Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Firm Boundaries

305 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Quo Vadis, Dynamic Capabilities? A Content-Analytic Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Recommendations for Future Research (2018, background): “Weagreewith JacobidesandWinter (2005),Nickerson, Yen, andMahoney (2012), Argyres and Zenger (2012), andothers that the analysis ofmany strategic decisions wouldbe incompletewithout theconsiderationofboth organizational capabilities and transaction costs. For example, we know relatively little about ”
Theories of the (state-owned) firm (2016, background): “Specifically, firms cannot grow their boundaries indefinitely due to diminishing benefits of transaction cost savings (Argyres & Zenger, 2012).”
The Theory-Based View: Economic Actors as Theorists (2017, unknown): “Much of the literature on the design and governance of organizations implicitly assumes that a theory of value already exists (Zenger, Felin & Bigelow, 2011; Argyres and Zenger, 2012), and then explicitly takes up the task of providing guidance on how to efficiently organize transactions and activit”
The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions (2016, background): “How then does a division of labor involving overlapping knowledge shape the evolution of capabilities (Jacobides, 2006; Argyres and Zenger, 2012)?”