ABSTRACT
A current assessment of the literature concerning dynamic capabilities shows an emphasis on microeconomic analysis, especially the ability of firms to implement organizational routines in pursuit of improvements and self-sustained expansion. The term dynamic capability (DC) is attributed to Teece and Pisano (1994). Notice that Teece et al. (1997, p. 517) define it as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competences to address a rapidly changing environment”. In the studies above we see a preoccupation with the firm’s motivation to prepare itself in terms of its knowledge base and its capacity to innovate and invest, to recombine capabilities and to develop organizational routines, in order to grow in a sustained form and in so doing to improve the economic performance. References on this matter are also found in Kogut and Zander (1992) and Zollo and Winter (2000). It means that this approach has a micro perspective, neglecting, to a large extent the macrodynamics of the system. In this sense, this analysis follows somewhat the tendency of mainstream that privileges the analysis of microeconomic aspects. Different from the mainstream, however, this approach – coherent with its Schumpeterian heritage – does not put emphasis on equilibrium.
