Research In Strategy,Economics, and Michael Porter*

This article links up with recent discussions of the strategy/economics nexus. In contrast to most of the proponents and opponents of economics in strategy thinking, a balanced pluralist perspective is adopted. According to this, a discipline should strike a balance between the generation of new theoretical alternatives and the selection among them. Applying this general idea, I argue that the strategy field is too pluralistic, and that the unfortunate consequences of excessive pluralism and eclecticism may be remedied by economics playing a larger role in the conversation of strategy researchers. This does not necessarily mean standard neoclassical economics or new industrial organization economics; evolutionary economics, for example, is a serious contender, too. the evolution of Michael Porter's thinking is used as a case for demonstrating some of the advantages and some of the dangers of economics in the strategy field, and for illustrating points about eclecticism and pluralism.