Edith Penrose's contribution to the resource‐based view of strategic management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Edith Penrose's (1959) book, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm , is considered by many scholars in the strategy field to be the seminal work that provided the intellectual foundations for the modern, resource‐based theory of the firm. However, the present paper suggests that Penrose's direct or intended contribution to resource‐based thinking has been misinterpreted. Penrose never aimed to provide useful strategy prescriptions for managers to create a sustainable stream of rents; rather, she tried to rigorously describe the processes through which firms grow. In her theory, rents were generally assumed not to occur. If they arose this reflected an inefficient macro‐level outcome of an otherwise efficient micro‐level growth process. Nevertheless, her ideas have undoubtedly stimulated ‘good conversation’ within the strategy field in the spirit of Mahoney and Pandian (1992); their emerging use by some scholars as building blocks in models that show how sustainable competitive advantage and rents can be achieved is undeniable, although such use was never intended by Edith Penrose herself. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it