Debate 3: Acquiring versus Not Acquiring Alliance Partners As noted earlier, alliance partners with a high degree of network centrality benefit from being centrally located in a network of players. One debate deals with whether such centrally located firms should acquire other more peripheral (less centrally located) and typically smaller partners in the network. Recent comparative research involving US and Chinese firms reveals interesting contrasts. In the United States, centrally located firms in an alliance network seem to enjoy the benefits of high centrality and are not eager to acquire partners. This finding is consistent with the predictions made from standard network theory advocated by Ronald Burt, a social network expert.* However, in China, centrally located firms seem to more aggressively and more quickly acquire partners. This finding is opposite to standard predictions.* Why are there such differences? Researchers speculate that due to the dynamic, fast-moving transitions in China, any competitive advantage associated with high centrality is likely to erode rapidly, prompting centrally located firms to quickly acquire partners. In comparison, the pace of competitive dynamics in the United States may not be as fast, thus enabling some centrally located firms to enjoy the benefits without having to go through the trouble of acquiring partners.* In other words, if the real options logic is in play, it is played out over a longer period of time in the United States than in China. Firms from other emerging economies, such as Brazil and India, also seem to have little patience and often indulge on a "buying binge" in acquiring alliance partners overseas. Used to their dynamic and fast-moving domestic competition, firms from emerging economies may be interested in quickly acquiring partner firms overseasout of fear that any competitive advantage associated with the acquisition moves may erode rapidly if they do not act quickly.* Whether rapidly acquiring alliance partners results in better parent firm performance remains to be seen. Two lessons out of this debate emerge. Partner firms in developed economies need to get used to the more "rapid fire" acquisitions initiated by firms in emerging economies. Firms from developed economies need to speed up their partner acquisition process when venturing to emerging economies, where the pace for competitive moves (such as acquisitions) is faster

What is the debate? What is driving the different acquisition trends in emerging and developed economies? What are new considerations on acquiring alliance partners for firms in developed economies?