Bridge, A J and Tisdell, C (2006) The determinants of the vertical boundaries of the construction firm: Response. Construction Management and Economics, 24(3), pp. 233-236. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Chang seems to suggest that developing closer relations between Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and the Resource-Based View (RBV) is not yet needed. However, we are unmoved in our belief that this development is compelling and remain committed to our approach to pluralism. We disagree with Chang's critiques of our approach. We clarify that a synthesis of TCE and RBV along the lines of theoretical monism is not attempted. On this basis, two of the three questions raised, labelled 'ontological dissonance' and 'variable multicollinearity', are not applicable. With regard to the other question that relates to refutability, Barney has shown that the variables are refutable and Barney also makes reference to empirical work pertaining to RBV. We agree with Chang that TCE is weak on differential production and believe that an acceptance of the coexistence of TCE and RBV is likely to make both theories more successful on the issue of vertical integration. In the end, pluralism appeals as much to us as it does to the chief proponents of TCE and RBV, as a means of making progress in the near term.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capability; competence; construction firm; transaction costs; vertical boundaries |
| Index terms: | boundaries, critique, transaction cost, resource-based view, competence, determinant, construction firm, vertical integration |
| Subjects: | property law, risk assessment, financial analysis, organization, vertical integration, personnel development, management, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here