Tag Archives | Competition

Competitive Exclusion versus Mimetic Isomorphism: An Identified Empirical Test

William P. Barnett, Xiao Xiao, Yi Zhou

Sociological Science June 21, 2021
10.15195/v8.a11


Why are organizations sometimes so similar, and in other cases so different? For decades this question has been central to research on organizations, and two leading theories have answered the question very differently. Neo-institutional theory points to the importance of mimetic isomorphism, where organizations imitate one another as they navigate decisions in the context of uncertainty over what is regarded as legitimate action. By contrast, ecological theory argues that competitive exclusion explains the differences we see around us, as organizations repel one another when they vie for the same resources. Decades of empirical work have tended to confirm one or the other prediction, with little acknowledgement of their opposition. Furthermore, much of the existing empirical work is limited to descriptive studies that make little or no attempt to empirically identify their findings, leaving the empirical record open to concerns over endogeneity. This article conducts an identified empirical test in a context where the two arguments make opposing predictions. In an analysis of auditor selection after the collapse of Arthur Andersen, we find evidence of competitive exclusion but no evidence of mimetic isomorphism. Implications for the continued progress of organization theory are discussed.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

William P. Barnett: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
E-mail: william.barnett@stanford.edu

Xiao Xiao: Guanghua School of Management, Peking University
E-mail: xxiao@gsm.pku.edu.cn

Yi Zhou: Center for Social Research, Peking University
E-mail: yizhou.ccer@gmail.com

Acknowledgments: Order of authorship is alphabetical. Correspondence to William Barnett (william.barnett@stanford.edu), or, for questions regarding the data analysis, correspondence to Yi Zhou (yizhou@pku.edu.cn). Research support was provided by the Stanford Graduate School of Business and by Peking University. Thanks for useful advice and comments from Jon Atwell, Özgecan Koçak, Balázs Kovács, Jesper Sørensen, and Olav Sorenson.

  • Citation: Barnett, William P., Xiao Xiao, and Yi Zhou. 2021. “Competitive Exclusion versus Mimetic Isomorphism: An Identified Empirical Test.” Sociological Science 8: 211-229.
  • Received: April 2, 2021
  • Accepted: May 5, 2021
  • Editors: Gabriel Rossman
  • DOI: 10.15195/v8.a11


0

The Spatial Scope of Competition and the Geographical Distribution of Entrepreneurship: Magazine Foundings and the U.S. Post Office

Heather A. Haveman, Christopher I. Rider

Sociological Science, April 8, 2014
DOI 10.15195/v1.a9

We propose that the geographic distribution of entrepreneurship evolves as developing communication systems alter the spatial scope of competition Our arguments imply that as spatial barriers to communication diminish founding events will be less sensitive to local context and more sensitive to distant competition. We test this argument with data on the first modern communication system, the US post office, and foundings of organizations that depended on it for distribution: magazine-publishing ventures. We find that as the postal system expanded, the spatial scope of competition among magazines increased: magazines in distant locations exerted more negative effects on local founding rates, whereas magazines in the focal location exerted less positive effects on local founding rates These findings reveal how spatial barriers to competition shape the geography of entrepreneurial activity.

Heather A. Haveman: University of California, Berkeley. E-mail: haveman@berkeley.edu

Christopher I. Rider: Emory University. E-mail: chris.rider@emory.edu

  • Citation: Haveman, Heather A., and Christopher I. Rider. 2014. “The Spatial Scope of Competition and the Geographic Distribution of Entrepreneurship: Magazine Foundings and the U.S. Post Office.” Sociological Science 1: 111-127.
  • Received: September 17, 2013
  • Accepted: October 27, 2013
  • Editors: Jesper Sørensen, Olav Sorenson
  • DOI: 10.15195/v1.a9

0
SiteLock