Archive for 15 May 2008
Something to Abuse Graduate Students
| Randy Westgren |
I carried a few articles along with me to punctuate the tedium of consuming as many Belgian beers as one can, in tacit competition with 24 20-year olds. One of these is “The Sociology of Markets” by Neil Fligstein and Luke Dauter, from the 2007 Annual Review of Sociology (ungated version here). Those of you who throw brickbats at sociology will find this an interesting read, as Fligstein and Dauter describe the three major camps and a few lesser cabals as a “cacophony of voices” talking past each other. For others, the piece is a useful entry point for students to see the clear expositions of the development of network theory (i.e. Burt, White, and Granovetter) and institutional theory (i.e. DiMaggio and Powell, Durkheim, and Fligstein, himself). They also review the performativity school — unfortunately named and unfortunately constituted. They tie the review to March and Simon, Williamson, and some of the corporate governance literature, and discuss the roles efficiency plays in the alternative conceptions of markets.There is also some useful allusion to equilibrium and disequilibrium conceptions of markets. This is worth a read, or at least, worth making your grad students read. The entree to seminal literature that undergirds current articles in the management journals is useful.
I’d fault the review only for its insistence on trying to make population ecology appear to be a useful piece of sociology for the study of markets, though the authors admit it really isn’t true. Pop ecology should, like an overly large litter of unwanted kittens, be placed in a burlap sack with a large stone and cast into a deep river.
A Coasian Approach to Beating Google
| Peter Klein |
The always-interesting and provocative Mark Cuban (yes, him) suggests a “Coasian” strategy, based on side payments, for beating Google in the search-engine wars. If I understand correctly, the strategy works like this. Websites have the option (through robots.txt protocols) to prevent their inclusion in search engine databases. At some price, popular websites would presumably be willing to block Google’s spiders. Once word gets around that Google’s database no longer includes these sites, consumers would start to use alternative search engines. Doing this wouldn’t be cheap, but Cuban points out that that upstart search provider wouldn’t need the whole internet to play along, just the top sites, the ones at the left side of Chris Anderson’s long tail. It might cost, say, $1 billion, but the upstart would recover that $1 billion pretty quickly.
One problem Cuban doesn’t consider is that this kind of fragmentation in search-engine space would presumably reduce the value of search, cutting the revenue stream that Google is presently gobbling up. But the upstart might be better off with a larger slice of a smaller pie.
A more fundamental problem is that Google would presumably bid to get the top sites back. Do the search engines bid away all the rents, such that the returns from search accrue entirely to the top sites (as in the old Demsetz-Posner franchise-bidding model)? Or is the process more like a common-values auction with uncertainty and hence subject to the winner’s curse?
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments