JUNE 2000 JOURNAL OF MACROMARKETING A General Theory of Competition: Too Eclectic or Not Eclectic Enough? Too Incremental or Not Incremental Enough? Too Neoclassical or Not Neoclassical Enough? Shelby D. Hunt The author thanks Professors Foss, Hodgson, and Savitt for their kind comments on A General Theory of Competition and replies to the questions they have concerning it. Since its first publication in marketing (Hunt and Morgan 1995) and its subsequent development in economics (Hunt 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, 2000c), general business (Hunt 1998; Hunt and Duhan 2000), management (Hunt 1995, 2000a; Hunt and Lambe 2000), and marketing (Hunt 1997a, 1999; Hunt and Morgan 1996, 1997), resource-advantage (R-A) theory has always been, as Savitt describes it, “provocative.” The commentaries of Foss (2000 [this issue]), Hodgson (2000 [this issue]), and Savitt (2000 [this issue]) testify as to R-A theory’s continuing ability to provoke. Thus, Foss finds R-A theory too eclectic, and Hodgson finds it not eclectic enough; Savitt finds it too incremental, and Foss finds it not incremen- tal enough; Savitt finds it too neoclassical, and Foss finds it not neoclassical enough. My reply will focus on these issues, as well as the commentaries’ discussion of A General Theory of Competition’s ( GTC’s) (Hunt 2000b) treatment of resources and “Austrian” economics. ON ECLECTICISM In chapters 2 through 4, GTC discusses eleven different research traditions and theories that constitute the antecedents and affinities of R-A theory. Foss (2000) finds these efforts to be “overly eclectic,” lacking “clear selection criteria,” and a “tapestry of diverse insights.” Similarly, Savitt (2000, 73) believes “the sewing together of ideas from many literatures has not provided the solid framework that is desired.” On the other hand, Hodgson (2000, 69) reviews these chapters and finds them to be “excellent background reading,” which “use the best of various heterodox approaches to the theory of industries and firms.” For him, these chapters are “highly rec- ommended” because the “core ideas are bold and important.” As “minor criticisms,” Hodgson suggests that the eclecticism in these chapters could have been improved by including the works of Downie (1958), Richardson (1960), and Steindl (1952). In reply, Foss (2000) and Savitt (2000) apparently misun- derstand how R-A theory was created and the purpose of GTC’s devoting three entire chapters (out of ten) to those research traditions and theories that either preceded R-A the- ory or share some affinities (as well as disaffinities) with it. They apparently believe that the theory was developed by first reviewing all these traditions and theories and then “picking and choosing,” without “clear selection criteria,” portions of each tradition and theory to provide an “integrated,” general theory. They are mistaken. All theories spring from their foun- dational premises. My coauthor, Robert Morgan, and I devel- oped the foundational premises and structure (see GTC, chaps. 5 and 6) of R-A theory prior to our having detailed knowledge of most of the eleven traditions and theories (and prior to our even being aware of some of them). It was only after our initial efforts at developing the foun- dations and structure of R-A theory that numerous scholars— including some strong critics—alerted us that the foundations and structure of the theory had parallels in diverse research traditions. After reviewing them, we believed that academic honesty demanded that we acknowledge how the eleven theo- ries and traditions are similar to, but not the same as, R-A the- ory. Again, R-A theory is the product of (1) a specific (and 77 To have one’s work evaluated by respected scholars in industrial economics, institutional economics, and marketing, respectively, is gratifying. To have such descriptors as “important,” “compelling,” “full of important insights,” “challenging,” “comprehensive,” “bold and important,” “extensive and valu- able,” “clear and suasive,” and “much like classical treatises in economics such as Ludwig von Mieses’ . . . or Alfred Marshall’s” applied to A General Theory of Competition by such distinguished scholars is humbling. I appreci- ate their constructive comments and thank Andreas Falkenberg and JMM for offering me an opportunity to reply. Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, June 2000 77-81 © 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.