1. Gibbons가 Bilateral governance (Ongoing coordination without integration)을 강조하는 이유? 2. "### 3. **Franchising**"과 찰리의 replication의 관련성은? 3. "opportunism"은 어떤 관련이 있나요? 4. "Gibbons (2025) focus**: Building equilibria, not just selecting them"에서 균형을 만들어나가는 과정을 Gibbons는 어떻게 설명하나요? 5. 당신이 gibbons라면 "*How to transition between governance modes?** Integration/disintegration processes?"는 어떻게 접근할거 같나요? 6. "\"Substantially the same factors that are ultimately responsible for market failures also explain failures of internal organization\"* - Williamson (1979, p. 316)"에서 " failures of internal organization"는 어떻게 정의하나요? 7. "세 카테고리 (1) 🤝visible hands/🫂integration, (2) 🤝visible hands/👥non-integration, (3) 👻invisible hand/👥non-integration"에서 building new equilibrium에 해당하는 카테고리는 뭔가요? continue as phd - 1. different cause - 2. problem: charlie opposed but now better - like idea don't like execution -> execution; (effort, focus, ); - creative act of challenging the status quo is = in the beginning; obtuse/vague ; without clarity - as the creative sta; deliverable materizes; my strategy ; quality of idea and quality of deliverability ; very - executing and work (MANAGER) vs ZERO-ONE - assumption: hard to be clear (venture capital - high degree of confidence; early) - --- ### **1. Why Gibbons Uses “Entrepreneur”** Gibbons invokes the **entrepreneur** not in the Schumpeterian sense (innovation, risk-taking), but in the **Coasian sense of coordination and conscious power**. Coase (1937) contrasted the _“price mechanism”_ (market coordination) with _“the entrepreneur-coordinator”_ (hierarchical coordination inside firms). Gibbons revisits this figure because it embodies the **visible hand**—the deliberate, organizing counterpart to the invisible hand of the market. By using “entrepreneur,” Gibbons connects back to Coase’s foundational language to reinterpret what “visible hands” mean in modern organizational economics. However, instead of celebrating the entrepreneur’s _authority_, Gibbons reframes it as **coalitional management**—leadership through coordination among interdependent actors both within and between organizations. He thereby extends Coase’s “conscious power of the entrepreneur” to **interorganizational governance** (alliances, ecosystems, polycentric networks). → So, “entrepreneur” is a historically anchored proxy for _intentional coordination_, not necessarily for individualistic risk-bearing. --- ### **2. Summaries of Main Argument** #### **2.1 What–Why–How–So What | Stage | Summary | | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **What** | Gibbons proposes to retire Coase’s firm–market dichotomy and replace it with a richer framework distinguishing **visible-hand coordination** (intentional, organized) and **invisible-hand coordination** (spontaneous, price-based), whether within or across organizations. | | **Why** | Because Coase’s framing (firm vs. market) obscures the many forms of **organized non-integration** (alliances, networks, ecosystems). These hybrid arrangements require theories of **collaborative equilibrium-building** rather than binary governance choice. | | **How** | By reframing Coase’s “entrepreneurial coordination” as **coalitional management**, extending conscious coordination to inter-organizational settings. Gibbons draws on Barnard, Simon, and Cyert–March to reconceptualize management as coalition-building rather than command. | | **So What** | This redefinition opens a new research agenda: how visible hands _build equilibria_—that is, how managers, entrepreneurs, or collective actors intentionally construct shared understandings and relational contracts (culture, norms, expectations) that sustain collaboration. It shifts the field from explaining organizational boundaries to modeling **institutional creation and cultural equilibrium.** | --- #### **2.2 Interesting – Important – Valid | Criterion | Gibbons’ Contribution | | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Interesting** | He challenges the canonical boundary problem—retiring the firm–market dichotomy itself. Instead of asking _where_ firms stop and markets start, he asks _how visible hands build collaboration_. This inversion is conceptually provocative and breaks with decades of orthodoxy. | | **Important** | The argument redirects organizational economics toward studying _how equilibria are built_, not merely how they exist. This matters for understanding ecosystems, digital platforms, and inter-organizational culture—core structures in the 21st-century economy. | | **Valid** | The argument builds logically from Coase’s own insights on incomplete contracts and “conscious power.” Gibbons grounds his reinterpretation in the transaction-cost and relational-contracting literatures, while extending them with sociological and cultural theory (Barnard, Simon, Schein, Kreps). It thus stands on strong theoretical foundations while updating them for contemporary coordination challenges. | --- ### **3. Linking Argument to Entrepreneurial Characteristics** | Gibbons’ Argument | Entrepreneurial Characteristic | Theoretical Bridge | | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Visible-hand coordination replaces the invisible hand.** | Entrepreneurs act under uncertainty and coordinate across incomplete contracts. | Entrepreneurial judgment (Knightian) and Coasian authority as adaptive coordination mechanisms. | | **Coalitional conception of management replaces command.** | Entrepreneurs mobilize and maintain coalitions of stakeholders (investors, partners, employees). | This reframes “entrepreneurial power” as _relational equilibrium-building_, aligning with behavioral and institutional entrepreneurship. | | **Building equilibria and cultures as intentional action.** | Entrepreneurs create new shared meanings, norms, and expectations—essentially building new equilibria. | Entrepreneurial process as _constitutive institutional design_: visible hands shaping new coordination logics. | | **Retiring firm vs. market dichotomy.** | Entrepreneurs operate in hybrid zones—platforms, networks, ecosystems. | Entrepreneurship as _governance innovation_ rather than organizational choice, connecting to Ostrom and Richardson’s “conscious coordination outside the firm.” | **Synthesis:** Gibbons’ “visible-hand equilibrium building” redefines entrepreneurship as the _collective construction of coordination institutions_ under uncertainty. The entrepreneur is thus not just a price-taker or leader within the firm but an architect of collaborative equilibria—someone who designs and maintains _the social fabric of coordination_ among actors whose relationships cannot be fully specified ex ante. --- Would you like me next to map this argument onto your **Bayesian entrepreneurship framework**—i.e., treating equilibrium-building as iterative belief calibration among actors (a dynamic interpretation of Gibbons’ “visible-hand culture-building”)? That would connect it directly to your dissertation orbit model (theorizing ↔ implementing ↔ experiencing).