Sidney Winter (2011), Brian Pentland (2011), and Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen (2011) take issue with the arguments in Teppo Felin and Nicolai J. Foss (2011), along with more generally critiquing the ‘microfoundations project’ related to routines and capabilities. In this rejoinder we argue that the responses of our critics reinforce a number of the points stated in our writings on the routines and capabilities literature. In response to their many points we address the following key issues in the debate: (1) lack of construct clarity; (2) universal mechanisms or comparative chauvinism; (3) models of mind and man; (4) levels of analysis; (5) agency and uncaused causes; and then further discuss (6) a rationalist alternative.
|Journal||Journal of Institutional Economics|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|