Beyond strategy: A critical review of Penrose's ‘single argument’ and its implications for economic development

References

• Alchian, A.A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 57: 211–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alchian, A.A. (1953). Comment on Penrose, E. (1952) biological analogies in the theory of the firm: Comment. American Economic Review, 43: 600–3.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29: 155–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augier, M. and D. Teece. (2007). Dynamic capabilities and multinational enterprise: Penrosean insights and omissions. Management International Review, 47: 175–92.
   Google Scholar
• Barnard, C. (1938). The Function of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Best, M.H. (1990). The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Best, M.H. (1999). Regional growth dynamics: A capabilities perspective. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 105–20.
   Google Scholar
• Best M.H. (2001). The New Competitive Advantage: The Renewal of American Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Best, M.H. and E. Garnsey. (1999). Edith Penrose, 1914-1996. The Economic Journal, 109: F187–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best, M.H. and J. Humphries. (2003). Edith Penrose: A feminist economist? Feminist Economics, 9: 47–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blundel, R.K. and M. Thatcher. (2005). Explaining cluster responses to globalization: The case of volume yacht manufacturing in Europe. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 17: 405–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulding, K.E. (1956). The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Ann Arbor, MA: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buckley, P. and M. Casson. (2007). Edith Penrose's theory of the growth of the firm and the strategic management of multinational enterprises. Management International Review, 47: 151–73.
   Google Scholar
• Casson, M.C. (2005). Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58: 327–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chipman, J.S. (1987). Machlup, Fritz (1902–1983). In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman. (Eds.), (1987). The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. 4 vol. London: Macmillan, 267–8.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, P.A. (2000). Organisations in Action: Competition Between Contexts. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, P.A. and R.K. Blundel. (2007). Penrose, critical realism and the evolution of business knowledge: A methodological appraisal. Management and Organizational History, 2: 45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, T., S. Floyd, and M. Wright. (2004). Point-counterpoint: Edith Penrose and the resource-based view of strategic management. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 181–2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunning, J.H. (2003). The contribution of Edith Penrose to international business scholarship. Management International Review, 43: 3–19.
   Google Scholar
• Finch, J.H. (2000). Is Post-Marshallian economics an evolutionary research tradition? European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 7: 377–406.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, N.J. (1998). Edith Penrose and the Penrosians - or, Why there is still so much to learn from, the theory of the growth of the firm. Economies et Sociétés, 29: 143–64.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, N.J. (1999a). Edith Penrose, economics and strategic management. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 87–104.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, N.J. (1999b). Research in the strategic theory of the firm: ‘Isolationism’ and ‘Integrationism’. Journal of Management Studies, 36: 725–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foss, N.J., P.G. Klein, Y.Y. Kor, and J.T. Mahoney. (2008). Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 73–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith, J.K. (1956). American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68: 79–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haanæs, K. (1997). Managing resource mobilization. PhD diss. [Series 9.97]. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen / Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, L. (2013). On Robinson, Penrose and the resource-based view. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 20: 125–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, N.M. (1997). Pattern in corporate evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kay, N.M. (1999). Hercules and Penrose. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 67–86.
   Google Scholar
• Kor, Y.Y. and J.T. Mahoney. (2004). Edith Penrose's (1959) contributions to the resource-based view of strategic management. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 183–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kor, Y.Y. and J.T. Mahoney. (2000). Penrose's resource-based approach: The process and product of research creativity. Journal of Management Studies, 37: 109–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavezzi, A. (2003). Smith, Marshall and young on division of labour and economic growth. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10: 81–108.
   Google Scholar
• Lazonick, W. (2002). The US industrial corporation and the theory of the growth of the firm. In C.N. Pitelis (Ed.), op cit, 249–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leitch, C, F. Hill, and H. Neergaard. (2010). Entrepreneurial and business growth and the quest for a “Comprehensive Theory”: tilting at windmills? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34: 249–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loasby, B.J. (1991). Equilibrium and Evolution: An Explanation of Connecting Principles in Economics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Loasby, B.J. (1999). The significance of Penrose's theory for the development of economics. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 31–46.
   Google Scholar
• Loasby, B.J. (2001). Industrial Dynamics: Why Connections Matter. Working Paper 01-9, Copenhagen: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID).
   Google Scholar
• Loasby, B.J. (2009). Knowledge, coordination and the firm: Historical perspectives. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 16: 539–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockett, A. (2005). Edith Penrose's legacy to the resource-based view. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26: 83–98.
   Google Scholar
• Lockett, A. and S. Thompson. (2004). Edith Penrose's contributions to the resource-based view: An alternative perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 193–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockett, A., S. Thompson, and U. Morgenstern. (2009). The development of the resource-based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11: 9–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machlup, F. (1967). Theories of the firm: Marginalist, behavioural, managerial. The American Economic Review, LVII: 1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Macpherson, A. and R. Holt. (2007). Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36: 172–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marris, R. (1961). The theory of the growth of the firm, a review of Penrose (1959). Economic Journal, 71: 110–3.
   Google Scholar
• Marris, R. (1964). The Economic Theory of ‘Managerial’ Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Marris, R. (1999). Edith Penrose and economics. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 47–66.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, M. (2006). Knowledge, Scale and Transactions in the Theory of the Firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1951). The Economics of the International Patent System. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1952). Biological analogies in the theory of the firm. The American Economic Review, 42: 804–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1953). Rejoinder to Armen A. Alchian. The American Economic Review, 43: 603–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1960). The growth of the firm - A case study: the hercules powder company. Business History Review, 34: 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1965). Economics and the aspirations of Le Tiers Monde. Inaugural Lecture, London: School of Oriental and African Studies (10th Feb.) [ Reprinted in Penrose (1971) op cit. pp. 319–336].
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1971). The Growth of Firms, Middle East Oil and Other Essays. London: Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1985). The theory of the growth of the firm twenty five years after. In L. Engwall and J. Johanson (Eds.), Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Oeconomiae Negotiorum, 20. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 1985, p. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1989). History, the social sciences and economic ‘Theory’, with special reference to the multinational enterprise. In A. Teichova, M. Lévy-Leboyer, and H. Nussbaum (Eds.), Historical Studies in International Corporate Enterprise, 7–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1992). Economic liberalization: Openness and integration – but what kind? Development Policy Review, 10: 237–54 [article also reprinted in Prometheus 11 no. 1: (1993): 30–44].
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1995). The Theory of The Growth of The Firm. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press [with new Foreword by Edith Penrose].
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (1996). Growth of the firm and networking. In M. Warner (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Business and Management, 1716–24. London: International Thompson Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E.T. (2009). The Theory of The Growth of The Firm. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press [with new Foreword by Christos Pitelis].
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E., G. Joffẽ, and P. Stevens. (1992). Nationalisation of foreign-owned property for a public purpose: An economic perspective on appropriate compensation. The Modern Law Review, 55: 351–67.
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, P. and C.N. Pitelis. (1999). Edith Elura Tilton Penrose: Life, contribution and influence. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Pitelis, C.N. (Ed.). (2002). The Growth of the Firm: The Legacy of Edith Penrose. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pitelis, C.N. (2009). Foreword. In E.T. Penrose (Ed.), The Theory of The Growth of The Firm. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ix–xiviii.
   Google Scholar
• Pitelis, C.N. (2011). Globalization, development, and history in the work of Edith Penrose. Business History Review, 85: 65–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitelis, C. and A. Verbeke. (2007). Edith Penrose and the future of the multinational enterprise: New research directions. Management International Review, 47: 139–49.
   Google Scholar
• Pitelis, C. and M.W. Wahl. (1998a). Edith Penrose: Pioneer of stakeholder theory. Long Range Planning, 31: 252–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitelis, C. and M.W. Wahl. (1998b). Edith Penrose and the theory of (the growth of) the firm. Research Papers in Management Studies WP 5/98. Cambridge: Judge Institute of Management Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Rathe and U. Witt. (2001). The nature of the firm – static versus developmental interpretations. Journal of Management and Governance, 5: 331–51.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, G.B. (1972). The organisation of industry. Economic Journal, 82: 883–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, G.B. (1999). Mrs Penrose and Neoclassical theory. Contributions to Political Economy, 18: 23–30.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, E.A.G. (1931). The Structure of Competitive Industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, P.H. (1973). The expansion of firms. Journal of Political Economy, 81: 936–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rugman, A. and A. Verbeke. (2002). Edith Penrose's contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 769–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rugman, A. and A. Verbeke. (2004). A final word on Edith Penrose. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 205–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarbrough, H. (1998). Path(ological) dependency?: Core competencies from an organisational perspective. British Journal of Management, 9: 219–32.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J.A. [1943] (1954). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 4th ed. London: George Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Shen, T.Y. (1970). Economies of scale, Penrose effect, growth of plants and their size distribution. Journal of Political Economy, 78: 702–16.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, A.S. (1987). Smith, Adam (1723–1790). In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman. (Eds.), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. 4 vol. London: Macmillan, 357–75.
   Google Scholar
• Slater, M. (1980a). Foreword. In E.T. Penrose (Ed.), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, vii–xxx.
   Google Scholar
• Slater, M. (1980b). The managerial limitation to the growth of firms. The Economic Journal, 90: 520–8.
   Google Scholar
• Spender, J.C. (1994). Organizational knowledge, collective practice and Penrose rents. International Business Review, 3: 353–67.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3: 39–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. and M. Wright. (2005). Edith Penrose's contribution to economics and strategy. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26: 57–66.
   Google Scholar
• Turvani, M. (2001). Reading Edith Penrose's ‘The theory of the growth of the firm’ forty years on (1959-1999). In P. Garouste and S. Ioannides (Eds.), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas, 148–78. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Turvani, M. (2002). Mismatching by design: Explaining the dynamics of innovative capabilities of the firm with a Penrosean mark. In C.N. Pitelis (Ed.), op cit, 195–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uzawa, H. (1969). Time preference and the Penrose effect in a two-class model of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 77: 628–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 171–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar