Author
Oliver E. Williamson
Other affiliations: University of California, University of Pennsylvania, Indiana University ...read more
Bio: Oliver E. Williamson is an academic researcher from University of California, Berkeley. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transaction cost & Corporate governance. The author has an hindex of 80, co-authored 191 publications receiving 117766 citations. Previous affiliations of Oliver E. Williamson include University of California & University of Pennsylvania.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
26 Feb 2016
8 citations
Posted Content•
01 Jan 1970
8 citations
7 citations
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the huge disparities between the theory of the board of directors as vigilant safeguard for the interests of the equity investors and the board's practice in practice.
Abstract: The much-heralded transformation of corporate governance by ‘intellectual currents in finance and economics and new transactional developments’ (Romano, 2005a, p. 359) notwithstanding, corporate governance controversies continue. This chapter uses the lens of contract/governance to examine the huge disparities between the theory of the board of directors as vigilant safeguard for the interests of the equity investors and the board of directors in practice.1 What is responsible for these disparities? How should they be interpreted? What should be done?
7 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors draw on recent progress in the theory of property rights, agency, and finance to develop a theory of ownership structure for the firm, which casts new light on and has implications for a variety of issues in the professional and popular literature.
49,666 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage and analyzed the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages, including value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability.
46,648 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
32,981 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the concept of social capital is introduced and illustrated, its forms are described, the social structural conditions under which it arises are examined, and it is used in an analys...
Abstract: In this paper, the concept of social capital is introduced and illustrated, its forms are described, the social structural conditions under which it arises are examined, and it is used in an analys...
31,693 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities.
Abstract: In this paper, we argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities. We label this capability a firm's absorptive capacity and suggest that it is largely a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge. The discussion focuses first on the cognitive basis for an individual's absorptive capacity including, in particular, prior related knowledge and diversity of background. We then characterize the factors that influence absorptive capacity at the organizational level, how an organization's absorptive capacity differs from that of its individual members, and the role of diversity of expertise within an organization. We argue that the development of absorptive capacity, and, in turn, innovative performance are history- or path-dependent and argue how lack of investment in an area of expertise early on may foreclose the future development of a technical capability in that area. We formulate a model of firm investment in research and development (R&D), in which R&D contributes to a firm's absorptive capacity, and test predictions relating a firm's investment in R&D to the knowledge underlying technical change within an industry. Discussion focuses on the implications of absorptive capacity for the analysis of other related innovative activities, including basic research, the adoption and diffusion of innovations, and decisions to participate in cooperative R&D ventures. **
31,623 citations