This paper examines the fundamental question of what competition means and how firms achieve superior performance. It presents two major theoretical frameworks for understanding competitive advantage: the Industrial Organization (IO) model, which emphasizes external industry structure and barriers to entry, and the Chamberlinian resource-based view, which focuses on internal firm resources, capabilities, and knowledge. The paper compares these perspectives, showing how IO scholars attribute firm performance to industry-level determinants like competitive intensity and buyer/supplier power, while strategic management scholars emphasize unique internal assets that enable firms to create distinctive competitive positions. Understanding both approaches provides insight into the multifaceted nature of competition and sustained competitive advantage.
What is competition? Who competes with whom? Why do some firms perform better than others? These fundamental questions drive inquiry into how markets function and how organizations succeed. Competition involves one firm attempting to gain market share from another firm. The primary goal or objective for competing firms is to gain a higher return on their strategic investments. In order to achieve this higher return, firms compete with each other either within the same industry (Chamberlin, 1933) or across different industries (Mason, 1939).
The performance of firms depends on their competitive advantage relative to other firms. However, scholars disagree about the sources of competitive advantage. Some emphasize that industry characteristics determine success, while others argue that unique firm-level resources and capabilities are decisive. Understanding these competing perspectives—and how they complement each other—is essential to answering why some firms outperform their rivals.
The Industrial Organization (IO) school of thought focuses primarily on industry-related determinants of firm performance. Industrial organization scholars emphasize external structural attributes including the existence and value of barriers to entry, product differentiation, the number of competitors in the industry, and overall elasticity of demand. According to this view, industries with large barriers to entry, a small number of firms, and low elasticity of demand perform better than industries lacking these characteristics.
A central principle of IO theory is that structural attributes of the industry determine the conduct and strategy of individual firms, which in turn determines firm performance. According to Mason (1939) and Bain (1956), firms cannot significantly influence their industry or their own performance because competitive advantage originates from external sources rather than internal ones. From this perspective, a firm's success is largely predetermined by the industry it operates in.
Porter (1980) advanced IO thinking by identifying five structural parameters that define competition within an industry. These five forces are: (1) current competition among existing firms in the industry, (2) bargaining power of suppliers, (3) bargaining power of buyers, (4) threat of new entrants, and (5) threat of substitute products or services. This framework became foundational to competitive strategy because it showed how firms could analyze their industry environment systematically. When firms understand these five forces, they can position themselves to earn greater than normal (or above-average) profit. The IO model suggests that competitive advantage is accessible to any firm that correctly reads its industry structure and positions itself accordingly.
Strategic management scholars emphasize a fundamentally different source of competitive advantage. Rather than focusing on external industry structure, the resource-based view emphasizes the importance of a firm's unique internal resources as the primary driver of performance variance. This approach inverts the IO assumption: instead of the industry determining the firm, the firm's distinctive assets determine its success.
According to the resource-based perspective, a firm creates competitive advantage through the accumulation, development, and reconfiguration of its unique resources, capabilities, and knowledge. The resource-based view of the firm posits that competitive advantage derives from capabilities or competencies that are difficult for rivals to imitate (Collis, 1994). This perspective focuses on the business processes and operational routines through which firms convert resources into superior performance.
Knowledge-based resources are considered especially relevant to achieving competitive advantage. According to Zack (1999), knowledge resources represent the most valuable asset a firm can develop. Chamberlin (1933) argued that different firms implement strategies based on their unique assets and capabilities, which may alter organizational structure and help them obtain relatively high levels of economic return. Because firms possess different resources and capabilities, even firms in the same industry may achieve varying levels of financial performance. Strategic groups emerge when firms with similar resources and capabilities pursue comparable strategies, yet superior returns go to those firms that possess the most distinctive and defensible assets.
"Synthesis of external and internal competitive advantage sources"
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.