Qualification: Beyond markets, hierarchies, and hybrids: an institutional perspective on IT-enabled two-sided markets
Classification does not establish displacement. Reimers, Guo, and Li classify three institutionally distinct two-sided markets as functional alternatives to markets, hybrids, and hierarchies. They then separate that classification from a prediction about organizational change. A technology that enables a new form does not establish that the new form will replace an existing one. The inference requires conditions and trade-offs that can decide the outcome in a concrete situation. This distinction independently extends Kaal's inference boundary. Classifying two institutional arrangements identifies their differences. It does not show that one arrangement universally displaces the other. A displacement proposition requires additional evidence about the conditions under which the relevant trade-offs favor a shift. The correspondence remains narrow. Reimers, Guo, and Li study two-sided markets and traditional forms of economic organization. They do not examine Kaal's computational-abundance comparison or test either arrangement. Their analysis does not establish comparative accuracy, legitimacy, cost, or robustness. It supports the classification boundary and the need for conditional evidence before any displacement claim.
institutional-designresearch-methodsscholarly-growth-coveragescholarly-literatureclassificationinstitutional-changetechnological-determinismtwo-sided-marketscomparative-institutional-analysis