1993
DOI: 10.2307/2580176
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We, thus, include the number of Japanese FDI entries into a focal industry of China in the prior year to control for this effect. Market entry studies normally consider legitimation and competition as a function of industry density, defined as the number of organizations competing in an industry (Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Hannan & Freeman, 1989). Two types of density are considered in this study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We, thus, include the number of Japanese FDI entries into a focal industry of China in the prior year to control for this effect. Market entry studies normally consider legitimation and competition as a function of industry density, defined as the number of organizations competing in an industry (Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Hannan & Freeman, 1989). Two types of density are considered in this study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also complicates existing interpretation of the "complexity-concentration" relation which emphasizes greater performance, increasing returns, or competitive advantage. Indeed, it may also remind readers of the traditional wisdom in organizational studies [62,63], which abandons perfect functionality and emphasizes entrepreneurial opportunities, and in cultural anthropology [64][65][66], which treats labor densification as a more general cultural form of "involution" that may result in a stasis of productivity. Greater concentration doesn't necessarily rely on the performance or productivity [67,68].…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the actual impact of cloud deployments success should be assessed in terms of firm performance (e.g. profit, sales and process efficiency) (Gupta et al, 2018a) Resource dependence theory (Gupta et al, 2018b;Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003;Hannan and Carroll, 1992;Barrow, 1998) (1) Dependence between two firms is likely to generate asymmetrical association, in turn generating power-associated relationships (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003;Barrow, 1998) (2) A firm that lacks specific resources to fulfil their transactions will aspire to build a relationship with an entity that can help in accomplishing the desired outcomes (1) It is empirical that resource dependence theory can be utilised to have better understanding of the relationship/dependencies between cloud service providers and users (Gupta et al, 2018b) (2) Hannan and Carroll (1992) state that the relationship that is generated between two entities may lead to internal and external changes so that a firm can have to incur during the Cloud ERP implementation Expectation confirmation theory (ECT) (Olson and Dover, 1979;Anderson and Sullivan, 1993;Chang, 2020;Khayer et al, 2020) (1) ECT that is proposed by Olson and Dover (1979), explains attitudes and perspectives towards a service or product rather than explaining its quality factors…”
Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%