Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On intersecting ground: the changing structure of US corporate networks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Social Network Analysis and Mining Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Questions about overall network structure and differences across type of tie and time are an understudied and exciting area of research. We address these research questions: What is the structure of the network of joint ventures and alliances among corporations in the United States? How does this network structure change over an economic boom and bust cycle? How does the structure of other types of ties such as shareholding ties differ from the structure of joint venture ties or alliance ties? How do different types of ties change over an economic cycle? Most of the available research on the topic of overall network structure is limited to particular industries or the largest firms in the economy. Although large-scale data on ties across time exists, research on the overall structure of these networks is hobbled by the presence of serious data issues, which make it difficult to use existing data on interorganizational ties to construct meaningful networks. Therefore, our secondary objective is to examine these data issues, and suggest solutions and algorithms that could be used to overcome these data issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The reasons proposed are based on responses to our queries from SDC Platinum customer response, and from our own analysis of company histories.

  2. Based on conversations with customer service representatives for SDC Platinum.

  3. A stock purchase of <50% does not give legal operating control over the target company. However, it represents a shareholding tie between the two companies, and we used these data to create a shareholding network.

References

  • Buskens V, van de Rijt A (2008) Dynamics of networks if everyone strives for structural holes. Am J Sociol 114(2):371–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrado R, Zollo M (2006) Small worlds evolving: governance reforms, privatizations, and ownership networks in Italy. Ind Corp Change 15(2):319–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis GF, Diekmann KA, Tinsley CH (1994) The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: the deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. Am Sociol Rev 59(4):547–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis GF, Yoo M, Baker WE (2003) The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982–2001. Strateg Organ 1(3):301–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan KR (1986) Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries. In: Contractor FJ, Lorange P (eds) Cooperative strategies in international business: joint ventures and technology partnerships between firms. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 205–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke D (2009) Playing well together: creating corporate social capital in strategic alliance networks. Am Behav Sci 52:1690–1708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B, Walker G (2001) The small world of firm ownership and acquisitions in Germany from 1993 to 1997: the durability of national networks. Am Sociol Rev 66(3):317–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mani D (2010) Seeing both the tress and the forest: an analysis of the Indian interorganizational network. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota

  • Mintz B, Schwartz M (1981) Interlocking directorates and interest group formation. Am Sociol Rev 46(6):851–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz B, Schwartz M (1985) The power structure of American business. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeller SB, Schlingemann FP, Stulz RM (2005) Wealth destruction on a massive scale? A study of acquiring-firm returns in the recent merger wave. J Finance 60(2):757–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody J, White DR (2003) Structural cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical concept of social groups. Am Sociol Rev 68(1):103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck R (2004) How to eliminate pyramidal business groups: the double taxation of intercorporate dividends and other incisive uses of tax policy. In: Poterba J (ed) Tax policy and the economy, vol 19. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 135–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohria N, Garcia-Pont C (1991) Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strateg Manage J 12(Special Issue: Global Strategy), 105–124

  • Ornstein M (1984) Interlocking directorates in Canada: intercorporate or class alliance? Adm Sci Q 29(2):210–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pangarkar N (2003) Determinants of alliance duration in uncertain environments: the case of the biotechnology sector. Long Range Plann 36(3):269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park SH, Russo MV (1996) When competition eclipses cooperation: an event history analysis of joint venture failure. Manage Sci 42(6):875–890

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q 41(1):116–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuer JJ, Koza MP (2000) Asymmetric information and joint venture performance: theory and evidence for domestic and international joint ventures. Strateg Manage J 21(1):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ, Baum JAC, Shipilov AV, Greve HR, Rao H (2004) Competing in groups. Manage Decis Econ 25(67):453–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ, Greve HR, Rao H, Baum JAC, Shipilov AV (2005) Time to break up: social and instrumental antecedents of firm exits from exchange cliques. Acad Manage J 48(3):499–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MA (2009) Understanding the alliance data. Strateg Manage J 30(3):233–260

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Todeva E, Knoke D (2002) Strategische allianzen und sozialkapital von unternehmen (Strategic alliances and corporate social capital). Kölner Zeitschrift für Sociologie und Sozialpsychologie, 42(Sonderheft), pp 345–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeggelink EPH (1997) Social network evolution and actor oriented models. Applications in the fields of friendship formation, decision making, emergence of cooperation, and coalition formation. Math Sci Hum 137:61–80

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to especially thank Robert Pickard, Dr. Nick Cox, and the Stata LISTSERV for developing algorithms that were used to perform parts of our analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HEC Paris, Jouy en Josas, France

    Dalhia Mani

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    David Knoke

Authors
  1. Dalhia Mani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Knoke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dalhia Mani.

Additional information

This research project received funding from The University of Minnesota graduate Research Proposal Partnership.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Stata Version 11 Code to create Names_Id Field that Links Chains of CUSIPs and Names

  • clear

  • input str32(Name Cusip)

  • pricewaterhouse 74140T

  • pricewaterhouse 74150Q

  • pricewaterhousecoopersllp 74140T

  • samilaccountingcorp 74140T

  • end

  • list, noobs sep(0)

  • //create a newid

  • gen newid = _n

  • tempfile f

  • qui save “‘f’”

  • // create duplicate observations for each newid

  • foreach v in Cusip {

    • keep newid `v’

    • rename `v’ Name

    • keep if Name ! = “”

    • append using “‘f’”

    • qui save “`f’”, replace

  • }

  • sort newid Name

  • list, sepby(newid)

  • // create a final Names_Id, starting from newid

  • gen Names_Id = newid

  • // type net from http://robertpicard.com/stata to install “group_id” command

  • group_id Names_Id, matchby(Name)

  • sort Names_Id newid Name

  • list, sepby(Names_Id)

  • drop if Cusip ==””

  • drop newid

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mani, D., Knoke, D. On intersecting ground: the changing structure of US corporate networks. SOCNET 1, 43–58 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-010-0013-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-010-0013-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation