Platform Power and Institutional Alignment: Strategic Responses to Regulatory Consolidation in Southeast Asia

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66203/manexia.01303

Keywords:

regulatory consolidation, platform power, resource dependence, institutional alignment, political capability, digital ecosystems

Abstract

Regulatory consolidation is increasingly reshaping digital platform ecosystems across emerging economies. While intensified regulation is often assumed to constrain dominant platforms, its structural consequences remain under-theorized. This article develops a mechanism-based framework explaining how regulatory consolidation may recalibrate dependence relations and reinforce platform power under specific conditions. Integrating resource dependence theory, institutional response scholarship, and nonmarket strategy perspectives, the analysis conceptualizes consolidation as an institutional inflection point that raises compliance thresholds and stabilizes oversight regimes. When dominant platforms possess strong bottleneck control and developed political capabilities, they are positioned to convert regulatory stabilization into strategic advantage through institutional alignment. Compliance infrastructure becomes a source of relational leverage, while proactive regulatory engagement enhances legitimacy and competitive shielding. However, reinforcement is conditional. Where institutional complexity remains high or structural centrality is weak, consolidation may redistribute influence rather than entrench dominance. By reframing regulatory consolidation as a structurally contingent driver of ecosystem power, this study advances a power-centered understanding of how institutional stabilization interacts with digital market dominance in emerging platform economies.

References

Baron, D. P. (1995). Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. California Management Review, 37(2), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165788

Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition. Harper Business.

Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270–1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.935

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590299

Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2750

Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.003

Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

Lux, S., Crook, T. R., & Woehr, D. J. (2011). Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of Management, 37(1), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310392233

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

08-09-2025