|
Abstract:
|
This paper argues that not only Edith Penrose, but also Harold Demsetz should be seen
as a dominant source of inspiration for RBP scholars, that these two crucial influences
hold different and even conflicting views of the economic process, and that they helped
found different research areas and research approaches within the RBP. Based on this
discussion, the paper argues that the conflicting legacies of Penrose and Demsetz
threathen the coherence of the RBP, that a central problem in the RBP is the lack of
understanding of the process of resource-creation which tends to give the perspective a
retrospective character, but that work on technological innovation and change, framed
in the broader theoretical context of Austrian and evolutionary economics, may help
remedy this shortcoming. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
