Network Effects in the Governance of Strategic Alliances

By David T. Robinson, Toby E. Stuart. 2006

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/217f7f000781fd84bf3b31c16ed8efcef90b8003

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Bringing the Context Back In: Settings and the Search for Syndicate Partners in Venture Capital Investment Networks (2008, background): “In an extension of this idea, Raub and Weesie (1990) proposed that forward-looking actors then have greater incentives to behave honestly when the structure of the network would disseminate information about their conduct more widely (Robinson and Stuart, 2007).”
Public Trust, the Law, and Financial Investment (2009, background): “7See, for example, Kandori (1992); Greif (1994); Glaeser, Laibson, and Sacerdote (2002); Bloch, Genicot, and Ray (2005); Mobius and Szeidl (2006); Robinson and Stuart (2006) Each agent j chooses whether to pay dj (τ realized) t=1 Clients invest p1 S or F realized Clients invest pS or pF t=2 S or F…”
Board Connections and M&A Transactions (2012, background): “…of director networks on chief executive officer (CEO) pay, Sorenson and Stuart (2001) and Hochberg, Ljungqvist, and Lu (2007) on the effect of networks in the venture capital industry, Robinson and Stuart (2007) and Lindsey (2008) in strategic alliances, Garmaise and Moskowitz (2003) in…”
Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures (2007, methodology): “To address this problem, Robinson and Stuart (2007) perform a two-stage regression analysis in which the fi rst stage estimates the probability that two fi rms enter an alliance as a function of network characteristics and an exclusion restriction.”
The Price of a CEO's Rolodex (2012, background): “Robinson and Stuart (2006) show that a firm’s position in the network can act as a substitute for explicit control arrangements such as high equity stakes.”
Board Interlocks and the Propensity to be Targeted in Private Equity Transactions (2010, background): “…choices and fund returns in venture capital (Sorenson and Stuart 2001; Hochberg, 10 Ljungqvist, and Lu 2007), the availability of financing for real estate transactions (Garmaise and Moskowitz, 2003), and the governance structure of strategic alliance contracts (Robinson and Stuart 2007).”
Partner Selection Decisions in Interfirm Collaborations: The Paradox of Relational Embeddedness (2010, background): “Some details of a firm’s past behaviour cannot be observed publicly but this information can be transmitted through interfirm relationships (Robinson and Stuart, 2007).”
Strategic alliances, venture capital, and exit decisions in early stage high-tech firms (2013, unknown): “One explanation for the significant impact of the alliance count is that having more alliances increases the odds that one of the existing partners transitions to become an acquirer (Robinson and Stuart, 2007b).”
Shareholder returns and the exploration–exploitation dilemma: R&D announcements by biotechnology firms (2007, background): “Smaller less centrally embedded partners also receive smaller upfront payments (Robinson and Stuart, 2007b).”
Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation (2007, unknown): “Robinson and Stuart (2007) use a”
Hybrid Modes of Organization. Alliances, Joint Ventures, Networks, and Other 'Strange' Animals (2013, background): “The sp cificities of contracts in hybrids lies in the amplitude of adjustment variables and the room left for relational adaptation, a point already noticed by Borys & Jemison (1989: 243) and emphasized by Robinson & Stuart (2007) in their examin tion of alliances in biotechnology.”
Private Equity Syndication: Agency Costs, Reputation and Collaboration (2009, unknown): “(ii) The Role of Reputation and Networks in Alleviating Agency Costs The identity of the partners involved in the transaction is clearly important in order to alleviate potential hazards associated with interorganizational exchange (Robinson and Stuart, 2005; and Sufi, 2006).”
The Timing of Codevelopment Alliances in New Product Development Processes: Returns for Upstream and Downstream Partners (2015, background): “Conversely, equity investment in the late stage helps the downstream partner secure more rights to commercialize or use new products or technologies that have survived the early stages of the process (Robinson and Stuart 2007).”
Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investment Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments (2009, unknown): “6 Robinson and Stuart (2007) and Hochberg, Ljungqvist, and Lu (2007) apply social network analysis to finance.”