Firm resource stock, resource complementarity, and the heterogeneity in resource value

  • HoWook Shin
  • Seung-Hyun Lee


Although the central question in the resource-based view (RBV) is what determines the value of resources, it is not easy to find research on how generic resources add value. However, lack of generic resources can be detrimental for the firm. We propose that the value of a generic resource depends on the acquiring firms’ resource stocks and on the extent to which the resource complements the firms’ existing resource stocks. Specifically, we predict that a new generic resource is more valuable to firms with poorer resource stock. We also argue that cash that better complements firm resource stock than other generic resources generates larger performance improvement. We test our arguments by using data established by a natural experiment whereby resources (i.e., cash and tangible resources) are randomly disbursed to Sri Lankan microenterprises that experienced a natural disaster. Taking advantage of a difference-in-difference estimation, we find empirical support for these arguments.


Resource value Firm resource stock Natural disaster Cash Performance improvement Difference-in-difference 


  1. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armendariz, B., & Morduch, J. 2005. The economics of microfinance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ault, J. K., & Spicer, A. 2014. The institutional context of poverty: State fragility as a predictor of cross-national variation in commercial microfinance lending. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1818–1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. 2013. The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. BREAD working paper no. 278, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32: 1231–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney, J. B. 1997. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27: 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. 2004. How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119: 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. 1995. The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bluedorn, A. C. 1993. Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and convergence in research on organizational size and environments. Journal of Management, 19: 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. 2000. Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruderl, J., & Scbussler, R. 1990. Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 530–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coff, R. W. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deb, P., David, P., & O’Brien, J. 2017. When is cash good or bad for firm performance?. Strategic Management Journal​, 38(2) 436–454.Google Scholar
  16. De Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. 2008. Returns to capital in microenterprises: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123: 1329–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. 2011. Enterprise recovery following natural disasters. Economic Journal, 122: 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. 2012. One-time transfers of cash or capital have long-lasting effects on microenterprises in Sri Lanka. Science, 335: 962–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35: 1504–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. 2008. Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. George, G. 2005. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurenko, E., & Lester, R. 2004. Rapid onset natural disasters: The role of financing in effective risk management. Policy Research working paper no. 3278. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. Hulme, D. 2000. Impact assessment methodologies for microfinance: Theory, experience and better practice. World Development, 28: 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobson, R. 1987. The validity of ROI as a measure of business performance. American Economic Review, 77: 470–478.Google Scholar
  26. Khandker, S. R. 2005. Microfinance and poverty: Evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. World Bank Economic Review, 19: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, C., & Bettis, R. A. 2014. Cash is surprisingly valuable as a strategic asset. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 2053–2063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C., & Groen, A. J. 2010. The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36: 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. 2007. Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Makadok, R. 2001. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Makadok, R., & Coff, R. 2002. The theory of value and the value of theory: Breaking new ground versus reinventing the wheel. Academy of Management Review, 27: 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maritan, C. A., & Peteraf, M. A. 2011. Building a bridge between resource acquisition and resource accumulation. Journal of Management, 37, 1374–1389.Google Scholar
  33. McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. 2002. The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newbert, S. L. 2007. Empirical research on the resource based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newbert, S. L. 2008. Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 745–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Park, Y., Hong, P., & Roh, J. J. 2013. Supply chain lessons from the catastrophic natural disaster in Japan. Business Horizons, 56: 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Posdakoff, N. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Priem, R. L. 2001. The business-level RBV: Great Wall or Berlin Wall?. Academy of Management Review, 26: 499–501.Google Scholar
  40. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review, 26: 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. 2004. Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 23–37.Google Scholar
  42. Ritter, J. R., & Welch, I. 2002. A review of IPO activity, pricing, and allocations. Journal of Finance, 57: 1795–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Runyan, R. C. 2006. Small business in the face of crisis: Identifying barriers to recovery from a natural disaster. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14: 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt, J., & Keil, T. 2013. What makes a resource valuable? Identifying the drivers of firm-idiosyncratic resource value. Academy of Management Review, 38: 206–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32: 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In J. C. March (Ed.). Handbook of organizations:142–193. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  47. Stromberg, D. 2007. Natural disasters, economic development, and humanitarian aid. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21: 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trevino, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11: 601–617.Google Scholar
  49. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wernerfelt, B. 2011. The use of resources in resource acquisition. Journal of Management, 37: 1369–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of business Venturing, 20: 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wooldridge, J. M. 2010. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication April/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationBowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  2. 2.Organizations, Strategy, and International Management, Naveen Jindal School of ManagementUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations