Bataglia meirelles population_ecology_and_evolutionary_economics_._2009_

POPULATIO� ECOLOGY A�D EVOLUTIO�ARY ECO�OMICS

Toward an Integrative Model

WALTER BATAGLIA and DIMÁRIA SILVA E MEIRELLES

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to identify complementarities between the approaches of population ecology and evolutionary economics in order to contribute to a synthesis of organizational evolutionary dynamics and its implications for a strategic management research model. Using the metatriangulation technique to construct theories, we attempt to entwine these two perspectives. The proposed model is structured in two dimensions: the environmental selective system and the corporate adaptation process. The environmental selective system gathers together the complementary factors pre-sented by evolutionary economics and ecology: technological innovation, demographic processes, environmental dynamism, population density and other institutional processes, and interpopulation dynamics. As ecology does not encompass the corporate adaptation process (generation, selection, and propagation of variations), the proposed model adopts the theo-retical grounds underpinning evolutionary economics. The model offers three main contributions for future research into strategic management. First, it allows the development of descriptive and normative studies of the relationship among the environmental selection factors and the different types of enterprise strategies. Second, the proposed conceptual framework may be very beneficial for studies of interorganizational learning. Third, the model has the advantage of responding to the criticism of strategy theories in terms of their inability to generalize.

RESUMEN: El objetivo de este documento es determinar Ia complementariedad entre los planteamientos de Ia ecologia poblacional y economia evolutiva con ei fin de contribuir a una síntesis de Ia dinâmica evolutiva de Ias organizaciones y sus consecuencias para un modelo de investigación en Ia gestión estrarégica. Utilizando Ia meta triangulación como técnica para construir teorias, intentamos entrelazar estas dos perspectivas. El modelo propuesto está estructurado en dos dimensiones: ei sistema de selección ambiental y ei proceso de adaptación corporativo. El sistema de selección ambiental reúne los factores complementarios presentados por Ia economia evolutiva y ecologia: Ia innovación tecnológica, procesos demográficos, dinamismo ambiental, densidad de población y otros procesos institucionales, y Ia dinâmica de inter po-blación. Como Ia ecologia no abarca los procesos de adaptación de Ias empresas (generación, selección y Ia propagación de Ias variaciones), ei modelo propuesto adopta los fundamentos que sustentan Ia economia evolutiva. El modelo ofrece três principales contribuciones para futuras investigaciones sobre gestión estratégica. En primer lugar, permite ei desarrollo de estúdios descriptivos y normativos de Ia relación entre los factores de selección ambiental y los diferenres tipos de estratégias de Ias empresas. Segundo, Ia estructura conceptual propuesta puede ser muy beneficiosa para los estúdios de inter-aprendizaje organizacional. En tercer lugar, ei modelo tiene Ia ventaja de responder a Ias críticas de Ias teorias a cerca de estratégia en términos de su incapacidad para generalizar.

The importance of environmental dynamics for strategy theory is a topic that is still little explored. Instead of dealing with environmental dynamics per se, traditional approaches address the environment in a static, aggregate manner (Boston Con-sulting Group, 1968; Buzzell, Gale, & Sultan, 1975; Porter, 1980). On one hand, the environment is described essentially on the basis of the general characteristics of the industrial

structure, such as the concentration levels of suppliers or competitors and growth rates. Along these lines, there is some redundancy in the association between the characteristics of the industrial structure and optimal conduct and performance by firms (Demsetz, 1973). On the other hand, conduct toward the environment is merely reactive, disregarding the specific characteristics of the firms, their skills, competences, and

Walter Bataglia is an assistant professor of management in Presby-terian University Mackenzie where he teaches organization theory, strategic management, and evolutionary dynamics of enterprises. He received his Ph.D. (2006) in business administration from the Faculty of Economics, Administration, and Accountancy (FEA) at University of São Paulo (USP). His interests include interorgani-zational relations and institutional, ecological, and evolutionary processes in organizational populations and industries.

Dimária Silva e Meirelles is an assistant professor in Presbyterian University Mackenzie where she teaches business management and evolutionary dynamics of enterprises. She received her Ph.D. (2003) in economics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Her research focuses on evolutionary processes in organizational populations and industries.

The authors acknowledge the financial support of MAKCPESQUISA— Fundo Mackenzie de Pesquisa.

Management Research, vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 2009), pp. 87-101. © 2009 M.E.Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1536-5433 / 2009 J9.50 + 0.00. DÓI 10.2753/JMR1536-5433070201

88 Management Research

in-house arrangements that influence the decision-making process (Reve, 1990). An environment-based approach to the study of organiza-

tions has become increasingly important since the late 195Os, when the concept of the environment was introduced through ideas related to systems theory. Since then, the environment hás certainly played an influential role, with interest focused on the paths where this influence functions (Hatch, 1997). Under the aegis of modern theories dealing with the relation-ship between the organization and its environment, particu-larly outstanding approaches are the population ecology of organizations and evolutionary economics (Baum & Singh, 1994; Levinthal, 1994; Montgomery, 1995). Based on the logic of natural selection through biological evolution, these evolutionary approaches assume that the relationship between the firm and its environment explains the differentiated sur-vival of firms, offering promising contributions in the field of strategic management, particularly with regard to dynamic environments. The evolutionary approaches of the firm present a two-

tiered analysis—the selection system of the environment and the adaptation process of the firm. Environmental selection analysis focuses on the selection logics of the competitive environment that determine the survival of the firms. Firm adaptation analysis, on the other hand, concentrates on (1) the generation of variations in organizational activities designed to fine-tune its alignment with the selection system of the environment, and (2) in-house selection and propagation of these variations. The variation and selective retention (VSR) model proposed

by Campbell (1965) consolidates the application of the logic guiding biological selection to firms that appears in the semi-nal works by Alchian (1950) and Hawley (1966). The works by these authors have definitively influenced the field of study for organizational evolution through their influence on early researchers and students from the 1960s through the 1980s, such as Bill McKelvey, Sidney Winter, Howard Aldrich, Mike Hannan, John Freeman, Karl Weick, Jerry Salancik, and Joel Baum (Baum & McKelvey, 1999). The VSR model presents three main components—vari-

ations, selection, and retention. For Campbell (1965), firms strive to enhance their ability to survive and their effectiveness and efficiency in attaining their goals through adapting their activities to environmental demands. Attempts at changing established activities constitute variations in ways of doing things. Variations that lead to a better-adjusted alignment between the firm and its environment are selected for reten-tion, duplicated, and propagated in-house throughout the firm. For the author, the outcome of this process is evolution, in the sense of a better alignment between the organization and the selection system of the environment. There are three types of sources for these variations: (1) diffusion or imitation,

when one firm copies the characteristics of other firms (Camp-bell, 1965; 1974); (2) selective propagation of time-related variations, through which the firm duplicates and propagates variations that arise spontaneously in response to institutional pressures, creative flair, or errors that eventually lead to better practices (Campbell, 1977b; 1981); and (3) rational selection, through which the agents constituting the firm perceive po-tentially better variations through analyzing its activities and the environment (Campbell, 1977a). In the field of organizational theory, population ecology

expressed in the studies of Hannan and Freeman (1977; 1989), among others, assumes that organizations flourish and fade on the basis of their ability to adapt to the selection processes in the environments where they operate. Organiza-tions are affected by their environments, shaped by the models through which their administrators formulate strategies, make decisions, and implement them. In the field of econom-ics, evolutionary economics expressed in the work of Nelson and Winter (1982), among others, based on the concepts of Schumpeter (1934), apply the evolutionary model based on biological selection in a pioneering manner in order to understand changes in the economic environment. The focus is largely on innovative technological dynamics, industrial development, and market structures, as well as growth and business cycles (Witt, 1992). However, these evolutionary theories do not satisfactorily

indicate the links between the micro (firm) and the macro (environment) levels of the analysis. Population ecology directs its interest toward detailed examinations of the selection logics and processes of the competitive environment, neglecting the issue of variations and their implications for strategy. Mean-while, although evolutionary economics concentrates on varia-tions in the environment, examining their consequences on strategic behavior, it reduces the logic and the environmental selection process to technological innovations. In order to identify complementarities between approaches

of population ecology of organizations and evolutionary eco-nomics that may contribute to the synthesis on organizational evolutionary dynamics, this paper explores paths for dealing with studies and research into the dynamics of the competi-tive environment and its implications for a research model in the strategic management area. It is important to stress the stimulus in this field of outstanding researchers in the área, such as Murmann, Aldrich, Levinthal, and Winter (2003). At the conceptual level, we use an epistemological cross

section, highlighting a transversal view of the evolutionary approaches of population ecology and evolutionary economics. At the methodological level, we apply the metatriangulation technique in order to highlight points of similarity and diver-gence between these two theoretical approaches, attempting to overlap and entwine construals into a new understanding (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Grimes &Rood, 1995;Lewis&Grimes,

Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 89

1999)- We implemented the metatriangulation in four stages. In the first stage, we analyzed individually and in detail the vision of each approach to the relationship between the firm and its environment. In the second stage, we developed metaconjectures—that is, interpretative propositions based on two theoretical approaches to relationships between the firm and its environment. In the third stage, we aimed at developing a multiparadigmatic standpoint, striving to ex-pand conventional theoretical definitions in order to reach an understanding that could accommodate both approaches. In the fourth and final stage, we completed the metatriangula-tion with a criticism of the resulting theory and the process of its construction. The main lesson from this theory-building exercise was that

the ecology and evolutionary economics models are similar and complementary, with no antagonistic aspects between them, but rather are distinct analytical standpoints with intrinsic flaws. The resulting model presents a two-tiered analysis: the selection system of the environment and the adaptation processes of the firms. Competitive dynamics ground the se-lection system of the environment, with the selection factors gathering the complementary factors proposed by ecology and evolutionary economics: technological innovation, demo-graphíc processes (related to age and size), environmental dy-namism, population density and other institutional processes, and interpopulation dynamics. As ecology does not deal with the adaptation process of the firms (generation, selection, and propagation of variations in the organizational activities), the theoretical foundation of evolutionary economics supports this dimension of the model, allowing the focus to be shifted from ecological research projects examining selection logic to environmental variations and their strategic implications. The model offers three main contributions for future research into strategic management. First, it allows the development of descriptive and normative studies of the relationship among the environmental selection factors and the different types of enterprise strategies. Second, the proposed conceptual framework may be beneficial for studies of interorganizational learning. Third, the model has the advantage of responding to the criticism of strategy theories in terms of their inability to generalize.

POPULATION ECOLOGY

The starting point for population ecology is the seminal text by Hannan and Freeman (1977) titled "The Population Ecology of Organizations." Inspired by the question "Why are there só many kinds of organizations?" population ecology tries to explain how political, economic, and social conditions affect the relative abundance and diversity of types of organization, trying to justify the mutating composition of organizations over time (Baum, 1996).

Hannan and Freeman (1977) view an organizational popula-tion as being similar to the concept of the species in biology: a cluster of firms with the same organizational form or structure. These authors defined the organizational form analogously to the DNA protein chains that contain the entire set of in-structions for the development of certain biotic structures. In other words, for the authors, the organizational form is the genotype of the firm—that is, the set of instructions for the development of a certain type of firm and for the conduction of collective actions by its components. In operational terms, it may be defined through four key dimensions, the phenotype of the firm—organizational objectives, types of authority, technologies, and markets (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Rao & Singh, 1999). The organizational form assigns a set of similar risks and advantages to the population of firms for survival, thus generating a characteristic of unity. On the other hand, populations interrelate among themselves in a competitive or symbiotic manner, forming organizational communities (Brittain & Wholey, 1988). Ecology strives to explain the diversity found in the levels

of the population and the community. To do só, it starts out from the principle established by Hawley (1966) that there is an isomorphism between the diversity of organizational forms and the diversity of environments. It adopts an evolutionary model, assuming that in each distinguishable environment only populations adapted to its specific demands can survive. Ecology provides two key contributions to the Hawley model. First, it supplements the model by explicitly highlight-ing competition as a mechanism generating isomorphism (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). As the resources available to firms in the environment are finite and the growth capacity of populations is unlimited, competition becomes inevitable, constituting the environmental selection mechanism. The second is questioning the assumptions presented by Hawley on the adaptation capacity of firms in uncertain and hetero-geneous environments. The view is that the rigidity of the organizational structure required to comply with demands for reliability and justifiability in performance would give rise to inertial pressures against changes. Consequently, this would curtail the ability of firms to adjust and align with the environ-ment through variations in their core characteristics (Hannan & Freeman, 1984: 154—155). From this standpoint, attempts at change, even when intended to ensure the survival of the firm, will lead to the obsolescence of the routines, skills, com-petences, and relationships with environmental players that the firm developed in the course of its operations. Consequently, this would bring solidly established firms at more advanced stages of bureaucratization down to a level similar to that of newcomers, with a greater risk of collapse over the short term. With regard to organizational innovation, the ecology thesis is that the probability of the occurrence of variations would decrease with the age and size of the firms.


However, Hannan and Freeman (1984: 161) assume that firms managing to survive changes in the core characteristics over the short term would face declining risks of failure over the course of time, as they would reestablish their organizational legitimacy. These authors thus indicate that organizations can surmount the short-term negative effects through managing the process of change. On the other hand, Amburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993) suggest that organizational changes are linked to the progress of the firm. By making changes, the organization will make change itself into a routine. Moreover, these authors foresee that the effect of past changes on new changes would be dynamic. The repetition of specific changes would occur with great probability during the period subse-quent to their occurrence, declining over time. Baum (1996) presents a broad-ranging review of ecological literature on organizational change and failure, noting that current research projects do not seem to uphold the hypothesis that the prob-ability of changes drops with the age and the size of the firms. Ecological theory remains muddled with regard to structural inertia. Firms change in response to environmental stimuli, usually without adverse effects. However, due to the idea of structural inertia, the evolu-

tionary model for ecology assigns prevalence to environmental selection in terms of the adaptation of the firm (development of variations and their retention and propagation throughout the firm). "Extending the received wisdom about adaptation [Hawley's adaptationist premises] requires specification of the underlying dynamic processes and attention to {envi-ronmental} selection. In the organizational world, selection occurs through the emergence and demise of organizational forms, which depend on the fates of individual organizations" (Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll, 2007: 18). Interest focuses on the environmental logics of selection elimination linked to com-petition and the dynamism of the environment. Along these lines, there are two basic ecological considerations. The first, linked to competitive dynamics, is related to the available capacity in the environment to underpin the expansion of vari-ous organizational forms. The second, linked to environmental dynamism, focuses on the growth rate (or shrinkage) of popu-lations when environmental characteristics change. Conse-quently, theory and research in this field focus on the founding and failure rates of organizational populations as analysis units. The environmental factors related to selective elimination associated with organizational establishment and failure may be grouped into three theme-specific blocks—demographic processes, ecological processes, and environmental processes. These factors are presented below.

Demographic Processes

This first theme-specific block gathers the environmental fac-tors related to selective elimination linked to the effects of the

characteristics of the firms, such as age and size, on the failure and founding rates in an organizational population. With regard to the influence of age, the prevailing view is

that younger organizations are more likely to present higher failure rates than older organizations, suffering a liability of newness, due to the need to learn roles and create organiza-tional routines (Freeman & Hannan, 1983). For Hannan and Freeman (1984), selective pressures in stable environments favor organizations able to demonstrate that they are reliable and have justification, demanding high reproductive capaci-ties. As selection processes favor replicable structures, older organizations are less likely to fail than start-ups. Thus, failure rates rise initially as start-up funding runs out for new firms, tending to drop as they build up reliability and justification (Fischman & Levinthal, 1991)- This phenomenon is known as liability of adolescence. As alignment with the environment slips out of kilter due to outside variations, the organizational failure rate starts to rise again. This phenomenon is known as liability of obsolescence and senescence (Ingram, 1993). Figure l summarizes the effects of age in stable environments. With regard to size, the view is that growth contributes

to inertia in organizations. As selective pressures and stable environments favor structurally inert organizations due to their reliability, larger organizations are considered as being less vul-nerable to the risks of failure (Hannan & Freeman, 1984).

Ecological Processes

This second theme-specific group of environmental factors related to selective elimination gathers those linked to the influence of environmental dynamism and intra- and inter-population dynamics on the founding and failure rates of the populations. In stable environments, firms seek an organizational form

that is optimized for responding to environmental demands, becoming specialists in this field. In dynamic environments, outside variations tend to reduce the alignment capacity of the organizational form with the environment, stepping up the risk of failure as age and size increase. In order to operate in this type of environment, firms deploy two possible strate-gies. The first strategy for dynamic environments, which is generalist strategy, consists of seeking an organizational form that is not optimally adapted to any special environmental configuration but is optimum in terms of the total set of pos-sible configurations. Thus, organizations become generalists (Freeman & Hannan, 1983). This generalist approach requires a stockpile of organizational headroom—that is, capacities held in reserve that are not committed to action (for example, personnel qualification levels) although available for dealing with environment variations, thus ensuring flexibility (Han-nan & Freeman, 1977). The second strategy for dynamic environments, which is the specialist strategy, consists of


optimizing the organizational form in order to respond to a narrow range of environmental configurations. This strategy is preferred for environments where variations are frequent (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). These environments are called refined. Consequently, generalist organizations will seem inef-ficient compared to their specialist counterparts, due to idle capacity that is frequently considered as wasted. Still, from the standpoint of the ecological process, many

research projects have focused on intrapopulation dynamics. Earlier founding and failure patterns for a population may influence the founding rate (Delacroix & Carroll, 1983). Earlier foundings indicate a fertile niche for potential entrepreneurs. However, as more firms are founded, the competition for re-sources also becomes keener, discouraging newcomers. Along the same lines, initial increases in population density lead to the greater cognitive legitimacy of a population, triggering an upsurge in the start-ups rate and a drop in the failures rate (Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Haveman, 1994). On the other hand, populations develop relationships with other popula-tions engaged in activities linked to their own, affecting each other through two-way influences (Baum & Oliver, 1991; Rao & Singh, 1999)- Interpopulation relations are based on varied leveis of competition and symbiosis (Brittain & Wholey, 1988).

Environmental Processes

The third theme-specific block aligns the environmental fac-tors related to selective elimination associated with the insti-tutional and technological levels that influence the founding

and failure rates in organizational populations. Factors linked to the institutional environment are tied to institutional con-formity. Political turbulence affects social alignments through breaking away from established relationships and releasing funds for new firms (Carroll, 1983). For example, government regulations may stimulate demand, regulate competition, and offer subsidies (Barnett & Carroll, 1993). Connections with community and public institutions enhance legitimacy, pos-sibly providing funds and thus reducing organizational failures (Baum & Oliver, 199D-

The institutional environment constitutes the broadest social context for the occurrence of ecological processes: the institu-tional environment may prescribe the environmental selection criteria to judge whether an organization or entire population must survive or not. (Baum, 1996: 162)

On the other hand, technological innovation hás the potential to influence organizational populations deeply, as it may shatter markets and alter the relative importance of an assortment of resources, challenging organizational learning capacities and altering the nature of the competition (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Technological cycles into which new and radically different technologies are introduced, excluding outdated technologies, allow the establishment of new orders of mag-nitude and performance that can contribute to the establish-ment of new enterprises and turn them into technologically superior contenders (Dosi, 1984; Tushman & Anderson, 1986; Van de Ven & Garud, 1994). This focus on technological changes and their impact

on environmental dynamics, more specifically on economic


dynamics, characterizes the evolutionary approach to econom-ics, presented below.

EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICS

The starting line for the evolutionary approach to economics is the book by Nelson and Winter (1982), An Evolutionary

Theory of Economic Change, rated as a classic in this field, which establishes the general lines of an evolutionary economic theory. The core issue is to understand the behavior of the firm, its capacities, and its limits for adapting in an environment of changes (Nelson & Winter, 2002). From this standpoint, evolutionary economics appears as a theoretical field that is eminently contrary to the assumptions adopted by the or-thodox neoclassical approach, particularly with regard to the hypothesis of the maximizing rationality of the agents and optimizing behavior, which leads to a trend toward an even balance in the economic system. An evolutionary approach in economics constitutes a field for investigation that is essentially interdisciplinary. According to Saviotti and Metcalfe (1991), the main theoretical lines underpinning an evolutionary ap-proach are the theory of innovation developed by Schumpeter, the theory of the evolution of species in biology, the theory of systems and thermodynamics in physics, and the theory of organizations in management. Although rejecting the label of evolutionary, Schumpeter is

considered as the seminal author by evolutionary authors. In fact, evolutionary authors use evolutionary analysis to consider economic dynamics as proposed by Schumpeter (Nelson & Winter, 1982: 39). From a Schumpeterian view, the process of innovation is the basis of competition in a capitalist system, with the sources of innovation being organized research and corporate development drives. Thus, innovation is an adaptive response to a rapidly changing environment with constant imbalance. The inspiration in biology is based on the adoption of the

concepts of variation, selection, adaptation, and heredity, as proposed by Campbell (1969).

Sociobiological literature, or that part of it which applies evolutionary theory to human social behavior, links analysis of biological selection mechanisms to a long-standing tradition of study of sociocultural evolution. Campbell (1969) provided an excellent survey of that broad field and argued for the merits of a variation and cultural selection—retention theory of sociocultural evolution. Our own work may be viewed as a specialized branch of such a theory, as may the work of econo-mists and lawyers exploring the evolution of the common law and the efforts of organization theorists who have taken the evolutionary tack. (Nelson & Winter, 1982: 43)

Variation is defined by the number of players, activities, and objects required in the composition of an economic system.

Increased variety is prompted by the introduction of new sectors, as well as enhanced productivity in existing sectors. The creation process may be exemplified when changes occur in technological paradigms, with new companies being set up creating new production techniques, new products, and new forms of production organization (Dosi, 1984). The selection

and retention process is the result of the competition process, with profit as the expression of the selection and the source of constant adaptations by the firms (Nelson & Winter, 1982). The competition triggers changes in the capacities of the competitors through selection (the best-adapted organization survives) or adaptation (less-adapted organizations change). The new capacities that improve the adjustment of firms to the environmental selective system pressures are this way kept and propagated. The intensity of selection pressures on the market plays a crucial role in determining the speed of response of firms in terms of enhancing their competitive capacities.

The Firm, Routines, and Selection Environments

According to Dosi and Teece (1993), the firm is based on specific skills and competences for coordinating activities and learning about new activities in complex environments undergoing constant changes. These competences underpin the competitive capacity of the firm, consisting of an articu-lated set of abilities, complementary assets, and organizational routines. The routines constitute the basis for reproducing skills and

competences under the aegis of the firm. Along these lines, the concept of routine is similar to that of the gene in biology— that is, a persistent (hereditary) characteristic of the firm that determines its future behavior, as is the case with the replica-tion of new units. The routines correspond to the genotype of the firm, constituting its organizational form, operationally defined by the set of dominant technical and administrative competences (McKelvey), or by its core competence (Dosi & Teece, 1993). The notion of routine reflects the influence of the theory of organizations on the evolutionary approach, based on the firm behavioral theory of Cyert and March (1992) and Simon (1955). Based on the principle of bounded rationality, the concept of routine reflects an analytical standpoint focused on the process of choice rather than on a set of choices through which the maximum profits is sought, as proposed in the neoclassic theory. The optimum point is substituted by the satisfactory, meaning that firms seek profit, but not necessarily maximum profit (Simon, 1955). As presented by Dosi and Egidi (1991), the solution of

problems through routines is characteristic of environments suffering from procedural uncertainty, where uncertainty emerges due to the complexity of the decision-making process. In other words, "routinized" decision processes diminish the


uncertainty of calculating the information required to resolve the problem. This concept of procedural uncertainty perme-ates formal models of evolutionary economics in the sense that the players in the organizations lack the capacity to "take a broader view" of the environmental context and decide on the best alternative to be adapted by the organization, or even to understand the causal structure of organizational experiences or deduce the best strategy for the players (Nelson & Winter, 1982). According to Nelson and Winter (1982: 14), routines re-

flect the daily life of the company, meaning they are regular and predictive in terms of corporate behavior, ranging from technical decisions on production through to investment decisions. Routines may be classified into three categories: operating routines—that is, routine activities of the firm, given its inventory of capital, equipment, plants, and other pro-duction factors; investment routines—that is, activities for the establishment of the inventory of capital (production factors that are fixed over the short term); and change routines—that is, activities for changing operating characteristics (search routines),

conducted by marketing departments, research and develop-ment (R&D) laboratories, and so forth. The search routines spur the mutation process of the firm, similar to the process in biology where mutations occur within a genetic base. From this standpoint, the process of evolution is partly deterministic and partly stochastic. On one hand, the operating routines define the quantity of inputs used and goods produced. To-gether with the market supply and demand conditions, these quantities define the prices of inputs, feedstock, and goods, and consequently the profits of the firm. On the other hand, the profits resulting from the market selection process imply constant reviews of production and investment decisions made by firms, including the establishment of new search routines (Nelson & Winter, 1982). It is worth noting that routines change in response to the

environmental changes. They also undergo a selection process; that is, firms with certain routines perform certain functions better than others and consequently tend to increase their relative importance in the firm population. This way the VSR model (Campbell, 1965) also applies to the level of the firm (Levinthal, 2007).

Technological and Organizational Strategies

The concept of routine is crucial for defining the Strategies of the firm, as the strategy is construed as the policies of the firm or the highest rules for guiding decision making (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Decisions are not made in an arbitrary manner, regardless of the technical, economic, and market contexts within which the firm operates. In other words, from the evolu-tionary economics standpoint, the technological environment and the conditions in which the agents function may be very

different, opening up a broad range of opportunities in terms of science and technology (Malerba, 2002). According to the definition proposed by Malerba and

Orsenigo (1993), the technological environment is defined on the basis of the conditions of opportunity, appropriability, and degrees of cumulativeness of technological knowledge, in addition to the nature of the related knowledge base. Op-portunity reflects the ease of innovation for any amount of money and resources invested in research.1 Appropriability summarizes the possibilities of protecting innovations from imitations and generating profits through activities based on innovation: poor appropriability conditions denote economic environment characterized by the ample existence of externali-ties. Cumulativeness is related to the path-dependent nature of the innovative process, where today's innovations and in-novative activities form the foundations and building blocks for constructing the innovations of tomorrow; that is, today's innovative firms are more likely to innovate in the future than their noninnovative counterparts.2 Finally, the knowledge base is defined along two dimensions—tacitness and complexity. The tacitness level drops as knowledge becomes more codified, with easier access. The complexity level is defined on the inter-connection levels among the various types of knowledge and disciplines (scientific and technological), as well as the actual variety of skills and competences related to the production process, demand characteristics, access of suppliers, materials, outside R&D activities, and só forth. The compositions of these dimensions of the technological

regime vary among sectors, and it is these compositions that define a menu of options and trade-offs in terms of techno-logical Strategies and basic types of organization for firms (Figure 2). The more tacit and complex the knowledge, the greater the need for total integration through the development of internal codes and Communications channels, in addition to the integration of scattered fragments of knowledge, with weaker abilities or possibilities of transferring it to other firms, or that the latter may assimilate and reproduce such knowl-edge. On the other hand, the less complex the knowledge base and the higher the levei of technological pervasiveness, the greater the opportunity for diversification. Dosi and Teece (1993) show that the dimensions of the

technological regime are not defined only outside the firm. Although closely related to the industry, technological op-portunities are also influenced and nurtured by the innova-tions developed by firms through their research activities. Along these lines, Dosi and Teece propose a triple-pronged organizational strategy typology: in-house learning processes of the firm, forces that demarcate and focus the learning pro-cesses (path dependence, complementary assets, technological opportunities, transaction costs), and the selection environ-ment. In fast-learning situations, with ample technological opportunities and steady progress, firms specializing in a

94

single product expand rapidly. On the other hand, in a slow learning context with a steady course (high path dependence) and specialized assets, specialized firms may be expected to evolve to some level of horizontal integration and significant vertical integration. In fast-learning situations with a lengthy evolutionary

track record due to the presence of generic technologies and a strongly selective environment, diversified firms are found. When the path dependence is low, the learning curve is flattish and the selection environment is weak, conglomerates or other highly diversified companies are noted, with few intracorporate transactions. In fast-learning contexts, with technologies on collision paths and highly selective environments, firms are found in networks, enmeshed in a dense tangle of intercor-porate relationships through holdings, joint ventures, and strategic alliances. If the learning curve is flatter, there will be a possibility of firms diversifying in-house, with no need for interfirm agreements. In a situation with converging technol-ogy paths, the establishment of hollow corporations is more likely through establishing contracts for quickly assembling an assortment of capacities that address the development and sale of a product. Unless their organizational routines are Consolidated, these firms will probably not survive in highly selective environments.

Finally, it is worth stressing that, from the standpoint of evolutionary economics, the innovation process is essentially interactive. Along these lines, corporate behavior may be understood only through the links between the skills and competences of the firm and the development of the industry, guided by technologies, demands, and institutions (Malerba & Orsenigo, 1993). Firms do not innovate on a stand-alone basis, as innovation is grounded on a collective process where firms interact with others in addition to other institutions such as universities, government departments, and research centers. These links among many different players constitute what is called the innovation system, which presents three leveis of analysis—national (Lundvall, 1992), regional, and sectoral (Malerba, 2002). Interaction among players is a complex process that largely defines the dynamics of the innovation system (Saviotti, 1997).

A SUMMARIZED PROPOSAL FOR STUDYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM

AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

This section presents a comparison of the evolutionary models for population ecology and evolutionary economics through critical reflection on each model, summarizing their similari-


ties and underscoring differences and constraints. It also pres-ents a sketch of a model that gathers the complementarities of these approaches through a two-tier analysis—the selective system of the environment and the adaptation process of the firm (generation, retention, and propagation of variations). The purpose of this model is to underpin the study and un-derstanding of the evolutionary dynamics of organizations and their implications for a strategic management research model, particularly from the standpoint of the relationship between the organization and its environment.

Similarities, Differences, and Limitations of Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics

Grounded on the logic of natural selection in biology applied to organizations, the evolutionary models for ecology and evolutionary economics are striving to understand the variety of organizational forms and their shifting composition over time. For both, competitive dynamics constitutes the core of the environmental selection process. This is based on the assumption that the environment in which firms operate is changing constantly, always unbalanced, só that organizations must adapt rapidly to their environmental context in order to survive in these competitive processes. Similar to biology, both theoretical approaches define the organizational form as the genotype of the firm. For ecology, this would correspond to the DNA proteins structure—that is, the set of instruc-tions for structuring a specific type of firm and the conduct of the collective actions of its components (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Evolutionary economics defines the routines of the firm like its genes. Thus, the organizational form is shaped by the set of dominant technícal and administrative competences (McKelvey, 1982) or by its core competence (Dosi & Teece, 1993). Differences between evolutionary economics and ecology

are related mainly to the type of approach of the selection environment, more specifically the factors shaping the com-petitive dynamics and their implications on feasible strategies. Differences in analytical standpoints also give rise to differing analysis units. In ecology, competitive dynamics is linked to the dispute

for finite resources (such as raw materials, qualified labor, funding, and others) at the population level. The popula-tions are gathered into communities and present symbiotic or competitive relationships among themselves. Faced by the unlimited growth capacity of the populations, competition, and the environmental dynamism, each market selects for sur-vival the populations that are best adapted to their demands, thus establishing an isomorphism between the diversity of the populations (or the organizational forms) and the diversity of the environments. The analysis unit adopted is the growth (or shrinkage) rate of the organizational populations in terms of

the selection factors (age and size, environmental dynamism, population density, interpopulation dynamics, and institu-tional and technological processes). Although its basic intention is to understand the constantly

shifting composition of organizations ("Why are there so many types of organizations?"), ecology ranks environmental selection high, generally neglecting the adaptation process (development of organizational variations and their reten-tion and propagation throughout the firm) due to the idea of structural inertia. Paradoxically, the focus of ecological research projects examining structural inertia has focused on the influence of demographic process (related to age and size) on organizational changes in firm populations. The problem is that there is no theoretical and methodological support for dealing with organizational adaptation in ecology. The catego-rization of the changes to be studied has been developed in a fairly broad-ranging manner, such as the study by Amburgey et ai. (1993), for example, which examined variations in the content and layout of newspapers, or the study by Haveman (1992), which analyzed variations in home mortgages. The internai varieties of the categories established for analysis have been considered as equivalent, thus blunting the accuracy and realism of the research projects. In order to understand the adaptation process better, it seems that corporate competences and routines require more direct measurements. In turn, for evolutionary economics, competitive dynamics

are based on technological innovation and the institutional aspects of the innovative process. It studies the competitive environment as much as the corporate adaptation process to its demands. Along these lines, the analysis units include the firm as well as the technological environment and the institutional aspects of the innovative process, expressed in the national, regional, and sectoral innovation system constructs. This con-sequently highlights one of the constraints of the evolutionary approach to economics. It stresses the logics of environmental selection based on technological innovation to the detriment of the others. An example is the social and political process that permeates market evolution (Fligstein, 1996). Evolutionary economics neglects the institutional processes building up shared rules on the competitive and cooperative relationships among firms that are not tied to technological innovation and their effects on environmental selection. On the other hand, when evolutionary economics deals

with the adaptation processes of the firms based on search and selection routines, it offers massive contributions in the field of strategic management, bridging one of the constraints of ecology. This approach enables firms to define organizational and technological strategies based on the conditions shaping the technological regime (Malerba & Orsenigo, 1993) and their in-house conditions, such as the ownership of complementary assets and the evolutionary path followed by the firms (Dosi & Teece, 1993).


It is worth highlighting that research projects conducted under the aegis of evolutionary economics, at the firm levei, have disregarded two points. The first refers to the weak commitment of the field to the study of the selection process for the variations developed by firms (Levinthal, 2007: 293). The second corresponds to the limited attention paid to the role of coordinating and settling disputes that take place on organizational routines and competences (Coriat, 2000: 216). However, it is important to stress that these disregarded as-pects are noted in the research projects conducted, rather than from the evolutionary model standpoint, which stipulates the adaptation process and the grounds required for analysis and study at this levei.

Complementarity Between the Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics Models: A Proposed Synthesis

As noted, the ecology and evolutionary economics models are similar and complementary. They have no antagonistic aspects between them, but rather distinct analytical standpoints with intrinsic flaws. We outline a model below that gathers the complementarities of these two approaches based on a two-tiered analysis—the selective system in the environment and the adaptation process of the firm (generation, retention, and propagation of variations). Initially, the analysis level of the firm is considered. Evo-

lutionary economics addresses the issue of organizational ad-aptation based on the firm behavioral theory (Cyert & March, 1992; March & Simon, 1993) and the Schumpeterian theory of competition, grounded on the process of innovation. In turn, ecology does not deal with the process of generating, selecting, and propagating variations in organizational activities, instead concentrating on the environmental selection system. Thus, from the standpoint of adaptation by the firm, evolutionary economics complements ecology with the theoretical founda-tion required to analyze the adaptation process (generation of variations, their selection and propagation throughout the firm). It also complements ecology by proposing a study of the relationship between the strategy and the technological environment in order to steer the variations generation pro-cess. On the other hand, ecology gathers firms with the same organizational form into populations, allowing the study and generalization of the influence of the logics of environmental selection on these corporate clusters. Along these lines, the view of ecology extends beyond sectoral boundaries, encom-passing intermediate analytical levels, such as that of the communities of firms. Moreover, the selection system of the environment in ecology includes factors that complement evolutionary economics. The proposed model is set forth in Figure 3, overlapping and

entwining the approaches adopted by evolutionary economics and ecology in an effort at synthesis. The selection system of

the environment is centered on competitive dynamics, with the selection factors gathering the complementary factors proposed by evolutionary economics and ecology: techno-logical innovation, demographic processes (related to age and size), environmental dynamism, population density and other institutional processes, and interpopulation dynamics. As ecology does not examine the adaptation processes of the firm (generation, selection, and propagation of variations), the proposed model adopts the theoretical foundation of evolution-ary economics for this aspect (March & Simon, 1993; Nelson & Winter, 1982). In other words, the model views firms as repositories of organizational capacities and routines that strive for alignment with the demands of the selection environment in order to attain their objectives in an effective and efficacious manner, stepping up their chances of survival. To do so, firms attempt to introduce variations in their routines, skills, and competences and select the ones that enhance this alignment for retention and dissemination throughout themselves. According to evolutionary economics and ecology, the

model takes on the organizational form as the genotype of the firm, viewed as the production and management technology of the organization. The model embodies the ecological idea that firms with the same organizational form are grouped into populations, while these populations gather into communities, developing symbiotic or competitive relationships. The selec-tion system of the environment works at all three levels—firm, population, and community. Moreover, these levels interact, establishing a multitiered environmental selection system. This standpoint extends beyond the idea of multilevel analysis as such. As explained by Howard Aldrich:

multilevel selection means that we take seriously the pos-sibility that what benefits, or alternatively what decreases, the fitness of a unit within a larger unit actually raises the fitness of the larger unit. Evolutionary explanations cannot always be straightforward. It's not a matter of adding things up. In these cases, we have to consider what the net balance is between multiple levels of selection. (Murmann et ai., 2003: 26, emphasis in original)

The proposed model encompasses the idea of evolutionary economics for generating strategies based on prior knowledge of the environment and the activities of the firm, striving to steer the generation process of variations to be attempted in organizational routines, skills, and competences. The model supports three strategic levels: the business unit levei, which involves the quest for comparative advantages through lower costs or innovation (Porter, 1980); the corporate level, which involves the definition of product and market segments, busi-nesses or industrial sectors in which the firm operates (Rumelt, 1974); and the collective level, which refers to initiatives based on strategic cooperative partnerships (Astley & Fombrun, 1983). At the business unit level, the model allows studies of

Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative

the relationship between the multitiered environmental selec-tive system and variations in processes throughout the firm's value chain. At the corporate and collective levels, the model favors the comparative characterization of the population and community dynamics of the firms involved with the sectors, businesses, and segments potentially considered for choice. For these two latter levels, it opens up the possibility for drawing up and generalizing specific strategies for firms in the same population or community. The model also stresses the possibil-ity of normative and descriptive studies of these aspects. The proposed model also assumes that the process of select-

ing variations in organizational routines and competences spurs the evolution of the firm, when it is inductive, implemented through learning processes based on trial and error (Campbell, 1974; Nelson & Winter, 1982). We believe in low inventive capacities from the prescient problem-solving standpoint,

called "rational" by Campbell (1974), through which a duly

talented and educated group generates the possible action al-ternatives for responding to unknown environmental stimuli, preselecting the best options based on their "beliefs about the linkage between the choice of actions and the subsequent impact of those actions on outcomes" (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000: 113). This process of generating and selecting alterna-tive actions, also called the "offline" search by Lippman and McCall (1976), limits the choice of variations to the simplified mental model of the environment developed by the decision makers based on earlier experiences built up during the his-tory of the firm (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000; Simon, 1991; Thagard, 1996). In order to ensure the possibility of effective invention, the firm should consider the alternative actions generated by the "offline" process as part of its portfolio of "tentative" alternative actions, trying out and


comparing them, in terms of their effects on the alignment between the organization and its environment. It must assess truly new alternatives through experimentation. Lippman and McCall (1976) called this process the "online" search mechanism. Consequently, the evolution of the firm requires multiple tentative experiments sounding out alternative ac-tions, of which it will select only a few. Firms must view the failure as part of the evolution process and must weigh the opportunity cost of not using the current options against the payback on real inventions. Campbell (1981) referred to this issue as the "experimentation society." In order to make his idea quite clear, he began to use the phrase "blind variation," which resulted in his model becoming known as the blind variation and selective retention (BVSR) model. It is worth stressing that blind variations are not necessarily random. Previous selected variations and institutional processes (throughout the history of the firm) may predispose the organization to participate in certain experiments or block the chance of others. In other words, variations are not necessarily equiprobable and statisti-cally independent (Campbell, 1974).

CO�CLUSIO�S

The purpose of this paper is to identify complementarities between the population ecology and evolutionary econom-ics approaches that could contribute to the synthesis of the relationship between the organization and the environment and its implications for a research model in strategic manage-ment. This study was guided by metatriangulation—that is, the multiparadigmatic theory-building investigation method proposed by Lewis and Grimes (1999). We believe that the aim of the work was accomplished. The outcome is an integrative model for these two evolutionary theoretical approaches. The resulting model intends to be broader ranging and more

complete in its analytical and explicatory capacities than the evolutionary economics and ecology models individually. On one hand, the ecology model does not offer grounds underpin-ning the studies of organizational adaptation due to the lack of attention paid to the adaptation processes of the firms. On the other hand, although the evolutionary economics model presents the grounds for the study of organizational adaptation, it focuses only on the technological factor in the environmental selection process. The new model extends its predecessors by grouping the conditioning factors for environmental selection proposed by ecology (demographic processes, environmental dynamism, population density, institutional processes not linked to technological innovation, and interpopulation dynamics) and evolutionary economics (technological para-digm and regime; national, regional, and sectoral innovation system) in order to study and analyze the adaptation of the firms (generation, selection, and propagation of variations in

organizational routines, skills, and competences). In general, the model offers three main contributions from the standpoint of future research into strategic management. The first contribution is that the resulting model adopts a

multitier environmental selection standpoint that implies the planning and implementation of strategies in a dynamic and Interactive manner, taking the context of the firm into account as well as the context of the population and the communities in which the organization functions. The failure or success of the firm is related to its interaction with its environment, in a feedback process among the routines of the firm, the environ-mental selection factors, and the community and population dynamics. Taking an example involving the population-community dynamic, for a century, from the second half of the eighteenth century to the second half of the nineteenth century, the population of companies harvesting ice in the Boston re-gion dominated ice supplies in the United States (Utterback, 1994: 145—166). However, the demand for steady supplies at lower prices from the populations of breweries, meat packers, and hospitais, among others in the southern United States created market niches that could tolerate high prices, leverag-ing the rapid spread of a new population of machine-made ice companies throughout the South, later replaced by electrome-chanical refrigeration facilities. In just a few years, this thriving natural ice industry disappeared. The outcomes at the levei of the community were favorable, responding to demands from consumer populations, notwithstanding the complete disap-pearance of an entire population of companies. The new model allows the development of descriptive

and normative studies of the relationship among the com-ponents of the proposed multitier environmental selection system and the formulation and implementation processes of the enterprise strategies at the business unit, corporate, and cooperative leveis. The second contribution is that the proposed conceptual

framework may be beneficial for studies of interorganizational learning—that is, processes by which "one organization causes a change in the capacities of another, either through experience sharing, or by somehow stimulating innovation" (Ingram, 2005: 642). For example, the proposed model supports the study of the relationship between the population growth (or failure) rates and the dissemination of certain routines among the population firms. Taking the example of the pharmaceuti-cal industry in the United States, in the 1980s, the adoption of new productive routines based on DNA synthesizing and sequencing and cell fusion methodologies for producing hy-bridomas led the population of pharmaceutical labs to develop collaborative partnerships with small biotechnology firms dedicated to human therapeutics and diagnostics (Powell, White, Koput, & Owen-Smith, 2005). Ecology and evolution-ary economics do not have the conceptual foundations required


for studying the relationship between the dissemination of these new routines in the population of pharmaceutical labs and the population growth (or failure) rates when examined separately. The ecology does not support the study of the dis-semination of the new routines and competences throughout populations, and evolutionary economics does not support the population of pharmaceutical labs as unit of analysis. The third contribution of the model is that it has the ad-

vantage of responding to the criticism of strategy theories in terms of their inability to generalize. Approaches based on aggregate analyses at the industrial structure level as well as the resource-based view of the firm approach

take a single firm as a strategic referent, treating strategic analysis as something done uniquely by that firm. [However,] if the application of scientific methods is more than just pretense, there would seem to be something fundamentally wrong with viewing the strategic problem as one of understanding what is unique about a particular firm and its situation. (Freeman, 1995: 219—220, emphasis in original)

Regarding the enunciation of strategies, the ecology model is descriptive and limited to generalizing strategies for deal-ing with environmental dynamism (specialist strategy versus generalist strategy). The model neglects the other factors conditioning environmental selection, as well as the levei of analysis of the community—that is, the limited attention paid to the adaptation process of the firm and its direction by strategies. In turn, the evolutionary economics model enunciates

and generalizes strategies based on the technological factors conditioning the selection environment, in a normative man-ner, using the industrial sector as the unit of analysis. There are three constraints in this model. The first is the concept of the industrial sector which is limited for dealing with the environmental dynamics because it may include several populations. This is the case of industrial sectors related to the segments of capital and intermediate assets that group different activities in terms of target markets, coordinating structures, production processes, and technological contents configuring different populations. Taking the example of the industry of Food Product Machinery Manufacturing (NAIC [North American Industry Classification} 333294), it groups machines ranging from orange juice extraction, meat and poultry processing, and chewing gum fabrication through to brewing and ice cream production, among others. The second is its focus on only the technological-conditioning factors of the selection environment, neglecting other selection factors. The third is that the model does not take into consideration the symbiotic and competitive relationships among populations located in different industries. The importance of considering the community level is perceived in the example presented

above on the population of harvested ice companies in United States, in which the dynamics of the community resulted in the disappearance of this once prosperous industry (Utterback, 1994: 145-166). In the model presented in this paper, the strategic reference

focuses on the multitiered selection system (firm—population— community)—that is, the constraints of the precedent models are supplanted. Finally, we believe that this study establishes a conceptual

framework that may serve as the basis for future research proj-ects in strategic management. Aspects that may be researched in the future that are not supported by ecology and evolution-ary economics models individually include

1. Is there a difference in the survival rates of firms adopting a specific routine compared with other firms in a given population?

2. Does the adoption of new routines ratchet up the mortal - ity rate for companies in terms of the population?

3. What is the influence of demographic factors (associated to age and size) in the process of changing routines and competences for firms in a single population?

4. Do interpopulation relationships of symbiosis or competition influence the generation of variations through imitations among firms in the symbiotic or rival populations?

5. Might demographic processes (associated with age and size) influence the propagation of new routines in a single population?

6. Does an increase in population density (cognitive legitimacy) persuade the firms in a population to make use of common routines and competences?

7. Is there any relation between the growth rate (or shrinkage) of imitators and environmental dynamism?

8. Do the generalist and specialist strategies adopted by firms in response to environmental dynamism influence the search routines?

NOTES

1. The technological environment may be characterized by high opportunity conditions in the initial industrial development stages. Low opportunity conditions may be related to the final industrial development stage. Moreover, opportunities vary among industries and technologies. 2. Cumulativeness may be analyzed at three leveis: individual

and technological, which is related to the specific characteristics of technologies and the cognitive nature of learning processes; organizational, which is related to the organization of various learning activities, such as the existence of R&D laboratories; and the firm, which is related to the quantity of resources required for innovation.


REFERE�CES

Alchian, A. 1950. Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. Journal of Polítical Economy, 58(3): 211—222.

Amburgey, T.L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W.P. 1993. Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (1): 51-73.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory

of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Astley, W.G., & Fombrun, C.J. 1983. Collective strategy: The

social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of

Management Review, 8 (4): 576-587. Barnett, W.P., & Carroll, G.R. 1993. How institutional constraints

affected the organization of early American telephony._/6w»«/ of Law, Economia, and Organization, 9 (1): 98-126.

Baum, J.A.C. 1996. Organizational ecology. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization

studies: 77-115. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Baum, J.A.C., &McKelvey, B. 1999. DonaldT. Campbells evolv-

ing influence on organizational science. In J.A.C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor

of Donald T. Campbell: 1-15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baum, J.A.C., & Oliver, C. 1991. Institutional linkages and

organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly,

36(2): 187-218. Baum, J.A.C., & Singh, J. 1994. Organizational hierarchies and

evolutionary processes: Some reflections on a theory of or-ganizational evolution. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 3—20. New York: Oxford University Press.

Boston Consulting Group. 1968. Perspectives on experience.

Boston: BCG Press. Brittain, J.W., & Wholey, D.H. 1988. Competition and coexis-

tence in organizational communities: Population dynamics in electronics components manufacturing. In G.R. Carroll (Ed.), Ecological models of organizations: 195-222. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T., & Sultan, R.G.M. 1975. Market share: A key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 51 (1): 97-106.

Campbell, D.T. 1965. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H.R. Barringer, G.I. Blanksten, & R.W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A rein-

terpretation of evolutionary theory: 19^8. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

--------- . 1969. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. General Systems, 14 (1): 69—85.

--------- . 1974. Unjustified variation and selective retention in scientific discovery. In EJ. Ayala, & T. Dobzhansky (Eds.), Studies in thephilosophy ofbiology: 139—161. London: Macmülan.

--------- . 1977a. Comment on "the natural selection model of conceptual evolution." Philosophy of Science, 44 (3): 502—507.

--------- . 1977b. Keeping the data honest in the experimenting society. In H.W. Melton & J.H. David (Eds.), Interdisciplinary

dimensions of accounting for social goal and social organization:

37-42. Columbus, OH: Grid.

--------- . 1981. Introduction: Getting ready for the experimenting society. In L. Saxe & M. Fine (Eds.), Social experiments: Methods

for design and evaluation: 13—18. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Carroll, G.R. 1983. A stochastic model of organizational mor-

tality: Review and reanalysis. Social Science Research, 12 (4): 303-329.

Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 128-152. Coriat, B. 2000. The "abominable Ohno production system":

Competences, monitoring, and routines in Japanese pro-duction systems. In G. Dosi, R.R. Nelson, & S.G. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities:

213-243. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1992. A behavioral theory of the firm.

2d ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Delacroix, J., & Carroll, G.R. 1983. Organizational foundlings:

An ecological study of the newspaper industries of Argen-tina and Ireland. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28 (1): 274-291.

Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal ofLaw & Economics, 16(1): 1—9.

Dosi, G. 1984. Technical change and industrial transformation: The

theory and an application to the semiconductor industry. London: Macmillan.

Dosi,G.,&Egidi, M. 1991. Substantive and procedural uncertain-ty: An exploration of economic behaviors in changing environ-ments. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, l (2): 145—168.

Dosi, G., & Teece, D. 1993. Organizational competence and the boundaries of the firm. Working Paper no. 93-111, University of California at Berkeley.

Fischman, M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1991- Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration de-pendence in social an organizational relationships. Academy

of Management Review, 16 (2): 442^68. Fligstein, N. 1996. Markets as politics: A political-cultural ap-

proach to market institutions. American Sociological Review,

61 (4): 656-673. Freeman, J. 1995. Business strategy. In C. A. Montgomery (Ed.),

Resource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm: Towards a

synthesis: 219—250. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Freeman, J., & Hannan, M.T. 1983. Niche width and the dy-

namics of organizational populations. American Journal of

Sociology, 88 (6): 1116-1145. Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking

backward: Cognitive and experimental search. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 45 (1): 113-137. Gioia, D.A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on

theory building. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 584-602.

Grimes, A.J., & Rood, D.L. 1995. Beyond objectivism and relativism: Descriptive epistemologies. In J.P. Jones III, W. Natter, & T.R. Schatzki (Eds.), Objectivity and its other:

161-178. New York: Guilford Press. Hannan, M.T, & Carroll, G.R. 1992. Dynamics of organizational

populations: Density, competition, and legitimation. New York: Oxford University Press.


Hannan, M.T., Si Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of or-ganizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5): 929—964.

--------- . 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149—164. -. 1989.

Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Hannan, M.T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G.R. 2007. Logics of organiza-

tions theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hatch, MJ. 1997. Organization theory: Modem symbolic and post-

modern perspective. London: Oxford University Press. Haveman, H.A. 1992. Between a rock and a hard place: Organi-

zational change and performance under conditions of envi-ronmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly,

37 (1): 48-75. --------- . 1994. The ecological dynamics of organizational change:

Density and mass dependence in rates of entry into new markets. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary

dynamics of organizations: 153-165. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hawley, A.H. 1966. Ecologia humana. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. Ingram, P. 2005. Interorganizational learning. In J.A.C. Baum

(Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations: 642—663. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ingram, P.L. 1993- Old, tired, and ready to die: The age of the dependence of organizational mortality reconsidered. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Academy of Manage-ment, Atlanta, GA.

Levinthal, D.A. 1994. Surviving Schumpeterian environments: An evolutionary perspective. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 167—176. New York: Oxford University Press.

--------- . 2007. Bringing selection back into our evolutionary theories of innovation. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Perspectives on innovation: 293-307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, M.W., &Grimes, AJ. 1999- Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management

Review, 24 (4): 672-690. Lippman, S., & McCall, J. 1976. The economics of job search: A

survey. Economic Inquiry, 14(2): 155—189. Lundvall, B.A. 1992. 8ational systems of innovation: Towards a

theory of Interactive learning. London: Pinter. Malerba, F. 2002. Sectoral system of innovation and production.

Research Policy, 31 (2): 247-264. Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, C. 1993. Technological regimes and firm

behavior. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2 (1): 41-71. March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1993- Organizations, 2d ed. Cam-

bridge, MA: Blackwell. McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizationalsystematics. Berkeley: Univer-

sity of Califórnia Press. Montgomery, C.A. 1995. Resource-based and evolutionary theo-

ries of the firm: Towards a synthesis. Norvell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Murmann, J.P, Aldrich, H.E., Levinthal, D., & Winter, S.G. 2003. Evolutionary thoughts in management and organiza-tion theory at the beginning of the new millennium. Journal

of Management Inquiry, 12 (1): 22—40. Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of eco-

nomic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --------- . 2002. Evolutionary theorizing in economics. Journal of

Economic Perspective, 16 (2): 23—46. Porter, M.E. 1980. Estratégia competitiva: Técnicas para análise de

indústrias e da concorrência. Rio de Janeiro: Campus. Powell, W.W., White, D.R., Koput, K.W., & Owen-Smith, J.

2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4): 1132-1205.

Rao, H., & Singh, J.V. 1999- Types of variation in organizational populations: The speciation of new organizational forms. In J.A.C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organiza-

tion science: In honor ofDonaldT. Campbell: 63—77. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reve, T. 1990. The firm as a nexus of internai and externai con-tracts. In M. Aoki, B. Gustafsson, & O. Williamson (Eds.), The firm as a nexus of treatises. London: Sage.

Rumelt, R. 1974. Strategy, structure, and economic performance.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Saviotti, P.P. 1997. Innovation systems and evolutionary theories.

In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institu-

tions and organizations: 180—199- London: Pinter. Saviotti, P.P., & Metcalfe, J.S. 1991- Present development and

trends in evolutionary economics. In P. Saviotti, & J.S. Met-calfe (Eds.), Evolutionary theories of economic and technological

change: 1—29. Berkshire, UK: Harwood Academic. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The theory of economic development. Cam-

bridge: Harvard University Press. Simon, H.A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quar-

terly Journal of Economics, 69 (1): 99-118. --------- . 1991. Organizations and markets. Journal of Economie

Perspectives, 5 (2): 25-44. Thagard, P. 1996. Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press. Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinui-

ties and organizational environments. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 31 (3): 439-465. Utterback, J. 1994. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press. Van de Ven, A.H., & Garud, R. 1994. The coevolution of tech-

nical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary

dynamics of organizations: 425-443. New York: Oxford University Press.

Witt, U. 1992. Evolutionary concepts in economics. Eastern

Economic Journal, 18 (4): 405-419.

Bataglia meirelles population_ecology_and_evolutionary_economics_._2009_

Technology

Transcript of Bataglia meirelles population_ecology_and_evolutionary_economics_._2009_