L’attachement préférentiel dans la formation d’alliances stratégiques

Mamavi, Olivier; Meïer, Olivier

doi:10.3166/rfg.241.79-91

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have shown that preferential attachment is a significant process in alliance networks (Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999; Gay and Dousset, 2005; Rosenkopf and Schilling, 2007; Mamavi and Meier, 2014; Corbo et al ., 2016). Hereby, a large alliance portfolio increases the alliance formation activity in the future.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the context of strategic alliances, preferential attachment means that firms with a high alliance portfolio size form more additional alliances (compared to firms with a low alliance portfolio size). Several studies demonstrated that preferential attachment is an important driver of alliance network evolution (Gulati, 1999; Gay and Dousset, 2005; Rosenkopf and Schilling, 2007; Mamavi and Meier, 2014; Corbo et al ., 2016). Yet, the existing literature treated preferential attachment as a universal phenomenon that works in the same way for all members in a network, but we strongly doubt this view.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is it Really a Universal Phenomenon? ‐ Preferential Attachment in Alliance Networks

Rossmannek

Rank

2020

European Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study preferential attachment (i.e., a rich‐get‐richer effect) in alliance networks. Thereby, we argue that various levels (firm, firm group, country) influence the strength of preferential attachment. To test our hypotheses, we take a sample of 117 airlines from 74 countries in the period 2001 to 2011. For the estimation, we use stochastic actor‐oriented models, a method for analyzing longitudinal network data. As a result, we find that preferential attachment is stronger for firms that have fewer resources and are located in a less‐developed country. Consequently, we show how different competitive positions affect alliance strategies.

show abstract