The Imitation Entry and Self-preferencing in Dual-role Platforms: Literature Review
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

The Imitation Entry and Self-preferencing in Dual-role Platforms: Literature Review

Rui Yan 1* Yijie Wang 2
1 Chongqing BI Academy
2 Shenzhen International Sendelta Academy
*Corresponding author: cliff.yanrui@biacademy.cn
Published on 22 October 2025
Journal Cover
AEMPS Vol.231
ISSN (Print): 2754-1177
ISSN (Online): 2754-1169
ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-463-2
ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-464-9
Download Cover

Abstract

We survey the economic literature on imitation entry and self-preferencing behaviors of dual-role platforms. Existing studies indicate that the impact of imitation entry on markets is twofold: it may enhance consumer welfare in the short term, but suppress the innovation incentives of third-party sellers in the long term. The scope and constraints governing data usage and imitation critically determine these outcomes, necessitating careful consideration within policy development frameworks. Given the lack of systematic synthesis of existing literature on the core mechanisms, motivations underlying the imitation entry of dual-role platforms, and their interaction with self-preferencing behaviors, this literature review aims to systematically organize these aspects and propose potential directions for future research.

Keywords:

Dual-role Platforms, Imitation Entry, Self-preferencing, Market Competition, E-commerce Ecosystem

View PDF
Yan,R.;Wang,Y. (2025). The Imitation Entry and Self-preferencing in Dual-role Platforms: Literature Review. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,231,39-49.

References

[1]. Waldfogel, J. (2024). Amazon self - preferencing in the shadow of the digital markets act (Working Paper No. 32299). National Bureau of Economic Research.

[2]. Hagiu, A., Teh, T. - H., & Wright, J. (2022). Should platforms be allowed to sell on their own marketplaces? RAND Journal of Economics, 53(2), 297-327. https: //doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12408

[3]. Crawford, G. S., Courthoud, M., Seibel, R., & Zuzek, S. (2022). Amazon entry on Amazon marketplace (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 17531). Centre for Economic Policy Research. https: //orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-2065

[4]. CNBC. (2021, March 4). Amazon accused of copying camera gearmaker's top - selling item. CNBC. https: //www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/amazon-accused-of-copying-camera-gearmaker-peak-designs-top-selling-item-.html

[5]. Hagiu, A., & Spulber, D. (2013). First - party content and coordination in two - sided markets. Management Science, 59(4), 933 - 949. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1577

[6]. Hagiu, A., Jullien, B., & Wright, J. (2020). Creating platforms by hosting rivals. Management Science, 66(7), 3234 - 3248. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3356

[7]. Khan, L. M. (2017). Amazon's antitrust paradox. The Yale Law Journal, 126(3), 710 - 805.

[8]. Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Marketplace or reseller? Management Science, 61(1), 184 - 203. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2042

[9]. Bhatnagar, A., Nikolaeva, R., & Ghose, S. (2014). Online market entry: The motivations for imitation across retailer types. Managerial and Decision Economics. https: //doi.org/10.1002/mde.2708

[10]. Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

[11]. Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 472–500. https: //doi.org/10.2307/2393735

[12]. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

[13]. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. https: //doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18: 9< 697: : AID-SMJ909> 3.0.CO; 2-C

[14]. Terlaak, A., & Gong, Y. (2008). Vicarious learning and inferential accuracy in adoption processes. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 846–868. https: //doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421979

[15]. Alfian, F. B., & Murniati, R. (2024). Self - preferencing: Practices and characteristics of abuse of dominant position in digital markets. Faculty of Law Universitas Lampung.

[16]. Indithohiroh, R., Parvez, A., & Aryandini, H. (2024). Dominasi aplikasi pembayaran dalam monopoli persaingan usaha: Studi kasus Google Pay Billing. Jurnal Persaingan Usaha, 4(1), 20 - 32.

References

[1]. Waldfogel, J. (2024). Amazon self - preferencing in the shadow of the digital markets act (Working Paper No. 32299). National Bureau of Economic Research.

[2]. Hagiu, A., Teh, T. - H., & Wright, J. (2022). Should platforms be allowed to sell on their own marketplaces? RAND Journal of Economics, 53(2), 297-327. https: //doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12408

[3]. Crawford, G. S., Courthoud, M., Seibel, R., & Zuzek, S. (2022). Amazon entry on Amazon marketplace (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 17531). Centre for Economic Policy Research. https: //orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-2065

[4]. CNBC. (2021, March 4). Amazon accused of copying camera gearmaker's top - selling item. CNBC. https: //www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/amazon-accused-of-copying-camera-gearmaker-peak-designs-top-selling-item-.html

[5]. Hagiu, A., & Spulber, D. (2013). First - party content and coordination in two - sided markets. Management Science, 59(4), 933 - 949. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1577

[6]. Hagiu, A., Jullien, B., & Wright, J. (2020). Creating platforms by hosting rivals. Management Science, 66(7), 3234 - 3248. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3356

[7]. Khan, L. M. (2017). Amazon's antitrust paradox. The Yale Law Journal, 126(3), 710 - 805.

[8]. Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Marketplace or reseller? Management Science, 61(1), 184 - 203. https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2042

[9]. Bhatnagar, A., Nikolaeva, R., & Ghose, S. (2014). Online market entry: The motivations for imitation across retailer types. Managerial and Decision Economics. https: //doi.org/10.1002/mde.2708

[10]. Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

[11]. Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 472–500. https: //doi.org/10.2307/2393735

[12]. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

[13]. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. https: //doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18: 9< 697: : AID-SMJ909> 3.0.CO; 2-C

[14]. Terlaak, A., & Gong, Y. (2008). Vicarious learning and inferential accuracy in adoption processes. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 846–868. https: //doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421979

[15]. Alfian, F. B., & Murniati, R. (2024). Self - preferencing: Practices and characteristics of abuse of dominant position in digital markets. Faculty of Law Universitas Lampung.

[16]. Indithohiroh, R., Parvez, A., & Aryandini, H. (2024). Dominasi aplikasi pembayaran dalam monopoli persaingan usaha: Studi kasus Google Pay Billing. Jurnal Persaingan Usaha, 4(1), 20 - 32.

Cite this article

Yan,R.;Wang,Y. (2025). The Imitation Entry and Self-preferencing in Dual-role Platforms: Literature Review. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,231,39-49.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of ICEMGD 2025 Symposium: Resilient Business Strategies in Global Markets

ISBN: 978-1-80590-463-2(Print) / 978-1-80590-464-9(Online)
Editor: Florian Marcel Nuţă, Li Chai
Conference website: https://2025.icemgd.org/CAU.html
Conference date: 20 September 2025
Series: Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences
Volume number: Vol.231
ISSN: 2754-1169(Print) / 2754-1177(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.