Interorganizational Collaboration Networks in Economic Development Policy: An Exponential Random Graph Model Analysis*

Abstract

Regional economic development competition can be inefficient and destructive because decisions by one governmental unit can impose both externalities on its neighbors. Collaborative networks of multiple stakeholders within and across jurisdictions are an increasingly crucial component of regional economic development. In this article, we focus on the emergence of voluntary and self‐organizing network relationships among local governments to address economic development concerns. The motivations and decisions of local actors play a critical role in shaping and implementing regional collaboration. On a micro level, the collaboration choices are shaped by three primary factors: the transaction costs reflected in the configuration of relationships in which an actor is embedded; the organizational similarities (homophily); and the resource dependencies that shape the local actors' preferences for forming relationships with other specific actors. We utilize an exponential random graph model (ERGM) to test hypotheses regarding the most prominent observed patterns of network relationships within and across different organizational sectors. The results demonstrate that both reciprocity and social clustering structures are preferred by both government and nongovernment organizations. These results suggest that interorganizational collaboration for economic development requires more than simple exchange relationships. Rather, network actors may be better served by participating in a densely clustered network that is capable of maintaining credible commitments to collective solutions.

Entrepreneurial Brokers in Disaster Response Network in Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines

“…Interorganizational network has typically been regarded as a mode of organization that facilitates collective action that serves as a governance mechanism for member Saban: Disaster response network 3 organizations (Lee, Lee, and Feiock 2012). Since the 1990s, interorganizational network literature has become a prominent aspect of explaining organizations' functioning in complex and disrupted environments (Gulati and Gargiulo 1999;Larson 1992;Pfeffer and Salancik 2003;Provan and Milward 1995;Suchman 1995;Thompson 1967;Uzzi 1997;Zucker 1991).…”

Programa Seis Sigma Auto-organizado: modelo da situação atual e necessidades de mudanças

“…Among the various works already carried out, we can find examples related to academic and scientific research networks (Bennett & Kidwell, 2001;Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005), development networks of free software (Crowston et al, 2007), research and development networks in the automotive industry (Rycroft & Kash, 2004), networks of companies to improve sustainability (Espinosa & Porter, 2011), local public administration networks for economic policy development (Lee et al, 2012), networks of farmers (Dutta et al, 2005), networks of fashion industries (Schuh et al, 2008;Scherrer-Rathje et al, 2009), team management (Parker et al, 2015), among others. In all the literature reviewed, self-organizing networks were not addressed in the scope of Six Sigma programs, although there are common characteristics.…”

Collaborative Networks among Local Governments in the Seoul Metropolitan Area in South Korea

“…Because the central government has delegated power and authority to local governments with reduced physical and financial support, individual local municipalities who have secured some degree of autonomy have competed with each other to develop their local economies and to provide public services for their citizens (Lee et al, 2012). However, sometimes this intense competition among local jurisdictions has resulted in inefficiency, causing redundant investments and negative external economic effects (Feiock & Scholz, 2010).…”

“…However, sometimes this intense competition among local jurisdictions has resulted in inefficiency, causing redundant investments and negative external economic effects (Feiock & Scholz, 2010). In order to keep the advantages of local autonomy with a fragmented local system and, at the same time, to secure the efficiency of economies of scale by a concentrated urban system, local jurisdictions started to consider voluntarily collaborating with other municipalities (Lee et al, 2012;Feiock, 2004). Collaborative relationships among local jurisdictions can increase the capacity of local jurisdictions to solve common economic problems (Gordon, 2007).…”