In a recent Opinari email (I can't find it on his website), David Chappell defends his belief reuse is one the fundamental benefits of Service-Oriented Architecture and that SOA will be more successful than previous approaches such as object-oriented or component-oriented development.  His rationale is that services operate at a higher level of reuse than binary classes, and they solve many of the human problems that prevent reuse, such as having to have one single view of business entities and forcing reuse through 'draconian' human policies.

Here's my summary of his three major arguments:

1. Service orientation will lead to better reuse of business-oriented software because it is about sharing application functionality at a higher level than binary classes:
   • Evidence for this comes from the fact that the most successful examples of business reuse comes from packaged applications such as SAP and PeopleSoft
   • Attempts to share business classes, such as San Francisco, haven't been successful.
2. Previous approaches to re-use have failed due to human reasons rather than technology:
   • It is hard to agree on a definition of a business entity, such as customer. 
   • Even if there is agreement about the 'one right view' then it is likely to change over time.
   • It is difficult to force developers to reuse software - given a choice (or allowed to get away with it) most developers will reinvent rather than re-use.  Where reuse has been achieved with previous technologies, it was mostly through 'coercive management structures'
3. Service-orientation overcomes some of the human issues involved with reuse because:
   • Services don't require a single definition of business entity, just conformance with a particular schema. A service-consuming application may have a different view of a business entity as long as it can map to the service's view of that business entity.
   • Services can better handle changes over time.  Service-boundaries are a better way of insulating consuming applications from changes to the internal implementation than base classes and binary inheritance as there is a cleaner separation of external interface from internal implementation.
   • Since services are more explicit with their boundaries, and often these boundaries are physical, it is harder for developers to find ways around them.  This is similar to Clemens' point that well designed services do not share databases.  David's argument is that these design decisions make it easier to enforce reuse.

I like his focus on the human problems that plague reuse.  I also agree that sharing schema is a better approach than sharing class (part of the four tenets of service-orientation), and that using interfaces rather than inheritance leads to more flexibility to cope with change over time (a well-known principle).   I find the argument that service-orientation will make re-use easier to enforce less persuasive, since this seems more to do with deployment than the design philosophy (a component-oriented application could also reuse components that encapsulated a private database).