DOC PREVIEW
Savitt_JMacro_2000

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

JUNE 2000JOURNAL OF MACROMARKETINGA Philosophical Essay about A GeneralTheory of Competition: Resources, Competences,Productivity, Economic GrowthRonald SavittShelby Hunt has produced one of the most important books inmarketingindecades. He basicallychallengesustoengageinthe discussion of competition based on what develops as“resource-advantage.” The extensive essay is based on acomprehensiveexaminationofthe foundations ofcompetitionwith the hopes of offering a synthetic theory. Although Huntprovides compelling arguments worthy of serious attention,the major shortcoming of the work is the absence of competi-tive theory drawn from the theory and practice of marketing,that lodgeddirectlyin the marketing discipline. Nevertheless,the integration of competition canmore easilyflow nowthat abasic framework has been provided.Shelby Hunt (2000) has produced an important work oncompetition, an area that has deserved attention for sometime,especiallyinmarketing,wherethetopichas simply beenneglected. He uses many of his ideas that have previouslyappeared in his other writings. But to consider this a rework-ing of previous issues would be to make a major error. Thebook provides a comprehensive and synthetic analysis ofideas drawn from severaldisciplines; it is all done with exact-ingclarityandpurpose.Histheorydemands our attention, andas a result, it should stimulate much research and lively dis-cussions over the years. Whether he has really provided “a newtheory of competition” is a complex issue that will be addressedpresently. That is not the point, however, because the discus-sionadds significantlyto our understandingof a complexpro-cess. He openly offers this as a challenge for others to engagein the development of rival theories. No more should beexpected; Hunt’s contribution is extensive and valuable.Basically, I have three highly integrated points to make.First, I believe the resource-advantage (R-A) theory wouldhave been considerably stronger without its reliance on neo-classical economic principles; second, I believe that the sew-ing together of ideas from many literatures has not providedthe solid frameworkthat is desired; andthird, I believeHunt’s(2000) overall contribution would have been greater if he hadbegun with marketing.This is not an easy book to review, and my comments arepointed toward philosophical differences in his approach.They should in no way be taken as a criticism of the scholarlywork that he presents.ASSUME COMPETITIONAssume competition is the dramatic note that is used suc-cessfully to get the reader’s attention. Hunt (2000) begins onthe premise that whenever and wherever those words are reador spoken, the reader or listener assumes perfect competitionfor this is the language of mainstream economics. Dramaticand forceful in gettingour attention,I wonderif theuniversal-ity of meaning he attributes to the concept is as comprehen-sive as he suggests. It is a testable proposition that deservesour attention, though such an exercise is beyond the scope ofthisreview.1Itis not thatIdisagreewith hispremise.Forthoseof us classically educated in economics, “competition” ringsas strongly as the bells of Pavlov’s dog. Personally speaking,ithastakenyears of hardworktogetbeyondthis“conditionedresponse.” I believe that there is as much confusion in whatassume competition means as there is with Adam Smith’s“invisible hand.” Competition has a number of meanings andresearch traditions, some of which such as rivalry are notincluded.I appreciate that critique before content may be unfair, butit is necessary because Hunt (2000) does not fully clarify thenormative and taxonomic elements of his theory as econo-mists often do.As aresult, inmanyplaces inthe book, I had tosit back, read and reread, and then ask myself whether this isabout what it should be or what it is. While he does discussexplanation and prediction, it is not fully developed in suchterms. Early in the description of the book’s contents, heoffersthetheories’“normativeimplications.”Theformer caseis somewhatworrying insofaras thesuccess of economicpre-dictions has never been all that great. I would argue that morethan any theory of competition is required to understand the73Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, June 2000 73-76© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.failuresinthesocialisteconomiesthathe mentions. The argu-ment reflects a “I told you so” perspective when indeed theseeconomies had very different shapes and might have beendifferent if they had been allowed to operate on the underly-ing assumptions. Explanations of failure and success cannotbe narrowed in this way. I just do not see the same predictivestrength that Hunt does.He titles his theory “R-Atheory.” It originates from no onesingle research tradition but a number of traditions in severaldifferent disciplines. R-A is process oriented and incorpo-rates three principles. It “views (1) innovation and organiza-tional learning as endogenous to competition, (2) firms andconsumers as having imperfect information, and (3) institu-tions and public policy as affecting economic performance”(Hunt 2000, chap. 1, p. 10). Competition, for R-A theory, isthe disequilibrating process that consists of the constantstruggle among firms for comparative advantages inresources thatwill yield some market segment(s)and therebysuperior financial performance.The volume is divided into four sections. The first pro-vides a comprehensive discussion of the eleven research tra-ditionsfrom which thepremisesare drawn.Chapters 2,3,and4 respectively examine evolutionary economics, Austrianeconomics, heterogeneous demand and differential advan-tage, and business strategy and institutional theory. The sec-ond section, chapters 5 and 6, offers a complete developmentofthepremises and structureofthetheory;the third linksR-Ato issues of productivity, economic growth, and the wealth ofnations. The final section, found in chapter 10, promotes thethesis that R-A is a general theory of competition.LETTING GOHunt’s (2000) goal is to develop a theory explaining com-petition as comprehensiveas that foundin economicsbuiltbyintegrating a number of research traditions based on affinity.His methodology integrates propositions from elevenresearch traditions, most of which, except for “economicsociology,” have their roots deep in economics. This is anextensive task. What is curious about Hunt’s approach is thatthis is to be accomplished without


Savitt_JMacro_2000

Download Savitt_JMacro_2000
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Savitt_JMacro_2000 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Savitt_JMacro_2000 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?