Two major advances in the theory of the firm and (micro)economics more generally are arguably transaction costs economics (TCE) and the theory of firm resources. TCE has originally been applied to the theory of the firm, but found applications in virtually all fields of economic inquiry. The theory of firm resources currently spans much of the industrial organisation (IO) and strategic management literature. In some fields, e.g. diversification, it has already acquired dominant status. Despite significant progress in TCE there still seem to remain significant unresolved issues. Indeed we claim that transaction cost economics fail to supply convincing answers to the issues of the nature of the firm (why do firms exist?), and their essence (running a business). It offers a partial explanation of the “nature” and little on the “essence”. The resource value view complements the nature side and goes far beyond on the essence issue. It provides a fruitful starting point for an integrative framework. This, we suggest, should be based on the resource value perspective story and craft (dynamic) transaction costs in the ensuing evolutionary tale.

No abstract

No abstract

Since 1978, an important literature has been developed on the relationship between gross national product and energy. The obvious interest in this relationship is a result of the global interest in reducing the use of energy without impairment of economic growth. Most studies do not have an economic model underlying the statistical models. In the absence of an economic model supporting the estimable equations, the statistical results can be interpreted arbitrarily or they may not have an interpretation that can be theoretically supported. In this paper we attempt to do four things. First, we briefly present the four hypotheses that have been formulated to express the energy-gross domestic product (GDP) relationship. Second, we argue that the relationship between GDP and energy, as is formulated in two of the hypotheses (the growth hypothesis and the feedback hypothesis), and as is examined in part of this literature, suffers from misspecification, because a decisive factor for the energy market is missing. Third, we use basic economic theory to show how GDP and energy are related on the basis of production theory and derived demand for factors of production, and, fourth, we conclude by suggesting which of the four hypotheses can serve as a meaningful approximation of the relationship.