IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mgs/ijoied/v9y2023i1p7-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The New Industrial Organization: Ecosystem Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Lorne

    (School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Vancouver, Canada V5M 4X5)

  • Anjum Razzaque

    (School of Computer Sciences, College of Business and Technology, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455, USA)

Abstract

This paper characterizes a new industrial organization framework for analyzing ecosystem formation and competition by recognizing the Schumpeterian force of creative destruction. Economists’ framework of profit maximization is replaced by a Welfare Enhancing framework (WEF)as a more pragmatic and realistic characterization of reality. Consumers are not fish in the ocean waiting to be preyed upon; they have free choice and broad lifestyle choices. The supply and demand framework is still relevant even though profit maximization in the theoretical sense that it has been technically crafted by economists may not. Firms as epistemic communities are more fitting as the behavioral assumption that can be more pragmatically applied. By using graphs and examples, three types of ecosystems are discussed, each sharing the commonality of data management as a driver for its respective ecosystem. The first two types of data management, coupled with pricing, bundling, and various industrial organization conducts, help to promote the welfare-enhancing growth of their respective ecosystems in an innocuous manner. The third type has an electrifying component resembling features of “two-sided” markets that may require Antitrust regulation. The key difference between the third and the first two types of competition is that the third type could lock in data with a specific investment of productivity less than the ideal optimal, thus reducing welfare rather than enhancing welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Lorne & Anjum Razzaque, 2023. "The New Industrial Organization: Ecosystem Competition," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 7-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:mgs:ijoied:v:9:y:2023:i:1:p:7-17
    DOI: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.91.2001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchleap.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/01_The-New-Industrial-Organization.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://researchleap.com/the-new-industrial-organization-ecosystem-competition/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.91.2001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Shenxue & Clark, Timothy & Sillince, John, 2018. "Constructing a strategy on the creation of core competencies for African companies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 204-213.
    2. Chris Kimble, 2013. "Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00826911, HAL.
    3. Chris Kimble, 2013. "What Cost Knowledge Management? The Example of Infosys," Post-Print halshs-00826906, HAL.
    4. Ditillo, Angelo, 2004. "Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: the role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 401-421.
    5. Maryam Ghorbankhani & Federica Rossi, 2023. "Intrinsic and strategic complementarity of research and knowledge transfer activities as determinants of knowledge transfer management: evidence from public research organisations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1386-1412, August.
    6. Weterings, Anet & Boschma, Ron, 2009. "Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance?: Evidence from the Dutch software sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 746-755, June.
    7. Fritz Rahmeyer, 2006. "From a Routine-Based to a Knowledge-Based View: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of the Firm," Discussion Paper Series 283, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    8. Soufiane Mezzourh & Walid A Nakara, 2009. "Governance and innovation : A Knowledge-based approach [La gouvernance de l'innovation : une approche par la connaissance]," Post-Print halshs-01955966, HAL.
    9. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    10. Vitor Braga, 2004. "Business networking for SMEs as a means to promote regional competitiveness: A Theoretical Framework," ERSA conference papers ersa04p455, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    12. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2000. "Heart of darkness: modeling public-private funding interactions inside the R&D black box," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1165-1183, December.
    13. Diégo Legros & Fabrice Galia, 2012. "Are innovation and R&D the only sources of firms’ knowledge that increase productivity? An empirical investigation of French manufacturing firms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 167-181, October.
    14. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    15. Christoph Engel, 2006. "The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_1, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    16. Wang, Daojuan & Hain, Daniel S. & Larimo, Jorma & Dao, Li T., 2020. "Cultural differences and synergy realization in cross-border acquisitions," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(3).
    17. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    18. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    19. Dolfsma, W.A., 2006. "IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-004-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Rogerio S. Victer, 2020. "Connectivity knowledge and the degree of structural formalization: a contribution to a contingency theory of organizational capability," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Creative Destruction; Epistemic Communities; Welfare Enhancement; Data Productivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M00 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mgs:ijoied:v:9:y:2023:i:1:p:7-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bojan Obrenovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://researchleap.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.