The Co-evolution of Capabilities and Transaction Costs: Explaining the Institutional Structure of Production

By Michael G. Jacobides, S. G. Winter. 2005

871 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e8a44bab0573aad3bd21b0fe235dbc51d6e9cf3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Innovation and the evolution of industries (2006, background): “Jacobides and Winter (2005) explain the vertical scope of firms in terms of the coevolution of firms’ capabilities and transaction costs, and focus their analysis on four factors - knowledge accumulation, capability differences, selection processes and endogenous transaction costs.”
Industry Change Through Vertical Disintegration: How and Why Markets Emerged in Mortgage Banking (2005, background): “At the micro level, one could explicitly study the relationship between organizational identity and vertical scope (see Cacciatori & Jacobides, 2005; Jacobides & Winter, 2005).”
The Effects of Innovation on Vertical Structure: Perspectives on Transaction Costs and Competences (2008, positive): “…technological developments are thought to be path-dependent, with the trajectory leading to related technologies (Teece 1996), one could expect modular innovations to emerge in the market from new entrants to the industry, making use of new or distant knowledge bases (Jacobides and Winter 2005).”
Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures (2006, positive): “Quite apart from the cost of moving into complementary assets, a second issue is how scope shapes the capability development process; whether broader or more limited scope confers a dynamic advantage both depends on the particular context of a sector and its lifecycle (Jacobides and Winter, 2005).”
Toward a Model of Strategic Outsourcing (2007, positive): “Whereas Williamson focuses on the tendency of transaction difficulties to emerge as a function of the exchange, Coase’s frictional costs are a feature of economic conditions that occur independent of deliberate calculation or motives (see also Jacobides and Winter, 2005).”
The Architecture and Design of Organizational Capabilities (2006, positive): “This suggests that, to develop the capabilities to adapt to change, integration may be more important (Langlois and Robertson, 1995; Jacobides and Winter, 2005).”
Advancing the Human Capital Perspective on Value Creation by Joining Capabilities and Governance Approaches (2015, background): “While some have suggested that these two approaches are complementary (Jacobides & Winter, 2005; Mahoney, 2001; Poppo & Zenger, 1998), Nickerson, Yen, and Mahoney (2012) documented that historically the capabilities and governance approaches have not been joined in away that enables scholars and…”
Productivity and the Role of Complementary Assets in Firms’ Demand for Technology Innovations (2009, methodology): “…two approaches, consistent with a more recent stream of work in the strategy literature focusing on the interplay between transaction costs and capabilities as determinants of firms’ vertical scope and the vertical disintegration of industrial sectors (Madhok, 2002; Jacobides and Winter, 2005).”
Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance (2007, background): “First, as stressed by Kirzner (1973), entrepreneurs can have differential access to existing information.”