Market Design as Organizational Problem: Explaining System Failures in Platform Markets

System failures occur when organizations managing sociotechnical systems lose control over interactions between components. To prevent such failures, organizations decompose systems into simpler parts and empower frontline experts to manage them in a flat hierarchy. The article examines whether such “modularization” applies to the design of platform markets, focusing on California’s electricity markets between 1995 and 2000. Although modularization seemed like a reasonable technique to avoid system failures, the platforms became vulnerable to persistent gaming. Drawing on rich archival data and interviews, the article finds that the platform markets violated a central requirement for distributed organizations. Market actors, unlike organizational employees, did not cooperate to maintain the relationship between modules. This hindered designers’ ability to prevent, detect, and correct failures. The case reveals a tension between designers’ efforts to coordinate actors via incentives and organizational strategies to manage complex sociotechnical systems, highlighting the need for an organizational sociology of digital marketplaces.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Sociology
Published
2025-02-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/735201
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Digital Platforms and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.91
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Market Design as Organizational Problem: Explaining System Failures in Platform Markets

Georg Rilinger
4 citations
American Journal of Sociology
Digital Platforms and Economics
8.91
article

Market Design as Organizational Problem: Explaining System Failures in Platform Markets

Georg Rilinger
article en
4 citations

Abstract

System failures occur when organizations managing sociotechnical systems lose control over interactions between components. To prevent such failures, organizations decompose systems into simpler parts and empower frontline experts to manage them in a flat hierarchy. The article examines whether such “modularization” applies to the design of platform markets, focusing on California’s electricity markets between 1995 and 2000. Although modularization seemed like a reasonable technique to avoid system failures, the platforms became vulnerable to persistent gaming. Drawing on rich archival data and interviews, the article finds that the platform markets violated a central requirement for distributed organizations. Market actors, unlike organizational employees, did not cooperate to maintain the relationship between modules. This hindered designers’ ability to prevent, detect, and correct failures. The case reveals a tension between designers’ efforts to coordinate actors via incentives and organizational strategies to manage complex sociotechnical systems, highlighting the need for an organizational sociology of digital marketplaces.

American Journal of SociologyVol. 130(5)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Digital Platforms and Economics
8.91
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.