Business Strategy Perspectives and Economic Theory: A Proposed Integration

By Paulson, Steven K. | Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Annual 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Business Strategy Perspectives and Economic Theory: A Proposed Integration


Paulson, Steven K., Academy of Strategic Management Journal


INTRODUCTION

The assumption of rationality in economics has been challenged most recently by prospect theory. Prospect theory has claims that an individual's personal position relative to a good or service will determine the value of that good to the person in addition to the individual's position relative to the general market for the good (cf. Kahneman, 1999; List, 2003a; List, 2003b; Thaler, 1980). Similar ideas have been discussed as "fuzzy-set social science" (Ragin, 2000; Sen, 2002; Baliamoune, 2003). In the related field of organizational theory, Zey (1998) has argued that rational choice theory is inadequate as a basis for describing and explaining reality; she argues for an historical political economy contingency perspective. The same underlying conceptual themes appear in the work of Miles and Snow (1994) who discuss the "prospecting" strategy.

In this paper, the conceptual relationships between prospect theory as developed and applied to the field of economics by Kahneman and Tversky (2000a, 2000b), Kahneman and Lovallo (1994) and Tversky and Kahneman (2000, 1981) and prospect theory as developed and applied by Miles and Snow (1994, 1978) are discussed. The paper concludes that there is a clear convergence of these theoretical perspectives and that future empirical and macro theoretical integrative work is necessary.

TWO PROSPECT THEORIES

In this section, two theoretical statements will be described, their similarities will be presented and the argument will be presented that because of these similarities, "prospect theory" has far greater applications than envisioned by their respective proponents. The first of these theories is the "prospect theory" developed by economist Daniel Kahneman and various collaborators and stands in contradiction to standard expected utility theory. Expected utility theory underlies much of the reasoning of contemporary economic theory. The second is the "prospect theory" developed by the organization management theorists Raymond Miles and Charles Snow and various collaborators and stands in contradiction to standard rational contingency theory. Rational contingency theory underlies much of the reasoning of contemporary organizational theory.

Economic Prospect Theory

Economic prospect theory was created, essentially, because of apparent weaknesses in the conventional wisdom of classical economic theory. As Edwards (1996) describes:

Prospect theory was formulated... as an alternative method of explaining choices made by individuals under conditions of risk. It was designed, in essence, as a substitute for expected utility theory [because the] expected utility theory model did not fully describe the manner in which individuals make decisions in risky situations and that therefore, there were instances in which a decision-maker's choice could not be predicted. For example, they point out that expected utility theory does not explain the manner in which framing can change the decision of the individual, nor does it explain why individuals exhibit risk-seeking behavior in some instances and risk-averse behavior in others. (Edwards, 1996)

Essentially, then, economic prospect theory attempts to demonstrate that a major flaw of expected utility theory is that it assumes that people assign values to final outcomes and make choices on the basis of them. An example of this assumption is the use of the conventional "present value" formulation to estimate the final value of assets as a crucial element in assessing the desirability of alternative courses of action. Prospect theorists, however, assume that people differentially evaluate gains and losses and not expected outcomes or goal states. They demonstrate, for example, that people value "probable" outcomes differently than they do "certain" outcomes; when outcomes are more probable people will exhibit more risky behavior than when outcomes are less risky. That is, the domain of the utility function for expected utility theory is final states rather than gains or losses per se!

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Business Strategy Perspectives and Economic Theory: A Proposed Integration
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?