Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ecosystem-specific advantages in international digital commerce

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider the applicability to digital platforms of extant international business scholarship. The organization of digital platforms has been seen to such an extent as predicated upon the bundling of external resources for collective value creation that their expansion may follow the logic of externalization. We further that literature contrasting the governance of network multinationals with that of platform-centric ecosystems. Building on and extending the theory of the ecosystem, we propose the concept of ecosystem-specific advantages. We identify costs and difficulties in the transfer of such advantages to new markets, emphasizing in particular the idea of bottlenecks. We then propose a framework that can be applied to future research on digital platforms, focusing on the users, suppliers of complementary products, and platform firms. We also call for research on the dynamic process of creating, transferring, and upgrading ecosystem-specific advantages.

Resume

Nous considérons l’applicabilité des savoirs existants en international business aux plateformes numériques. Dans une certaine mesure, il a été considéré pour l’organisation des plateformes numériques - comme cela est prévu par le regroupement de ressources externes pour la création collective de valeur - que leur expansion peut suivre la logique de l’externalisation. Nous poursuivons dans la même veine en comparant la gouvernance des réseaux de multinationales à celle des écosystèmes centrés sur les plateformes. En nous appuyant sur la théorie des écosystèmes et en l’élargissant, nous proposons le concept d’avantages spécifiques aux écosystèmes. Nous identifions les coûts et les difficultés dans le transfert de ces avantages vers de nouveaux marchés en insistant en particulier sur l’idée de goulots d’étranglement. Nous proposons ensuite un cadre qui pourra être appliqué aux recherches futures sur les plateformes numériques, en mettant l’accent sur les utilisateurs, les fournisseurs de produits complémentaires et les firmes gérant les plateformes. Nous invitons également à développer la recherche sur le processus dynamique de création, de transfert et d’amélioration des avantages spécifiques aux écosystèmes.

Resumen

Consideramos la aplicabilidad de las investigación existente en negocios internaciones a las plataformas digitales. La organización de las plataformas digitales ha sido atribuida en cierta medida a la agrupación de recursos externos para la creación de valor colectivo en su expansión y puede seguir la lógica de externalización. Avanzamos la literatura contrastando la gobernanza de las multinacionales de red con esos ecosistemas centrados en plataformas. Basados en la teoría existente de ecosistema, proponemos el concepto de las ventajas de los ecosistemas. Identificamos costos y dificultades en la transferencia de estas ventajas a los nuevos mercados enfatizando en particular la idea de cuello de botella. Proponemos un marco que puede ser aplicado a la investigación futura en plataformas digitales, enfocada en los usuarios, proveedores de productos complementarios, y empresas plataforma. También pedimos que se investigue el proceso dinámico de creación, transferencia y actualización de ventajas especificas del ecosistema.

Resumo

Consideramos a aplicabilidade de existentes pesquisas em negócios internacionais a plataformas digitais. A organização de plataformas digitais tem sido vista até certo ponto tão baseada no agrupamento de recursos externos para criação de valor coletivo que sua expansão pode seguir a lógica da externalização. Ampliamos essa literatura contrastando a governança de multinacionais de rede com a de ecossistemas centrados em plataformas. Com base e ampliando a teoria do ecossistema, propomos o conceito de vantagens específicas do ecossistema. Identificamos custos e dificuldades na transferência de tais vantagens para novos mercados, enfatizando em particular a ideia de gargalos. Em seguida, propomos um modelo que pode ser aplicado a futuras pesquisas em plataformas digitais, com foco nos usuários, fornecedores de produtos complementares e empresas de plataforma. Também convidamos pesquisas sobre o processo dinâmico de criação, transferência e atualização de vantagens específicas do ecossistema.

摘要

我们探讨现有国际商务理论对于数字平台的适用性。数字平台组织在很大程度上被认为是基于外部资源整合的价值共创, 因而它们的扩张可能遵循了外部化逻辑。我们通过对比网络跨国公司的治理和以平台为中心的生态系统的治理来推进文献。基于并扩展生态系统理论, 我们提出了生态系统特定优势的概念。我们探讨将这些优势转移到新市场的成本与困难, 特别是瓶颈问题。我们然后提出了一个框架, 可应用于未来的数字平台研究, 重点关注用户、互补产品供应商以及平台公司。我们还呼吁对生态系统特定竞争优势的创建、转移和升级的动态过程进行研究。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Adner, R. 2017. Ecosystem as structure. Journal of Management, 43(1): 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 306–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2016. Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4): 625–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. 2016. Internationalization in the information age: A new era for places, firms, and international business networks? Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5): 499–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Han, X. 2017. Value creation through novel resource configurations in a digitally enabled world. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3): 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. 2001. Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 493–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2016. The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9): 1829–1853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E. 2017. Strategic entrepreneurial internationalization: A normative framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3): 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y. 2008. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(1): 155–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., & Von Hippel, E. 2011. Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6): 1399–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. 2009. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banalieva, E. R., & Dhanaraj, C. 2019. Internalization theory for the digital economy. Journal of International Business Studies, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00243-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglaiser, G., Calvano, E., & Crémer, J. 2019. Incumbency advantage and its value. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 28(1): 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. 2010. Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56(10): 1849–1872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. 2012. Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5): 1409–1427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. 2017. Platform boundary choices & governance: Opening-up while still coordinating and orchestrating. In J. Furman, A. Gawer, B. S. Silverman, & S. Stern (Eds), Entrepreneurship, innovation, and platforms (advances in strategic management). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. 1996. Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., Geisser, K. D., & Rothlauf, F. 2016. Explaining the internationalization of ibusiness firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5): 513–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J. 2009. The impact of the global factory on economic development. Journal of World Business, 44(2): 131–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Homes & Meier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. 2004. Globalisation, economic geography and the strategy of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Strange, R. 2015. The governance of the global factory: Location and control of world economic activity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2): 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. 2018. Platform architecture and quality tradeoffs of multihoming complements. Information Systems Research, 29(2): 461–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. 2013. Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11): 1331–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., Shaheer, N., Yi, J., & Li, S. 2019. The international penetration of ibusiness firms: Network effects, liabilities of outsidership and country clout. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(2): 172–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N., Kano, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1151–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Moxon, R. W. 2001. E-commerce and global business: The impact of the information and communication technology revolution on the conduct of international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(4): 617–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. 2017. Superior strategy in entrepreneurial settings: Thinking, doing, and the logic of opportunity. Strategy Science, 2(4): 246–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2011. Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12): 1270–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S. K. 2007. Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6): 563–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernhaber, S. A., & Li, D. 2010. The impact of interorganizational imitation on new venture international entry and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Mithas, S., & Heinzl, A. 2018. Does platform owner’s entry crowd out innovation? Evidence from Google Photos. Information Systems Research, 29(2): 444–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. 2018. Building the right ecosystem for innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(4): 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A. 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7): 1239–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3): 417–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. 2007. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(1): 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5): 397–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. 2014. Strategic decisions for multisided platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2): 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2018. How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12): 3163–3192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Campo-Rembado, M. A. 2016. Integrative capabilities, vertical integration, and innovation over successive technology lifecycles. Organization Science, 27(2): 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. 2018. Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8): 1391–1399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1982. A Theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 2009. Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1432–1454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 2014. The accidental internationalists: A theory of born globals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1): 117–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. 2004. Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3): 68–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8): 2255–2276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. 2006. Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8): 1200–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Sundararajan, A., & Van Alstyne, M. 2019. Platforms and ecosystems: Enabling the digital economy. World Economic Forum Briefing Paper.

  • Kano, L. 2018. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 684–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. 2017. Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3): 531–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. 1986. Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4): 822–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., Parente, R., & Murray, J. Y. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of modular production in the Brazilian automobile industry: A grounded theory approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(1): 84–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsman, V., & Stremersch, S. 2011. Multihoming in two-sided markets: An empirical inquiry in the video game console industry. Journal of Marketing, 75(6): 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzolla, G., & Frankort, H. T. W. 2016. The online shadow of offline signals: Which sellers get contacted in online B2B marketplaces? Academy of Management Journal, 59(1): 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Song, J., & Yang, J.-S. 2016. Network structure effects on incumbency advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8): 1632–1648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew, Y. K., Sinkovics, R. R., Yamin, M., & Khan, Z. 2016. Trans-specialization understanding in international technology alliances: The influence of cultural distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5): 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Shen, Q., & Bart, Y. 2018. Local market characteristics and online-to-offline commerce: An empirical analysis of Groupon. Management Science, 64(4): 1860–1878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Tian, L., & Wan, G. 2015. Contextual distance and the international strategic alliance performance: A conceptual framework and a partial meta-analytic test. Management and Organization Review, 11(2): 289–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Xie, Z. 2011. Global R&D strategies in an emerging economy: The development and protection of technological competencies. European Management Review, 8(3): 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J., & Cui, Z. 2016. Eco-advantages: A new dimension of advantages. Harvard Business Review (China), 37: 111–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. P. 2011. In a network industry, does product quality matter? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1): 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. 2017. Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey. 2016. Digital globalization: The new era of global flows. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S. 2017. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6): 1029–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. 2017. Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1): 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. 2011. Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: Evidence from the field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3): 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., & Kenney, M. 2018. On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3): 354–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojala, A., Evers, N., & Rialp, A. 2018. Extending the international new venture phenomenon to digital platform providers: A longitudinal case study. Journal of World Business, 53(5): 725–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozalp, H., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Disruption in platform-based ecosystems. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7): 1203–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2014. Platform strategy. In M. Augier, D. J. Teece (Eds), The palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2018. Innovation, openness, and platform control. Management Science, 64(7): 3015–3032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. 2017. Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1): 255–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, S., & Sengul, M. 2009. Information technology and transnational integration: Theory and evidence on the evolution of the modern multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1496–1514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. 2018. Platform strategy: Managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements. Organization Science, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3061424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., & D’Cruz, J. 1997. The theory of the flagship firm. European Management Journal, 15(4): 403–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 1992. A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 761–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2002. Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 769–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2008. The theory and practice of regional strategy: A response to Osegowitsch and Sammartino. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 326–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, Q. T. K. 2011. Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review, 51(6): 755–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. 2000. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2): 312–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. 2002. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 387–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. 2009. To protect or to diffuse? Tradeoffs in appropriability, network externalities and architectural control. In A. Gawer (Ed), Platforms, markets and innovation. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaheer, N. A., & Li, S. 2018. The CAGE around cyberspace? How digital innovations internationalize in a virtual world. Journal of Business Venturing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V., & Bayus, B. L. 2003. Network effects and competition: An empirical analysis of the home video game industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4): 375–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. A. 2004. Competing through innovation in network markets: Strategies for challengers. Academy of Management Review, 29(3): 359–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, S. K., Nair, H. S., & Hofstetter, R. 2013. Social ties and user-generated content: Evidence from an online social network. Management Science, 59(6): 1425–1443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, R., & Humphrey, J. 2018. What lies between market and hierarchy? Insights from internalization theory and global value chain theory. Journal of International Business Studies, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0186-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, F. F. 2005. Network effects revisited: The role of strong ties in technology selection. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4): 710–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, M., & Tse, E. 2009. The resource-based view of competitive advantage in two-sided markets. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2018. Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8): 1367–1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G. J., Yin, E., & Niraj, R. 2009. Does quality win? Network effects versus quality in high-tech markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2): 135–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. 2014. Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2): 198–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A. 2014. Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A. 2015. Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Information Systems Research, 26(2): 266–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. 2017. World investment report 2017: Investment and the digital economy. New York, Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. 2018. World investment report 2018: Investment and new industrial policies. New York, Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A. 2009. International business strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., Coeurderoy, R., & Matt, T. 2018. The future of international business research on corporate globalization that never was…. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(9): 1101–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Greidanus, N. S. 2009. The end of the opportunism vs trust debate: Bounded reliability as a new envelope concept in research on MNE governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1471–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. 2003. How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7): 1259–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Salomon, R. 2016. Does imitation reduce the liability of foreignness? Linking distance, isomorphism, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(12): 2441–2462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. 2012. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5): 1398–1408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. 2010. The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4): 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K., & Sarvary, M. 2015. Differentiation with user-generated content. Management Science, 61(4): 898–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., & Iansiti, M. 2012. Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1): 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., & Iansiti, M. 2019. Why some platforms thrive and others don’t. Harvard Business Review, 97(1): 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., & Liu, Q. 2018. Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com. Strategic Management Journal, 39(10): 2618–2642.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-chief of JIBS, for his guidance and detailed suggestions. We thank the industry experts and corporate executives who shared their insights in our interviews, and comments from participants at the 2018 AOM specialized conference on big data and managing in a digital economy at the University of Surrey, and the 2018 SMS annual conference in Paris. The research is supported in part by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (HKUST#16505817) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71873136). Any errors remain our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong

    Jiatao Li

  2. Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Liang Chen

  3. Renmin Business School, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

    Jingtao Yi & Jiye Mao

  4. JD.com, Beijing, China

    Jianwen Liao

Authors
  1. Jiatao Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jingtao Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiye Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianwen Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jingtao Yi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 12 May 2019. This article has been with the authors for two revisions and was single-blind reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Chen, L., Yi, J. et al. Ecosystem-specific advantages in international digital commerce. J Int Bus Stud 50, 1448–1463 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00263-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00263-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation