The VRIO Framework of Competitive Advantage
The VRIO Framework of Competitive Advantage
The VRIO Framework of Competitive Advantage
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237382448
Article
CITATIONS READS
2 1,290
1 author:
Kam Jugdev
Athabasca University
92 PUBLICATIONS 1,310 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kam Jugdev on 27 May 2014.
Kam Jugdev1
1
Athabasca University, 8311-11 Street SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2V 1N7
Abstract
creativity with order and innovation with efficiency. In this paper, I focus on
can be assessed with the VRIO framework. Strategic assets are “Valuable” (important),
the dependent variable, and the selection of independent variables. The paper is relevant
to innovation researchers interested in using the Resource Based View lens to study
1
Introduction
development [1]. And in the ever competitive marketplace, innovations are fundamental
Innovation spans a vast and complex field in the academic literature and the body of
comparisons and contrasts between the two fields. In addition, since both innovation and
project management are young fields, researchers can apply well-developed management
In this paper, I draw from the Resource Based View (RBV) of the organization, from a
advantage. I begin this paper with a brief introduction to innovations and project
management. Then, I introduce readers to the RBV and follow this with an overview of
then discuss the ways that researchers could apply this conceptual framework in assessing
2
Innovations and Project Management
products, or processes and may not always involve new markets [3]. Since business
success has to do with competitive advantage, there is heightened interest in the role
service” [5, p. 5]. Project management encompasses the tools, techniques, and
deliver products or services. In some ways similar to the project management stages of
initiation, planning, execution, and closeout, innovation involves a number of stages such
3
innovation connotes originality, inventiveness, and ingenuity, the implementation phase
monitoring and controlling, and balancing the variables of time, cost, and scope. The
seemingly opposing ways of managing the phases of an innovation are also apparent in
The theoretical foundation of innovation evolved rapidly over the past four decades [6].
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the literature on innovation focused on incremental changes
within public sector organizations. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis turned to radical
robotics, and automated materials handling [1]. Theories of innovation include those
(with organic organizations considered the more innovative), the dual core model that
examines administrative and technical innovations [7], and the ambidextrous model
consisting of an initiation and implementation stage [8]. For example, [9] relate the
mechanistic and organic forms of the organization to the initiation and implementation
stages of innovation. They note that companies initiating innovations can be managed
more organically because this phase involves greater uncertainty and creativity, whereas
4
The result is that innovations can contribute to business success. In the next section I
introduce the RBV of the organization, a perspective from strategy that discusses sources
copied by competitors, particularly when competitors use one off innovation to pursue
other innovations [10]. As such, a company must be on constant alert, adapting to its
environment and capitalizing on its assets to create new innovations. Since innovations
can be viewed of as tangible and intangible assets stemming from within the
resources that are different. The RBV explains organizational existence based on internal
assets that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and have an organizational focus (VRIO) [11-
16]. Resources that meet the VRIO criteria contribute to an organization’s competitive
advantage [17-19].
Most companies have many resources (both tangible and intangible) but few that are
strategic in nature. Most strategic assets tend to be knowledge-based and are intangible.
intangible ones that are more likely to serve as sources for competitive advantage [14,
20]. Strategic assets involve a mix of explicit and tacit knowledge embedded in a
5
company’s unique internal skills, knowledge, and resources [21, 22]. Such strengths are
difficult to purchase, let alone copy; as a result, these can contribute to an organization’s
managerial skills [16, 23-26]. Thus the key to creating innovative products/services is
thru tacit knowledge as explicit knowledge alone is unlikely to lead to innovations [27].
In the RBV context, strategic assets can be assessed using the VRIO framework [11].
Reference [11] proposes four questions that can be used to assess resources as potential
Valuable: Reference [11] suggests that the research question regarding value is: “Do a
firm’s resources and capabilities enable the firm to respond to environmental threats or
effectiveness [28]. A resource has value when it exploits opportunities and neutralizes
threats in the environment [13]. In the RBV context, valuable resources are defined in
economic terms, that is, these generate above normal returns [11].
Rare: Reference [11], p. 160 proposes the following question about rarity: “Is a resource
other organizations are common; those resources not widely held by other organization
are rare. Common or generic resources are not sources of competitive advantage. At best,
these are a source of competitive convergence or parity. However, rare resources can
6
offer temporary competitive advantages and are sources of strength [29]. Rareness, then,
competitive parity through value and rareness. Reference [11] says the question of
inimitability that researchers should focus on is: “Do firms without a resource face a cost
Organizational Focus: Finally, in terms of the key questions to ask about the VRIO
framework, [11], p. 160 suggests that researchers also examine the organization: “Are a
firm’s other policies and procedures organized to support the exploitation of its valuable,
rare, and costly to imitate resources?” Organizational focus, then, refers to integrated and
leadership and decisions that support key assets in terms of how these assets are
are the backbones that support strategic assets; organizations protect their assets through
business practices.
Within the VRIO framework, if a resource is only valuable, it leads to competitive parity.
Both value and rarity are required for a temporary competitive advantage. Value, rarity,
and inimitability are required for a sustained competitive advantage [12] and an
[12].
7
Since the RBV addresses intangible, knowledge-based assets as sources of competitive
advantage, the next section briefly discusses the concepts of absorptive capacity and
knowledge sharing.
organization’s capability to exploit the value of new, external information, assimilate it,
Organizations have a certain capacity to absorb new knowledge the way sponges absorb
liquids [31]. The capability of such a capacity is demonstrated by the way an organization
generates outcomes. Organizational outcomes are limited by the amount and nature of
what organizations have absorbed. What researchers wring out from their research
depends on how they squeeze the sponge—showing how much and how continuously the
organization absorbed material. Fiol points out that the stream of literature that focuses
on filling the sponge is analogous to knowledge diffusion. This stream draws from
the sponge may be called the new product/process development literature; its focus is
efficiency and effectiveness. This literature looks at relationships between innovation and
environments, administrative intensity, and slack resources [8]. These studies tend to
8
ignore the accumulation of organizational knowledge that provides the source of the
capability. The fields of innovation diffusion and absorption have been relatively
development [31]. It could be argued that this idea also applies to project management:
management efficiency and effectiveness, but not on filling the sponge (knowledge
Absorptive capacity, more specifically, connotes the concept of knowledge sharing in its
various forms—explicit and tacit knowledge. The literature shows that knowledge is an
intangible asset that is difficult to capture using traditional accounting or financial metrics
[32]. Knowledge is a unique commodity that increases in value with use [32]. The
common thread between knowledge, data, and information is that these all involve a
personal dimension [33]. A useful way of looking at knowledge is with the iceberg
analogy [27, 33]. The tip of this iceberg represents the explicit or visible body of
knowledge, such as the knowledge developed and shared through the tangible project
systematically [34]: it is the know-what that researchers can document. What is ignored,
however, is the larger part of the iceberg, the part that is submerged and tacit.
Tacit knowledge involves the ability to innovate. This knowledge assumes significance
divides tacit knowledge into a technical and cognitive dimension. This technical
9
dimension covers informal personal skills and crafts and could be called know-how, and it
involves beliefs, ideals, values, and mental models. Stories allow people to relate new
concepts with those already known [36]. Such tacit knowledge is shared through
socialization [37]. More specifically, project teams share what they know through
communities of practice.
Communities of practice have social capital underpinnings. This social capital is based on
making connections with others, promoting durable networks, enabling trust, and
conversion in the dynamic knowledge spiral. Knowledge can be converted from tacit to
explicit to tacit (often called internalizing learning), and tacit to explicit (through
I found that the RBV is relevant to project management because project management is a
VRIO Instrument
financial, and utility sectors, I discovered that the concept of knowledge sharing emerged
10
as a strong theme. The following summarizes the key concepts from the qualitative study
that helped develop the items for the VRIO framework project.
1. Leadership: Managerial attention, commitment, and support for project management. One of
the organizations in the study, the Financial Institute provided constant and ongoing support
2. History: Project management evolves over the years. It takes time to embed practices and
make them unique. The Telecom and the Financial Institute developed their project
3. Periods of stabilization: Durations during which major changes do not occur to allow
practices to gel as organizational routines. The Financial Institute allowed for a few years
after introducing new project initiatives where no further changes were made.
4. Link organizational and project management culture: The study showed alignment between
the firm’s culture and its project management culture. The Telecom’s culture was described
5. Organization-wide project management program: The Telecom and the Financial Institute
had organization-wide project, program, and portfolio management practices, thus reflecting
the organization’s view of valuing the discipline and its wide-scale use of the discipline for
other practices.
6. Trade-offs and integration points: Managerial decisions weigh the pros and cons of actions
and consider the implications of each. When the Telecom scaled back its project management
7. Social networking and knowledge-sharing practices: Only the Financial Institute seemed
aware of the benefits of these practices and made a conscious effort to try them.
11
8. Link project management to business outcomes: Project management metrics go beyond time,
cost, and scope, and involve benefits realization. In benefits realization, the project value is
related to the advantages the business unit gains from the initiative.
9. Causal ambiguity: Most of the individuals interviewed acknowledged that their codified
project management practices were easy to copy; they said, however, that the informal, tacit
practices they used to exchange project management knowledge were not. They also
10. Social complexity: A firm’s culture, relationships, and reputation are rooted in social capital
and involve tacit knowledge. To various degrees, all four firms used informal social exchange
11. Continuous improvement: Strong elements of quality improvement and benchmarking metrics
12. Staff embraces project management: There is steadfast, historical support for project
management at all levels of the firm. Project management is embraced and there is an
excitement for it. “It’s our bible,” noted one Telecom manager.
These organizational elements refer to processes and practices that help organizations
develop and sustain project management as a strategic asset. The elements also reflect a
This led me to further examine the literature on knowledge management and explicit and
tacit knowledge. Although the case studies provided rich in-depth details on project
management processes and practices, I found that the results of my study could not be
12
generalized to larger populations. I used the case study findings and concepts from the
As I developed the instrument, and read some literature on innovation, I began to see that
advantage position [10]. In the next section, I present my theoretical framework and then
Theoretical Framework
literature. My primary research question asks: What is the relationship between the
tangible and intangible assets in project management and the performance of the project
management process?
1
A copy of the instrument is available upon request to the author.
13
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
In this model, tangible and intangible assets constitute independent variables that are
software, project management offices, and tools and techniques. Examples of intangible
assets include knowledge sharing practices (e.g., communities of practice and Nonaka’s
four modes of knowledge conversion [39]). I focus on the relationships between these
variables as the interconnections contribute to a stronger VRIO profile for the project
management process.
researchers should also examine the intangible assets of the discipline, such as
assets in project management that enhance the “Valuable” (V) and “Organizational
14
Focus” (O) dimensions, I posit that an investment in the intangible project management
assets enhances the “Valuable” (V), “Rare” (R), “Inimitable” (I), and the “Organizational
Focus” (O) dimensions. I suggest that companies do not appreciate the importance of
intangible assets in the project management context. For example, companies tend to
codify this knowledge at the best of times rather than allow it to remain a fluid way of
exchanging ideas. People learn from informal exchanges, and they tend to learn more
Several studies have examined performance at the business process level [41, 42].
as assessed with the VRIO criteria. I use an intermediate variable (project management
because results from using highly aggregate variables can mislead for several reasons
Companies can have a competitive advantage in some business activities but may lack
associated with different processes within the same company may lead to misleading
different stakeholders may appropriate profits before the organization can realize them
variable shows that “resources are not valuable in and of themselves, but they are
the source of competitive advantage” [19, p. 108]. Nonetheless, I do ask questions about
15
organizational performance so that I can assess the independent and dependent variables
Based on the aforementioned theoretical model and overview of the independent and
VRIO framework.
In the next section, the paper draws from the VRIO framework and relates some research
applying the VRIO framework I used for project management towards organizational
innovations.
This section covers several topics related to the VRIO framework in relation to
innovation research. I selected these topics based on my experiences with the VRIO
framework for project management as well as on the basis of methodological issues that
16
Appropriate Use of Innovation Dimensions
Although innovation typologies abound, the lack of a coherent, agreed to typology for
build on the works of others [43]. For example, [43], describe the innovation process as
modular, improving, and evolutionary innovations. Reference [2] groups the vast
1. The stage of the innovation process (does the organization generate the innovation
or adopt it)
innovation)
4. Scope of innovation.
17
These examples reflect the many ways in which researchers can study innovations. A
consistent typology would help advance the field of innovation research as it would allow
researchers to focus on the same concepts and hence operationalize them in more
consistent ways. The breadth of the literature appears to be captured with the four
using the VRIO framework should be clear on the dimension(s) they are investigating.
multiple industries as well as the rate of innovation [1]. This means that researchers can
use these findings to further develop the theoretical foundation of the field because
studies that span multiple organizations or industries are more generalizable as opposed
to singular studies. The VRIO framework can be used to gather information at the
The project management literature on project success focuses on time, cost, and speed—
as well as the criteria of a successful project. Other than a few noteworthy publications,
such as the works by Belasssi & Tukel, Pinto & Slevin, and Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir, the
conceptual models [46-48]. For these reasons, I did not try to use project management
frameworks to assess the project management process as the dependent variable. Instead,
I used the RBV VRIO concepts to gauge—using both subjective and objective
18
purposes, I included questions on project management success. Future studies on
construct for gauging the effectiveness of innovation-focused projects and processes that
shows both subjective and objective measures. However, with the breadth of concepts
discussed in the literature on this topic, developing such a construct may prove
challenging.
The effectiveness of implementing innovation refers to the consistency and quality of the
organization’s use of an innovation in terms of the benefits it derives, benefits that can
include improved profitability, productivity, customer service, and employee morale [49].
Reference [50] identified four categories of variables that determine the success of an
innovation:
3. Marketing
objective dimension. The literature considers how much better an innovation is relative to
other innovations, innovation compatibility, how consistent the innovation is with values,
past experiences and the needs of adopters, innovation complexity, trialability, and
observability [50]. Innovation researchers could consider combining questions from the
VRIO framework with questions from Frambach’s categories of innovation success [50].
19
In addition, just as not all projects improve organizational performance, neither do all
dependent variable to study the factors determining the effectiveness of the customer
service business process in the insurance industry. I followed their logic in my use of the
VRIO framework for project management. Rather than relating my independent variables
are considering using the VRIO framework to study innovations may want to consider
The literature indicates that many independent variables have been used as organizational
[8]. My brief review of the innovation literature generated many questions about
Reference [51] discuss how the antecedents to innovation speed contribute to project
success. These authors developed a conceptual model on innovation speed that focuses
on the need for speed, the strategic orientation for speed, organizational capability for
20
speed, product quality, innovation speed, cost of development, and project success. If
bring new products/services to market before competitors, then researchers may find it
others argue that it decreases innovation [4]. Some of the variations in these findings are
attributed to the different ways that researchers study concepts [6]. Reference [4] show
moderating decline may be useful ones to consider in the context of using the VRIO
Some researchers say size inhibits innovation because large organizations are more
hierarchical, while other researchers argue that larger organizations are more innovative
[6] [45]. Reference [45] recently conducted a narrative review and meta analysis of
innovation and organizational size. In this, they found a significant positive relationship
between size and innovation: They attribute prior contradictory results to divergent
methods used to operationalize variables. These authors also indicate that there are other
R&D, spending on R&D, and number of innovations. They then claim that organizational
21
organizations. Researchers interested in using the VRIO framework to assess innovations
I encourage those researchers who are interested in applying the VRIO framework to
innovations to select several independent variables that reflect the appropriate tangible
practices by asking questions about tacit knowledge sharing practices (e.g. know-how
knowledge). I also used the four modes of knowledge conversion to assess which modes
variables that related to my research question and reflected the concepts predominantly
Many moderating variables can affect the relationship of organizational factors and
profit and for profit), type of innovation, stage of adoption, and number innovations [8].
measures, and units of analysis. Many innovations are measured and conceptualized at
the product level, but data is gathered at the subsystem levels [44]. These are all factors
that innovation researchers should bear in mind as they consider using the VRIO
22
framework. In my project management study, I decided to use a cross-section of PMI
members because my study is exploratory. Once I have analyzed the study results, I will
In one study specific to innovation, Anderson implores researchers to ensure that they
address specific research question that are well-grounded in theory [53]. Such studies
should clarify what the levels of analysis are in terms of innovation, because researchers
level. Such studies should use appropriate measures that are based on concepts from the
field. The researchers working on such studies should take into account the ways that
To summarize, there are many challenges related to developing good research designs.
Many of these challenges relate to the methods researchers use when selecting
independent and dependent variables. The presence of many independent variables raises
the issue of variable interdependence. Such a presence may warrant using multivariate
analyses. Not only can such analyses be complicated, these will also require adequate
sample sizes [54]. In the VRIO study on project management as a strategic asset, I plan
Conclusion
23
In this paper, I introduced readers to the RBV as well as the VRIO framework that I used
to study project management as a strategic asset. The paper discussed how the conceptual
assets. Then the paper presented three key issues for innovation researchers to consider in
In the preface to the 1996 issue of the Academy of Management Review on innovation
the topic remains to emerge. She attributed this problem, in part, to researchers failing to
present specific characteristics for the innovations they have studied, the stage of
innovation they studied, and the types of organizations they studied. These issues are
studies. When fields such as innovation are evolving, and when such fields lack a holistic
human resources) [55] [56], these researchers draw from other disciplines. This is
applicability of well-developed theories from other fields and those from related
conceptual frameworks and instruments. Researchers should also ensure that they address
study design and methodological issues. Many such issues are common to fields of
management, which means other researchers have already addressed these issues through
empirical studies in other fields. Over time, by drawing from the research methodology
24
lessons our colleagues in other fields have learned, we can continue to advance research
on organizational innovations.
25
References
26
17. Amit, R. and P.J.H. Schoemaker, Strategic assets and organizational rent.
Strategic Management Journal, 1993. 14(1): p. 33-46.
18. Madhok, A., Reassessing the fundamentals and beyond: Ronald Coase, the
transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm and the institutional
structure of production. Strategic Management Journal, 2002. 23(6): p. 535-550.
19. Porter, M.E., Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management
Journal, 1991. 12(5): p. 97-117.
20. Brush, C.G., et al., From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial
challenge of constructing a resource base. The Academy of Management
Executive, 2001. 15(1): p. 64-78.
21. Rumelt, R.P., D.E. Schendel, and D.J. Teece, Fundamental issues in strategy, in
Fundamental issues in strategy, R.P. Rumelt, D.E. Schendel, and D.J. Teece,
Editors. 1994, Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. p. 9-
47.
22. Foss, N.J., ed. Resources, firms, and strategies: A reader in the resource-based
perspective. 1st ed. Resources, Firms and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-
Based Perspective, ed. N. Foss, J. Vol. 1. 1997, Oxford University Press: Oxford,
United Kingdom. 378.
23. Castanias, R.P. and C.E. Helfat, Managerial resources rents. Journal of
Management, 1991. 17(1): p. 155-171.
24. Barney, J.B. and E.J. Zajac, Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an
organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 1994. 15(1): p. 5-9.
25. Kogut, B. and U. Zander, Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of
the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 1993.
24(4): p. 625-644.
26. Hawawini, G., V. Subramanian, and P.J. Verdin, Is performance driven by
industry - or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic
Management Journal, 2002. 24(1): p. 1-16.
27. Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi, The knowledge-creating company. Vol. 1. 1995,
New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 284.
28. Priem, R.L. and J.E. Butler, Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 2001. 26(1):
p. 26-40.
29. Mata, F.J., W.L. Fuerst, and J.B. Barney, Information technology and sustained
competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 1995. 19(4): p.
487-507.
30. Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990. 35(1): p. 153-
175.
31. Fiol, C.M., Squeezing harder doesn't always work: Continuing the search for
consistency in innovation research. Academy of Management Review, 1996.
21(4): p. 1012-1021.
32. Bontis, N., et al., The knowledge toolbox: A review of the tools available to
measure and manage intangible resources. European Management Journal, 1999.
17(4): p. 391-402.
27
33. Fernie, S., et al., Knowledge sharing: Context, confusion, and controversy.
International Journal of Project Management, 2003. 21(3): p. 177-187.
34. Polanyi, M., The tacit dimension. 1966, Garden City, New York: Doubleday &
Company.
35. Leonard, D. and S. Sensiper, The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation.
California Management Review, 1998. 40(3): p. 112-132.
36. Tsoukas, H., The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in
organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 1991. 16(3): p. 566-
585.
37. Granovetter, M., Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 1985. 91(3): p. 481-510.
38. Prusak, L. and D. Cohen, How to invest in social capital. Harvard Business
Review: OnPoint, 2002(Product number 9381): p. 86-94.
39. Nonaka, I., P. Byosiere, and C.C. Borucki, Organizational knowledge creation
theory: A first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 1994. 3(4): p.
337-351.
40. Rerup, C., Imperfection, transfer failure, and the replication of knowledge: An
interview with Gabriel Szulanski. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2004. 13(2): p.
141-150.
41. Henderson, R. and I. Cockburn, Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in
pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 1994. 15(1): p. 63-84.
42. Schroeder, R.G., K.A. Bates, and M.A. Junttila, A resource-based view of
manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 2002. 23(2): p. 105-117.
43. Garcia, R. and R.J. Calantone, A critical look at technological innovation
typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 2002. 19(2): p. 110-132.
44. Gatignon, H., et al., A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct
development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science,
2002. 48(9): p. 1103-1122.
45. Camison-Zornoza, C., et al., A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational
size. Organizational Studies, 2004. 25(3): p. 331-361.
46. Belassi, W. and O.I. Tukel, A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management,
1996. 14(3): p. 141-152.
47. Shenhar, A.J., O. Levy, and D. Dvir, Mapping the dimensions of project success.
Project Management Journal, 1997. 28(2): p. 5-13.
48. Pinto, J.K. and D.P. Slevin, Critical factors in successful project implementation.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1987. EM34(1): p. 22-28.
49. Klein, K.J. and J.S. Sorra, The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy
of Management Review, 1996. 21(4): p. 1055-1080.
50. Frambach, R.T., An integrated model of organizational adoption and diffusion of
innovations. European Journal of Marketing, 1993. 27(5): p. 22-41.
51. Kessler, E.H. and A.K. Chakraborty, Innovation speed: A conceptual model of
context, antecedents, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 1996.
21(4): p. 1143-1191.
28
52. Nonaka, I., A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 1994. 5(1): p. 14-37.
53. Anderson, N., C. De Dreu, K, and B. Nijstad, A, The routinization of innovation
research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2004. 25(2): p. 147-173.
54. Hitt, M.A., B.K. Boyd, and D. Li, The state of strategic management research
and a vision for the future, in Research methodology in strategy and management,
D.J. Ketchen and D.D. Bergh, Editors. 2004, Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford. p. 1-31.
55. Gonzalez, F.J.A., et al., Dominant approaches in the field of management. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2001. 9(4): p. 327-353.
56. Lynham, S.A., Theory building in the human resources development profession.
Human Resources Development Quarterly, 2000. 11(2): p. 159-178.
29