Whereas prior platform research has mostly assumed standardized interfaces that are platform-specific, we examine how platform strategies based on third-party standards have become prevalent in a nascent ecosystem. Based on a longitudinal analysis of 97 smart home platforms, we analyze the value creation and capture benefits of four platform modes defined by two dimensions: the source of complements (first- or third-party complements) and the standardized interfaces used to connect these complements (first- or third-party standards). Our analysis demonstrates a trend from closed strategies (only first-party complements based on first-party standards) towards strategies that (also) rely on third-party standards. We find that startups and diversifying entrants make different strategic choices at entry and that firms increasingly combine platform modes over time to leverage their distinct value creation and capture benefits. Our findings contribute insights into the ecosystem conditions and pre-entry capabilities of firms under which strategies relying on third-party standards become viable and how this contributes to the proliferation of standards, platforms, and strategies in an ecosystem. We also theorize the time-dependent strategic choices of entrants navigating a nascent ecosystem and the complex complementary and competitive relations that emerge in an ecosystem with interconnected platforms as a result.
This study examines the relationship between immigration and firm-level innovation in the Finnish manufacturing sector. The analysis exploits unique matched data linking employees' immigration status with firm-level patenting, process and product innovation activities, and innovation inputs. To address the potential endogeneity of firms' immigrant employment, a newly developed instrumental variables approach is applied, using the predicted historical geographic distribution of immigrants as an instrument. The results show that immigrant employment positively affects firms' patenting activity and the number of R&D workers, with these effects being statistically significant only among more productive firms. Furthermore, firms with a higher concentration of non-native employees exhibit stronger immigration-innovation effects, suggesting that the mechanisms linking immigration and innovation may depend on the scale and stage of immigration. Finally, the study finds that immigration enhances firm growth and boosts native employment.
While technological advancements have reduced barriers to remote collaboration, the extent to which geographical proximity still shapes research outcomes remains a critical yet underexplored question. This study examines how geographical separation, defined as the loss of city-level co-location following collaborator mobility, affects the performance of established research collaborations. Using a quasi-experimental design, we analyze changes in research outcomes among 16,505 scientist pairs following inter-city relocation (treatment group) relative to intra-city relocation (control group). Our findings reveal that geographical separation leads to significant declines in both collaborative productivity (co-authored publications) and scientific impact (citation counts), underscoring the persistent role of proximity in sustaining effective collaboration. We further document important heterogeneity: interdisciplinary collaborations are more resilient in maintaining publication output but experience larger declines in scientific impact; same-stage collaborations are more vulnerable than cross-stage collaborations; and the negative effect is stronger in geographically larger countries. These findings highlight the enduring importance of geographical proximity in maintaining effective research collaboration.
Firm productivity dispersion has widened across many OECD countries and is often interpreted as evidence of persistent divergence between frontier and laggard firms, reflecting weakened technology diffusion and growing structural rigidities. This study revisits that narrative using comprehensive Canadian microdata and shows that conclusions about productivity divergence depend on how frontier and laggard firms are defined. Consistent with the existing literature, annually selected frontier and laggard firms exhibit a widening productivity gap over time. However, when the same firms are followed as fixed cohorts, the analysis reveals substantial productivity convergence rather than divergence. This contrast reflects the highly dynamic nature of firm productivity: approximately 15% of lagging firms move into the middle or frontier groups within three years, while 37% of frontier firms no longer remain at the frontier over the same period. The study demonstrates that the widely documented productivity gap between frontier and laggard firms partly reflects changes in firm composition rather than persistent differences among fixed groups of firms. The study further shows that sustained investments in R&D and technology are consistently associated with productivity mobility and the ability to maintain frontier status, with such investments being more prevalent among firms that improve their productivity performance or remain at the productivity frontier. These findings have important implications for interpreting productivity dispersion and for designing policies aimed at fostering productivity growth.
This paper analyzes the association between geopolitical alignment and international research and innovation collaborations using data spanning 2000–2023. Using ideal point distance measures derived from UN General Assembly voting patterns, we find that increases in geopolitical distance are associated with reductions in international collaborations. A one-unit increase in geopolitical distance (roughly the distance between a median country pair) over three years is associated with a 3.1% reduction in collaborations in scientific publications (0.8% per standard deviation). We also find that this relationship is asymmetric: worsening geopolitical relations are associated with reductions in collaborations in scientific publications that are roughly three times larger than the gains associated with equivalent improvements, suggesting that international research partnerships are easier to damage than to build. At the technology level, critical technologies exhibit approximately three times the expected level of international collaboration compared to other fields (conditional on country-pair effects), yet are also more sensitive to shifts in geopolitical alignment, raising concerns about technology sovereignty. At the same time, despite ongoing geopolitical tensions, overall collaboration patterns have not undergone substantial changes in recent years, suggesting resilience in international research and innovation networks.
