Where do small worlds come from?

Interfirm networks often take on characteristics consistent with the notion of a small world—they are locally clustered into dense sub‐networks or cliques that are sparsely connected by a small number of ties that cut across the cliques, linking network members through a relatively small number of i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Industrial and corporate change 2003-08, Vol.12 (4), p.697-725
Main Authors: Baum, Joel A. C., Shipilov, Andrew V., Rowley, Tim J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Behavior
Competitive advantage
Costs
Enterprises
Industry
Intergroup relations
Investment banking
Investment banks
Networks
Organizational behavior
Organizational behaviour
Partnering
Partners
Studies
Topology
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Interfirm networks often take on characteristics consistent with the notion of a small world—they are locally clustered into dense sub‐networks or cliques that are sparsely connected by a small number of ties that cut across the cliques, linking network members through a relatively small number of intermediaries. Are these characteristics an emergent property of interfirm networks that result from chance connections among firms, or more strategic partnering by firms to improve or protect their network positions? After outlining a behavioral account for this frequently observed network topology, we show that the evolving investment bank syndicate network in Canada exhibited small world properties from 1952 to 1990. We then identify the investment bank cliques comprising the network and the ‘spanning’ ties that cut across them, and test three distinct scenarios that may explain the formation of these ties, which are responsible for the small worldliness of the network: (i) chance partnering of firms in different cliques; (ii) insurgent partnering by peripheral firms to destabilize the network and improve their network positions; and (iii) control partnering by core firms to maintain the network status quo and their positions within it. All three scenarios played a role in explaining the formation of clique‐spanning ties; however, chance and insurgent partnering played a greater role in our empirical setting. Our analysis of how small world structures emerge and evolve over time offers new insight into the origins of a prevalent interfirm network topology, and a baseline for constructing future models of interfirm network evolution and dynamics.
ISSN:0960-6491
1464-3650
1464-3650
DOI:10.1093/icc/12.4.697