This paper argues that not only Edith Penrose, but also Harold Demsetz should be seen as a dominant source of inspiration for RBP scholars, that these two crucial influences hold different and even conflicting views of the economic process, and that they helped found different research areas and research approaches within the RBP. Based on this discussion, the paper argues that the conflicting legacies of Penrose and Demsetz threathen the coherence of the RBP, that a central problem in the RBP is the lack of understanding of the process of resource-creation which tends to give the perspective a retrospective character, but that work on technological innovation and change, framed in the broader theoretical context of Austrian and evolutionary economics, may help remedy this shortcoming.
|Udgiver||DRUID - Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics|
|Status||Udgivet - 1997|
|Navn||DRUID Working Paper|