Publication records

We study strategic interactions in markets where firms sell to consumers both directly and via a competitive channel (CC), such as a price comparison website or marketplace, where multiple sellers’ offers are visible at once. We ask how a CC’s size influences market outcomes. A bigger CC means more consumers compare prices, increasing within-channel competition. However, such seemingly pro-competitive developments can raise prices and reduce consumer surplus by weakening between-channel competition. We also use the model to study relevant active policy issues including price clauses, integrated ownership structures, and access to consumers’ purchase data.

Research projects that actively involve ‘crowds’ or non-professional ‘citizen scientists’ are attracting growing attention. Such projects promise to increase scientific productivity while also connecting science with the general public. We make three contributions. First, we argue that the largely separate literatures on ‘Crowd Science’ and ‘Citizen Science’ investigate strongly overlapping sets of projects but take different disciplinary lenses. Closer integration can enrich research on Crowd and Citizen Science (CS). Second, we propose a framework to profile projects with respect to four types of crowd contributions: activities, knowledge, resources, and decisions. This framework also accommodates machines and algorithms, which increasingly complement or replace professional and non-professional researchers as a third actor. Finally, we outline a research agenda anchored on important underlying organisational challenges of CS projects. This agenda can advance our understanding of Crowd and Citizen Science, yield practical recommendations for project design, and contribute to the broader organisational literature.

Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society‐level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners.

We assess the cleansing effects of the 2008–2009 financial crisis. U.S. regions with higher levels of supervisory forbearance on distressed banks see less restructuring in the real sector: fewer establishments, firms, and jobs are lost when more distressed banks remain in business. In these regions, the banking sector has been less healthy for several years after the crisis. Regions with less forbearance experience higher productivity growth after the crisis with more firm entries, job creation, and employment, wages, patents, and output growth. Forbearance is greater for state-chartered banks and in regions with weaker banking competition and more independent banks.

© 2022 Western Economic Association International.

Critical infrastructure protection is a joint task of the state and the economy. Nevertheless, there does not yet exist any standardized approach for a common risk management approach. This article proposes such a methodology, leaning on ISO 27000-series and implying three perspectives: the technical, micro perspective, the organizational macro perspective besides the country-wide meta perspective.

This introduction discusses Open Innovation in Science (OIS) as an emerging stream of research and summarizes the articles published in the Special Issue on this topic.

Status constitutes a core research concept across the social sciences. However, its definition is still contested, and questions persist about its consequences. We begin with a flexible, provisional definition: status is a relational asset possessed by social actors insofar as they are highly regarded by highly-regarded others. Using this definition as a backdrop, we develop a fourfold typology based on how status is used as an asset and from where it is derived. The typology allows us to explore the implications of considering status as either a quality-signal or a good, and of viewing status-conferring ties as either deference-based or dominance-based. We then consider the implications of our framework for the generation of novelty. Although status has been connected to many social and economic outcomes, because of competing predictions in the literature—the generation of novelty has been linked to all regions of the status distribution—we sketch intuitions for future research on the status-novelty linkage. We also work toward greater conceptual clarity by comparing and contrasting status with selected related concepts: quality, reputation, and legitimacy. We conclude with considerations of future research, including cautionary remarks regarding network-analytic measurement in light of the definition we propose.

Copyright © 2022 Matthew S. Bothner, Frédéric Godart, Noah Askin and Wonjae Lee

All day, every day, most of us are bombarded by requests at work. Sometimes these can pile up leaving us feeling overwhelmed. Learning the right way to turn some down can help us stay in our jobs, as happier and more productive employees.