Although the literature on firm boundaries has been greatly influenced by transaction cost economics, strategy scholars often emphasize the importance of capabilities considerations in these decisions. This has led to a debate that, we suggest, has generated more heat than light. We argue that the two sets of considerations are in fact so intertwined dynamically that treating them as independent, competitive explanations is fundamentally misleading. We offer a theoretical synthesis of transaction cost and capabilities approaches to firm boundaries that seeks to overcome each approach's limitations and provides a unified and logically consistent understanding of boundary decisions.

For decades, the literatures on firm capabilities and organizational economics have been at odds with each other, specifically relative to explaining organizational boundaries and heterogeneity. We briefly trace the history of the relationship between the capabilities literature and organizational economics, and we point to the dominance of a “capabilities first” logic in this relationship. We argue that capabilities considerations are inherently intertwined with questions about organizational boundaries and internal organization, and we use this point to respond to the prevalent capabilities first logic. We offer an integrative research agenda that focuses first on the governance of capabilities and then on the capability of governance.