Cultural Homophily and Collaboration in Superstar Teams

References

• Andrews M, Gill L, Schank T, Upward R (2012) High wage workers match with high wage firms: Clear evidence of the effects of limited mobility bias. Econom. Lett. 117(3):824–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Békés G, Ottaviano G (2022) Cultural homophily and collaboration in superstar teams. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 17618, CEPR, London, UK.Google Scholar
• Berge L (2018) Efficient estimation of maximum likelihood models with multiple fixed-effects: The R package FENmlm. CREA Discussion Paper 2018-13, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Bobowik M, Valentim JP, Licata L (2018) Introduction to the special issue: Colonial past and intercultural relations. Internat. J. Intercultural Relations 62:1–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt R (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castilla EJ (2011) Bringing managers back in: Managerial influences on workplace inequality. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 76(5):667–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cross R, Cummings J (2004) Tie and networks correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Acad. Management J. 47(6):928–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Currarini S, Mengel F (2016) Identity, homophily and in-group bias. Eur. Econom. Rev. 90:40–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desmet K, Ortuño-Ortín I, Wacziarg R (2017) Culture, ethnicity, and diversity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(9):2479–2513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertug G, Brennecke J, Kovacs B, Zou T (2021) What does homophily do? A review of the consequences of homophily. Acad. Management Ann. 16(1):38–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertug G, Gargiulo M, Galunic C, Zou T (2018) Homophily and individual performance. Organ. Sci. 29(5):912–930.Link, Google Scholar
• Fally T (2015) Structural gravity and fixed effects. J. Internat. Econom. 97(1):76–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Head K, Mayer T (2014) Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. Gopinath G, Helpman E, Rogoff K, eds. Handbook of International Economics (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 131–195.Google Scholar
• Hinz J, Stammann A, Wanner J (2021) State dependence and unobserved heterogeneity in the extensive margin of trade. Preprint, submitted July 27, https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12655v2.Google Scholar
• Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB (2007) The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Management 33(6):987–1015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingersoll K, Malesky EJ, Saiegh SM (2017) Heterogeneity and team performance: Evaluating the effect of cultural diversity in the world’s top soccer league. J. Sports Analytics 3(2):67–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL (2003) Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J. Management 29(6):801–830.Google Scholar
• Jackson MO, Rogers BW, Zenou Y (2017) The economic consequences of social-network structure. J. Econom. Literature 55(1):49–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahane L, Longley N, Simmons R (2013) The effects of coworker heterogeneity on firm-level output: Assessing the impacts of cultural and language diversity in the National Hockey League. Rev. Econom. Statist. 95(1):302–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kovacs B, Kleinbaum AM (2020) Language-style similarity and social networks. Psych. Sci. 31(2):202–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence BS, Shah NP (2020) Homophily: Measures and meaning. Acad. Management Ann. 14(2):513–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27(1):415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Melitz J, Toubal F (2014) Native language, spoken language, translation and trade. J. Internat. Econom. 93(2):351–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nüesch S, Haas H (2013) Are multinational teams more successful? Internat. J. Human Resource Management 23(15):3105–3115.Google Scholar
• Opper S, Nee V, Brehm S (2015) Homophily in the career mobility of China’s political elite. Soc. Sci. Res. 54:332–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 90(5):751–783.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter J, Washington R (1993) Minority identity and self-esteem. Annual Rev. Sociol. 19:139–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Price J, Wolfers J (2010) Racial discrimination among NBA referees. Quart. J. Econom. 125(4):1859–1887.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos-Silva J, Tenreyro S (2022) The log of gravity at 15. Portuguese Econom. J. 21(3):423–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Stuart T (2008) Bringing the context back in: Settings and the search for syndicate partners in venture capital investment networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2):266–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Stuart TE (2001) Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(6):1546–1588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spolaore E, Wacziarg R (2016) Ancestry, language and culture. Ginsburgh V, Weber S, eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language (Palgrave Macmillan, London), 174–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tovar J (2020) Performance, diversity and national identity evidence from association football. Econom. Inquiry 58(2):897–916.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weidner M, Zylkin T (2021) Bias and consistency in three-way gravity models. J. Internat. Econom. 132:103513.Crossref, Google Scholar