Do acquisitions increase, decrease, or have no effect on innovation? The empirical research on this question suggests that acquisitions may hurt innovation; that is, they may be a “poison pill” for innovation. The authors present an alternative view. For firms that first engage in internal knowledge development, the knowledge-based view the authors present suggests that acquisitions can help innovation; that is, they can be a tonic for innovation. Analysis of cross-sectional, time-series data on a sample of pharmaceutical firms during 1988–97 provides evidence to support the thesis.

When scholars map the urban geography of racial and ethnic segregation, they privilege the time when people are at home. When workers commute, however, the tract of residence of one group often becomes the tract of employment of others. It follows that an exclusive focus on the residential geographies of racial groups erases the presence of others who work in those neighborhoods. Not only does this analytical orientation create a false impression of a city's racialized spaces as fixed, but it also misleadingly characterizes neighborhoods as the domain of those who live, rather than work, in them. In addressing this oversight, the study compares levels of residential and work tract segregation for native-born and immigrant groups in a large U.S. metropolitan area, Los Angeles. The analysis reveals that segregation by work tract is considerably lower than by residential tract, suggesting more intergroup interaction takes place during working hours than at home. The difference in segregation between residence and work is very large in the case of native-born whites and Mexican immigrants. These two groups maintain substantially different residential geographies but are quite likely to work in the same tracts. Such work tract complementarities are gender sensitive; they are much more likely between native-born white and Mexican men than between women of these groups. This gendered difference holds across all groups, with men more likely to work in tracts with men from other groups than women with women from other groups. The study offers new perspective on diurnal shifts in urban racial segregation. We conclude by speculating that reduced segregation at workplaces factors into recent increases in rates of interracial partnering, which may, in turn, ultimately leverage change in residential segregation.

No abstract

This paper works through some of the epistemological and methodological consequences of an unreflexive use of white suburbs as the expected residential destination in U.S. spatial assimilation research. Foregrounding immigrant suburbanization in spatial assimilation occludes alternative geographic trajectories; simply put, spatial diffusion need not be central city to suburban decentralization. More problematically, spatial assimilation research often translates residential movement to the suburbs into increasing proximity with whites. This results in the degree of segregation from whites becoming the standard by which immigrant assimilative progress is gauged. Building on critical whiteness studies and recent research on aspatial assimilation, we develop some new theoretical entry points into the process of spatial assimilation. We treat metropolitan areas as constellations of neighborhoods rather than a central city-suburban doughnut and become circumspect in our use of whites as a referent category. Our investigation of spaces of assimilation in greater Los Angeles reveals that established immigrants are more dispersed residentially than recent conational arrivals, although the effect varies by group. For many immigrant groups, these dispersions from concentrations of initial settlement do not reduce segregation from whites. Segregation lessens over time, however, between immigrants and other native-born Americans. For many groups, but by no means all, a dispersed residential pattern is associated with higher quality neighborhoods.

Immigrants concentrate in particular lines of work. Most investigations of such employment niching have accented either the demand for labor in a limited set of mostly low‐wage industries or the efficiency of immigrant networks in supplying that labor; space has taken a backseat or has been ignored. In contrast, this article's account of immigrant employment niching modulates insights built on social network theories with understandings derived from relative location. We do so by altering the thinking about employment niches as being metropolitan wide to considering them as local phenomena. Specifically, the analysis examines the intraurban variation in niching by Mexican, Salvadoran, Chinese, and Vietnamese men and women in four industries in Los Angeles. Niching is uneven; in some parts of the metropolitan area, these groups niche at high rates in these industries, whereas in others, there is no unusual concentration. We show how a group's propensity to niche in an industry is generally higher when the industry is located close to the group's residential neighborhoods and demonstrate the ways in which the proximity of competing groups dampens this geographic advantage. The study speaks to debates on immigrant niching and connects with research on minority access to employment and accounts of the agglomeration of firms. More generally, it links the geographies of home and work in a new way, relating patterns of immigrant residential segregation to those of immigrant employment niches.