming processes "is surely an
ory's "fundamental construct" (p. 104). Therefore, we here important part of a marketing executive's responsibility and
examine how R-A theory addresses leaming processes and skill" (p. 106).
the sources of R-A competitive dynamics. In contrast, R-A theory cannot restrict itself to only one
resource for competitive advantage because it is first and
Higher-Order Learning Processes and Resource- foremost a positive, general theory of competition. Indeed,
Advantage Theory recall that the basic argument in H&M (1995) was that (1)
In R-A theory, as Dickson acknowledges (p. 104), the minimum desideratum of a satisfactory theory of com-
higher-order leaming processes are complex resources that petition is that it should contribute to explaining certain
can yield marketplace positions of competitive advantage observed differences between market-based and command
and, thereby, can result in superior financial perfonnance. In economies, (2) neoclassical economists themselves have
contrast with Dickson's view that higher-order leaming admitted that neoclassical theory cannot explain such differ-
processes are the fundamental constmct, however, R-A the- ences, and (3) R-A theory can. Resource-advantage theory is
ory recognizes that other resources can, at times, yield supe- a positive theory that has normative implications; it is not a
rior financial perfomiance. Surely, Dickson is not arguing normative theory that is grounded in positive assumptions.
that all firms having superior perfonnance have mastered
higher-order leaming processes. Surely, the superior perfor-
mance of some firms results from a comparative advantage Resource-Advantage Dynamics
in resources other than mastering higher-order leaming and Innovation
processes. In fact, some firms could surely be skillful leam- Figure 1, which is adapted from Hunt (1995), is not only a
ers and still have inferior perfonnance because they lack superior depiction of the dynamic processes inherent in our
some other resource critical to success. theory, but it also explicitly portrays how organizations leam
Despite its merit, Dickson's theory is insufficiently com- as a direct result of competition. Indeed, we point out in Fig-
prehensive for a positive, general theory of competition, ure 1 that even firms that have not mastered higher-order
because it has a single-minded focus on the benefits of leaming processes do leam—sometimes the wrong things—
higher-order leaming processes. His work appears to func- from competing in the marketplace. Recall that R-A theory
tion more like a nonnative theory that gives guidance to why proposes that firms have the primary objective of superior
FIGURE 1
A Schematic of the Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition
I I
Competitors Consumers Public Policy
Read: Competition is the disequilibrating, ongoing process that consists of the constant struggle among firms for a comparative advantage in
resources that will yield a marketplace position of competitive advantage and, thereby, superior financial performance. Firms learn
through competition as a result of feedback from relative financial performance "signaling" relative market position, which in turn signals
relative resources.
Source: Adapted from Hunt (1995).
3For more on the evolutionary status of R-A theory, see Hunt Hunt (1996) for a discussion of how R-A theory can theo-
(forthcoming). retically ground endogenous growth models.
REFERENCES
Aghion, Phillippe and Peter Howitt, (1991), "A Model of Growth California Management Review, 36 (Summer), 9-31.
Through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, 60 (March), Dickson, Peter Reid (1992), "Toward a General Theory of Compet-
322-52. itive Rationality," Joumai of Marketing, 56 (January), 69-83.
Arthur, W. Brian (1989), "Competing Technologies, Increasing (1996), "The Static and Dynamic Mechanics of Competi-
Retums, and Lock-in by Historical Events," Economic Joumai, tion: A Comment on Hunt and Morgan's Comparative Advan-
99(1), 116-31. tage Theory," Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 102-106.
Bamey, Jay (1991), "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Dierickx, Ingemar and Karel Cool (1989), "Asset Stock Accumu-
Advantage," Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. lation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Manage-
Blaug, Mark (1992). The Methodology of Economics. Cambridge: ment Science, 35 (December), 1504—11.
Cambridge University Press. Dosi, Giovanni and Richard Nelson (1994), "An Introduction to
Chamberlin, Edward (1933/1962), The Theory of Monopolistic Evolutionary Economic Theories," Joumai of Evolutionary
Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Economics, 4 (September), 153-72.
Conner, Kathleen (1991), "A Historical Comparison of Resource- Foss, Nicolai J. (1991), "The Suppression of Evolutionary
Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial- Approaches in Economics: The Case of Marshall and Monopo-
Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the listic Competition," Methodus, 3 (December), 65-72.
Firm?" Journal of Management, 17 (March), 121-54. Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago:
David, Paul A. (1985), Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," University of Chicago Press.
American Economic Review, 75 (2) 332-37. Glazer, Rashi (1991), "Marketing in an Information-Intensive
Day, George S. (1994), "Continuous Leaming About Markets," Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an
Asset," Journat of Marketing, 55 (October), 1-19.
Hunt (1996) for a discussion of how R-A theory incorpo- Grossman, Gene and Elhanan Helpman (1991), Innovation and
rates perfect competition. Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.