Algorithmic Market Structuring: How AI Reconfigures Competitive Boundaries in Platform-Based Economies
Keywords:
algorithmic market structuring, competitive boundaries, platform governance, ecosystem strategy, attention-based view, performance feedbackAbstract
Digital platforms increasingly rely on algorithmic systems to allocate visibility, define evaluative metrics, and recalibrate participation conditions. While prior research has examined platform governance, market shaping, and algorithmic control, strategic management scholarship has yet to fully theorize how algorithmic infrastructures reconfigure the boundaries of competition itself. This article introduces the concept of algorithmic market structuring to explain how competitive boundaries in platform-based economies become endogenous to governance architectures. Integrating boundary theory, competitive dynamics, ecosystem strategy, attention-based theory, performance feedback models, and increasing returns logic, we develop a mechanism-based framework comprising four interrelated processes: visibility-based boundary making, metric re-specification, feedback-loop concentration, and rule volatility–induced adaptation. We argue that algorithmic centrality transforms rivalry from category-based competition to exposure-mediated competition, generating cumulative advantage dynamics and accelerating boundary reconfiguration. Importantly, these effects are not deterministic; their structural consequences depend on differentiation levels, switching costs, and governance automation intensity. By reframing competitive arenas as dynamically curated through algorithmic infrastructures rather than statically defined by industry structure, this study advances strategic management theory and clarifies how digital governance architectures shape the evolution of rivalry in contemporary platform markets.
References
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324
Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1331–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2066
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022). Governance and design of digital platforms: A review and future research directions on a meta-organization. Journal of Management, 48(1), 147–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211045023
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.660762
Flaig, A., Kindström, D., & Ottosson, M. (2021). Market-shaping strategies: A conceptual framework for generating market outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 96, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.004
Greve, H. R. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499388
Hanisch, M., Goldsby, C. M., Fabian, N. E., & Oehmichen, J. (2023). Digital governance: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 162, 113777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113777
Jacobides, M. G., & Billinger, S. (2006). Designing the boundaries of the firm: From “make, buy, or ally” to the dynamic benefits of vertical architecture. Organization Science, 17(2), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0167
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
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C.-F. (2006). Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and performativity in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.05.011
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250181109
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1995.tb00786.x
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0152
Smith, K. G., Ferrier, W. J., & Ndofor, H. (2001). Competitive dynamics research: Critique and future directions. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 315–361). Blackwell.
Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-06791-9
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438. https://doi.org/10.1086/210178