The RBV argues that mostly firm specific resources contribute to sustained competitive advantage. At the same time, I have the impression that which resources matter depend on the context. I am analyzing startups in Nairobi and what firm specific resources successful startups have. I have the impression that for example having knowledge about bureaucratic structures (a human capital resource) is resource that has higher importance in Nairobi then for example in many developed countries.
The RBV is often criticized for being too internally focused. I agree that it is internally focused, but if you look at some of the early work that is now heavily cited (e.g., Barney, 1991), you see that the argument works more or less like this: To succeed, firms need resources which they can bundle together into a capability that is valuable, rare, costly to imitate, and non-substitutable. Only if it has something that matches all four of these does it qualify as a core competency and, thus, a source of competitive advantage.
So the RBV says you have to pay attention to customers/the market (is your core competency valuable to customers?), and to the competition (Do lots of your competitors have this thing too? If not, can they imitate it without too much expense? Can they offer a substitute that isn't the same was your thing, but that still satisfies the customer?).
In your example, if the government connection is rare, and probably costly to imitate, that's two of the four -- not enough. Is it substitutable? In the US, yes, you can use non-government connections in most industries as effectively as government ones (in industries that are very dependent on the government, I think you'd find that government connections are pretty non-substitutable across all nations -- so given what you say, maybe in Nairobi the government makes itself indispensable to more industries than the governments of other countries?). But in Nairobi, let's argue that there isn't really a good substitute for the government connection.
So that leaves us with valuable. Are you selling to regular consumers? If so, unless you're a lobbying company, your connections aren't valuable to your customers. You still need to bundle your first resource (government connections) with another one (some sort of consumer good). But maybe you're selling an imported product that consumers want, and your government connections are what let you import the product. In that case, you're a successful importer and, if your connections give you a monopoly on something customers want (say, iPhones), then you're a very successful importer with a competitive advantage that will last for so long as your have a strong government connection. You still had to bundle other resources with this one to make it work (contacts with your supplier, the ability to let customers know what you have, etc.), but you have a winning capability -- a core competency.
So I'd argue that RBV has an internal focus, but that it does look outward after identifying the resources that, bundled together, might make a capability. The test of what you have is externally-based.
Work Cited:
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.
you an go through the following peer reviewed articles
The Critical Assessment of the Resource-
Based View of Strategic Management:
The Source of Heterogeneity of the Firm
THE RESOURCE BASED VIEW AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH
:REVIEW,EXTENSION,AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
It is no doubt that having knowledge of bureaucratic structures is one of the key resources in many countries, both developing and developed. However, knowing the bureaucratic structure itself is not enough in many cases, knowing the people inside the structure is even more important.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Business Economics