The Nature of Organization in Transnational Networks

8/2/2019 The Nature of Organization in Transnational Networks

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-nature-of-organization-in-transnational-networks 1/34

THE NATURE OF ORGANIZATION IN TRANSNATIONAL NETWORKS

Anthony J . N. Judge

Union of International Associations(1 rue aux Laines, 1000 Brussels, Belgiul'j1)

Paper presented to the

Panel on Perspectives on Global Socie t ies

a t the

Annual Confe rence of the Internat ional Studies Association,Dallas, 16-18 March 1972

Rendered searchable by OCR, but recognition errors may preventthis in some cases. PHP variant (incomplete tables)

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/orgnets.php



Introduct ion

The purpose of th i s paper i s to draw at tent ion to the complexityof the system of organizat ions a t the t ransnat ional l eve l . Asimple c i ta t ion of the numbers and types of bodies involved wil lnot suf f ice , as there i s a well -es tabl ished tendency to concen-t r a te research and education on a few prominent actors or systems (*) .

A more f ru i t fu l approach may be tha t of showing the degree ofin ter l inkage between t ransnat ional ac tors , whether prominent,governmental, permanent or not .

As a p re lim in ary to th i s , in the f i r s t sec t ion, a br ie f review

is made of the range of types of organization possible in at ransnat ional se t t ing . Two se t s of data on in te rorganiza t iona l

l inkages are then presented to i l l u s t r a t e the extent of networkformation. In a f ina l sect ion some roles open to organizat ionsworking in a network are examined.

Range of Types of Transnational Organizations (**)

The purpose of th i s sec t ion i s to review some of the dimensionswhich complicate t ransnat ional organizat ion and the i so la t ion

of neat ly-character ized ac tors . In the next sect ion a t t en t ion

is concentrated on conventionally defined ac tors , but the suggestion is t ha t many statements appl icable to them are also appl i cab le to s ty les of organizat ion which are somewhat arb i t r a r i ly

dist inguished from them. .

1. Styles of organizat ion. There are many fac tors which deter

mine the manner in which di f fe ren t funct ions are associatedwith par t icu la r s ty les in a wide range of poss ib i l i t i e s oforganizat ion. An at tempt a t i so la t ing some di f fe ren t s ty les

i s presehted in Table 1. One example of how a need sa t i s -f ied by a conventional organizat ion may also be sa t i s f i ed bya funct ional equivalent in the Table i s the case of a "subscr ibersh ip" . In one se t t ing it might be necessary to have

in te rac t ion between members via an organiza t ion , whereas in

(*) For the extent of th i s concentrat ion see: C.F. Alger. Researchon research, a decade of quant i ta t ive and f ie ld research onin te rna t iona l organizat ions . Interna t ional Organizations , Summer

1970, p . 414-450. .Dissat i sfact ion with th is concentrat ion i s echoed by R.O. Keohaneand J .S . Nye, J r . (eds) Transna ti ona l Re la ti on s and World Pol i t i cs .

Internat ional Organization, Summer, 1971 (special i s sue ) .

Despite these views, the anthologies of sy l lab i on Basic Courses

in In te rna t iona l Organizat ions and Basic Courses in Interna t ional

Relat ions (Sage Publicat ions 1970 and 1968 respect ive ly) in severalthousand references mention "pr iva te in te rna t iona l organization"(meaning the petroleum i ndu s tr y ), "p r iv a te i n te rnat iona l unions",and "nongovernmental organizat ion" once only each. No mentionof in te rorganiza t iona l re la t ions was apparent .

(**) The argument in th i s sec t ion i s elaborated in more de ta i l in

A.J . Judge and K je ll S kje ls ba ek . NGOs and Funct ional ism. InJ . Groom (Edi tor) , Funct ional ism. (for thcoming) .



2

another the need for such in teract ion may be sa t i s f ied bya journal to which the individuals can subscr ibe .

Another example i s the case of an agreement which could be

considered a hyper-formal organization. In one se t t ing a

writ ten or verbal agreement may sa t i s f ac tor i ly regulate re la -t ions between members, whereas in a no the r anequlva len t

agreement may have to be administered by a sec re ta r i a t - i . e . ,an organization. Where formal agreement i s not possible , anorganizat ion may even perform the necessary mediating ornego ti at ing func ti ons between members. A f ina l example i s

the case of a meeting, and par t icu la r ly la rge regular meetings, in a se r i es . In terms of ac t iv i ty , th i s may be mores ignif icant than a small normally const i tuted organiza t ion .

The f i r s t consequence o f concentrat ing at tent ion on convent ional organizat ions i s tha t funct ional equivalents , par t ic -

ularly in other cul tures , are excluded from the analys i s ,thus introducing a cul tura l bias and jeopardizing the successof comparative analys i s . The second consequence i s that

even within a par t icu la r cul ture an "o rganiza tiona l analys is "wil l exclude many s ty les of organizat ion performing funct ionswhich mesh wi th those of the organizat ions i so la ted , thllS

rendering the analys is incomplete. A complicating fe2curei s that a conventional organizat ion may, for example, per fo rmfunct ions for a "membership" but at the same t ime may producea periodical which serves as the focal point for a "subscribership" which i s not coterminous with the membership.

A fur ther complicating feature derives from the dynamics of

a social system in tha t the growth or decay of a par t icu la r

organizat ion form may be accompanied by t ransference offunct ions to another organizat ion form, for example, due tochanges in technology. The abi l i ty to accomplish th i s t rans-

ference may be hindered by i ne r t i a l features such as vestedin te res ts ident i fying with a par t icu la r pat tern of organizat ion .

2. Governmental/nongovernmental dimension. The concept of a"nongovernmental" organizat ion i s an extremely d i f f i cu l t one

to handle sa t i s f ac tor i ly . The d efin it io n a t the in te rna-

t i ona l l eve l derives from a compromise wording in the early

d a ~ s of the United Nations but i s based on a concept of"governmental" not an any c lear und ers ta nd in g o f what i s

"nongovernmental", whether profit-making or nonprof i t . Thecurrent cr i s i s in INGO-UN re la t ions i s in par t due to thefac t tha t the Western concept of a nongovernmental organizat ion i s not quest ioned. The grey area between governmentaland nongovernmental i s i l lus t ra ted in Table 2.

3. Other dimensions.

a . PUblic/pr ivate dimension (e .g . H.G. Angelo dist ingUishespUblic in te rna t iona l corporat ions , in te rna t iona l companies,intergovernmental corporationsofprivate law, mult inat ional

public enterpr i ses , single government mult inat ional enter-pr i ses , mixed g o v e r n m e n t ~ p r i v a t e multinational enterpr ises ,



3

private mul ti na ti ona l corpo ra te enterpr i ses ( * » .b. Internat ional /nat ional dimention (see Table 4).

c . Nonprof i t /prof i t dimension (see Table ) d. Incorpora ted /unincorpora ted / i l lega l dimensione . Secret/closed/openjpublic impac t d imension

f . Permanent/temporary dimensiong. Organized coordinative leve l (e .g . t ransnat ional organizat ionwith t ransnat ional organizations members whose members

are themselves t ransnat ional organizations, such as theConference of NGOs with Consultat ive Sta tus with UNESCO,of which the Internat ional Council of ( internatbnal )Scien t i f ic Unions i s a member)

h. Cross-d isc ip l inary coordinat ive l eve l (e .g . the extent towhich d if fe r en t d is c ip l in a ry in te re s t s are in tegrated byan organizationfs programs)

i. Cross-modal coordinat ive level (e .g . the extent to whichan organizat ion in tegra tes such programs as research ,

real-world problem so lu t ion , promotion of the profess ion ,public information, long- te rm formula tion of pol icy , e tc . )j . Decision-making par t i c ipa t iveness Dimensionk . Dependence /independence/ in te rdependence dimension

1 . Dimension from s t ress on people involved through to s t ress

on organizat ion binding t he i r representat ivesm. Dimension from " inhab it ed" o rgani za ti on through informa

t ion system to hyper-formal organizat ions such as agreements

n. Terr i tory-orientedj funct ion-oriented (non- ter r i tor ia l )

dimension.

Combiningthese dimensions and others produces a vast rangeof types of organizat ion for which no adequate taxonomy yet

exis ts (**)

But because of the functional subst i tu t ion between s ty les of

organizat ion, in di f fe ren t se t t ings , i t might be more prof i t able to analyze organiza t ional systems in terms of the i n t e r

actions between the component par ts , ra ther than attempt todevelop some "natural" c la s s i f i ca t ion , to the ce l ls of which

i t i s hoped tha t specif ic funct ions may be re la ted . This maybe of par t icu la r importance with the i nc rea si ng complex if ication of the organizational world as Harold Leavi t t notes (**)

"The problems of the sevent ies wil l l i e not so muchwithin the organization as between i t and soc ie ty .

(*)HomerG.Angelo .Mul t ina t iona lCorpora teEnterpr i ses ; some lega land policy aspects of a modern social-economic phenomenon. Academyof In te rna t iona l Law, Recueil des Cours, 1968, vol .3 , p.447-606.

(**)ADrea RosBnbergis w ~ r k i n g on th i s (see: I n te rna ti ona l I n te r ac ti onand the Taxonomy of I nt erna tDnal Organiza tions, In te rna t iona lAssociations-, 19,11, 1967, p. 721-729.)

(***)Harold J . Leavi t t . The Yesterday, TodaY, and Tomorrow of O r g a n ~iza t ions . Euroeean Bus in es s, Spring 1971, 29, p. 28-33.



We sha l l have to look much more to the socia l ~ n family l i f e of organizat ions ; a t o r g a n i z B t i o n ~ l morriaueand divorce, a t the children tha t ol'ly:lflizutLun:: ~ ; p ; I \ ' l n .l, ,]eshall begin to know organizat ions by thf'J curnpuny thuy

keep. The fu ture , I th ink , wil l be soc i a l , po l i t l cn l ,

in ter-organiza t ional" (emphasis added) .

In te r -o rgan iza t iona l Linkages

Aside from a number of case s tudies of system s of 3-5 organi z atio ns, th er e appears to have been l i t t l e e f fo r t to examine

t ransnat ional in te rorganiza t ional systems. Li t t l e data hasbeen col lec ted . I t becomes convenient to assume tha t most organizat ions funct ion as i so la ted uni t s with b i la te ra l re la t ionships

with partners which are however not in t he i r turn l inked to otherpar tners of the organiza t ion . A system of dyads i s a convenients impl i f ica t ion .

1 . Groupings of organiza t ions .

A f i r s t step i s to at tempt to loca te the coordinative bodiesl inking other t ransnat ional ac tors . There i s l i t t l e systemicinformat ion on such bodies . Thus the Jackson Report admitsto having given up on counting the coordinating bodies withinthe UN system (*) . (Ed Miles notes tha t the one term systemat ica l ly avoided in the UN Administra t ive Committee on ~ o o r d i -nat ion i s "coordination l l

).

In the case of nongovernmental bodies , an at tempt has been

made to l i s t those actors which have other t ransnat ional

actors as members. There 'are about 70 such bodies of di f fe ren t

types (**) .

2. lGO-Multinational business enterpr ise l inkages .Some aspects of a s tudy by Jean Meynaud cover the re la t ionship

betw8sn mult inat ionals and the EEC (***) . An ea r l i e r study(****) (asurvey) by Fri tz Fischer shows how EEC t ra de a ss oc ia tio ns as s i s t

in t h ~ s re la t ionship . Some work could be done on the r e l a

t ionshipbetween FAO and the mult ina t ionals through the Com-mit tee of i t s FAO/Industry Cooperation Program. The same

could. be sa id for OECD with i t s business / t rade / indus try advi-sory commit te e. Final ly data should be avai lab le on the IBRDsystemfs re la t ionships with mult ina t ionals . (UNCTAD and UNIDO

. . . . . .--..---------------------------------------

(***)

(****)

United Nations. Capacity Study of the United Nations Development

System. ~ J e w York, UN, 1970.

A.J.N. Judge. Interna t ional NGO Groupings. In te rna t iona lAssociat ions , 21, 2, 1969, p. 89-92.

Jean Meynaud and Dusan Sidjanski . Les groupes de press ion dans

l a c o m m u n a u t ~ e u r o p ~ e n n e (1958-1968). Bruxe lle s, Editio ns de

l f l n s t i t u t de Sociologie, 1971, 733 p.(For a remarkable study of the l inkages between Netherlands businesenterpr ises see: R.J . Mokken and F.N. Stokman. Invloedss t rukturenvan Pol i t ieke en Ekonomische El i tes in Nederland. Amsterdam,

Ins t i tue of Pol i t i ca l Science, 1971) .

Fr i tz . Fischer . Die in s t i tu t iona l i s i e r t e Vertretung del.' V e r b ~ n d 8in del.' E u r o p ~ j G c h 8 n WirtGchoftGgsmeinschoft . Thosis e t Univers i tyof Kj,ol, InE:1UtLJL fUr In t t Jrnnt ionales Hocht, (1CJ(Jb?).



5

appear to be acting very c au tio usly in t h i s respect becauseof the p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . ) The r e l a t i o n s h i p between

i n t e r - s t a t e e n t e r p r i s e s and COMECON would also be of i n t e r e s t .

3. INGO-IGO systems.As a prel iminary attempt to determine whether the s i t u a t i o n

was in f a c t more complicated, data a v a i l a b l e on c o n s u l t a t i v e

relat idnst ips between INGOs and d i f f e r e n t IGOs (mainly the UN

Special ized A g ~ n c i e s ) was obtained. (*) This p o t e n t i a l l y verys i g n i f i c a n t system of 500 organizat ions i s general ly assumed

by the organizat ional u n i t s involved (and p a r t i c u l a r l y by the

IGO agencies) to be fragmented i n t o systems of INGOs r e l a t i n g

individual ly to t h e i r counterpart IGOs. The INGOs acquires t a t u s through t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and the only form of i n t e r

nat ional l e g a l recognit ion open to them. The IGOs acquirea pool of competence on which to draw. (**)

The fol lowing f a c t o r s govern the e x t e n t of inter-INGO i n t e r

action in such systems.

individual IGO and INGO d e s i r e for autonomy and d i s t i n c

t i v e n e s s

IGO d e s i r e to r e t a i n some control over the system bystrengthening dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s as opposed to encouraging in te r- INGO r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

IGO d e s i r e to encourage inter-INGO r e l a t i o n s h i p s tu compensate fo r the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s and reduct ionof INGO e f f e c t i v e n e s s through fragmentationIGOdes i re to avoid r e l a t i n g to any INGO not formallyrecognizedINGO d e s i r e to form dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s for s p e c i f i c

p r o j e c t sINGO d e s i r e to form a common f r o n t to c l a i i f y commonproblems in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the IGO agency

For some IGO-INGO systems t h i s has r e s u l t e d in the c r e a t i o n

of per iodic conferences of INGOs consul t ing with the agencytogether with a permanent s e c r e t a r i a t . In the case of EeOSOe,for example, such conferences have a p o t e n t i a l membership of

350 o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In the case of Unesco the p o t e n t i a l member

ship i s 175 organizat ions . These conferences o f f e r INGOs and

t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s opportuni t ies for f u r t h e r a s s e r t i n g t h e i r

d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s through a system of committees and o f f i c e s ( *** ) .

The i n t e r e s t i n g paint about these INGO conferences i s t h a t (a)they do not have any formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r corre spondence

(*) A t a b l e covering 500 INGOs against 15 IGO agencies i s publishedin each e d i t i o n of the Yearbook of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Organizat ions.

(**) I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to apply Johan Galtung 's centre-per ipheryanalysis t o t h i s system.

(***) In f a c t , due t o a number of i n t e r a c t i n g f a c t o r s (not l e a s t ofwhich i s the lack of a t t e n t i o n of s c h o l a r s ) , these p o t e n t i a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t coordinative bodies have been progress ively down

graded in importance by INGO headquar ters , IGO S e c r e t a r i a t s and

nat ional d e l e g a t i o n s .



6

with one another nor i s there any move in t h i s d i r e c t i o n .

This appears to threaten the e l i t e s in each group. The argumentused i s t h a t the concerns of each such conference are i r r e l e v a n t

to the o t h e r s , despi te the f a c t t h a t each has subcommittees onsuehis sue s a s 11 deve lopmen t li, il yout h", e t c • (b) The I G0sin

ques t ion, a t l e a s t in the case of ECOSOC and Unesco, do not recognize the existence or views of the conferences in any

formal sense ( ae sp ite o ff er in g them many f a c i l i t i e s which ensure a very dependent in t imate adminis t ra t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p - -

to the point where some NGOs assume t h a t i t i s the agency'sconference).Some recognit ion i s accorded the committees of theconferences.

The problem was to use the data avai lable to demonstrate overlap in membership between the d i f f e r e n t agency-INGO systemsas a means of countering the suggestion t h a t each system was i r re levant to the o t h e r s . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important a t a time

when the UN agencies are being forced to operate more closelytogether on such c r o s s - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l issues as "deve lopmen t""peace" , "youth", "environment", e t c . Table 5 shOL:JS thedegree of overlap in INGO membership of consul ta t ive s t a t u s

systems. Thus in the case of the 175 NGOs with consul ta t ive s t a t u s

A o r B with Unesco: 61(35%) also have ECOSOC I or 11 s ~ a t u s ;111 (64%) with ECOSOC Roster s t a t u s ; 47 (27%) with l lD, 36 (21%)with FAO; 20 (11%) with WHO, 4 (2%) with ICAO, 7 (4%) with WMO,

5 (3%) with IMlO, 8 (5%) with IAEA, 48 (27%) with UNICEF, 9 (5%)with the Council of Europe, and 9 (5%) with OAS (* )

This s o r t of information r a i s e s the i n t e r e s t i n g quest ion as to

j u s t how much overlap between groups i s necessary before theyshould (a) recognize one another (b) i n t e r a c t , (c) hold j o i n t

meetings, (d) merge e t c .

4. INGO-INGO systems

The above data indicates overlap in INGO i n t e r e s t s between d i f

f e r e n t INGO-IGO systems control led by the IGOs. Given thecommon i n t e r e s t , i t does not bring out the extent of any consequent INGO-INGO i n t e r a c t i o n s . Very l i t t l e data seems to be

a v a i l a b l e on these . In order to obtain an indicat ion of theextent and nature of any such i n t e r a c t i o n , a survey was made inFebruary 1972 of a small group of INGOs with s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s .

The organizat ions selected from the Yearbook of I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Organizations were those which seemed to have some t ransnat ionals o c i a l science i n t e r e s t s touching on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s .

A few IGO bodies and some bodies not (yet) included in the Yearbook were also added to the survey.

The basis of the survey was a q ~ e s t i o n n a i r e l i s t i n g 56 organizat i o n s (see Annex 1 ) . Each organizat ion was asked to mark against

(*) These r e s u l t s were included in an a r t i c l e arguing for "The Use ofrMulti-Meetings t

", I n t e r n a t i o n a l Associat ions, 23,6,1971, p.354-359.Kjel l Skjelsbaek has undertaken a more camprehensive computeranalysis of the system and wil l probably be publish in g h is r e s u l t s

in the near f u t u r e .



7

each o th er o rg an iz at io n in the l i s t in one or more columns,when it had a par t icu la r type of in te rac t ion . The followingcolumns were provided:

1. Indi rect contact via1.1 Common members

1.2 Common off ice-holders (not ex-of f ic io)1.3 Sub-section contact

2. Direct contact via2.1. Organization i s a member2.2. Jo in t meetings2.3. Let te r / te lephone/v is i t s

2.4. Funds t rans fe r

In addi ti on , o rgani za ti on s were asked " I f possible mark 1,2,3 ,4 ,

or 5 in the l a s t column to indicate the approximate f requency of

the most frequent di rec t contact ." (where 1=ir regul a r; 2=annuall y;

3=month ly , 4=weekly; 5=daily) .

The survey was l imited to 56 organizat ions because of the need

to fac i l i t a te response as much as possible by keeping the lengthof the l i s t to a minimum (two pages). Organizations were however

asked in a f ina l l ine to "Please add any other in ternat ional

bodies of par t icu la r s ignif icance to your organizat ionls contac ts in th i s domain". To encourage respondents , the introductionto the ques t ionnaire included the comment "One expectat ion is

tha t few of the organizat ions l i s ted are in contact with many ofthe others - - therefore the quest ionnaire should not take morethan a few minutes to complete".

Of the 56 questioned: 27 supplied sa t i s fac tory rep l ies , 2 replied

to say tha t they had two l i t t l e in teract ion to merit a reply , 1complained tha t the categor ies did not covei- the complexity ofi t s in teract ion and s u g g e s t e ~ t ha t some other bodies shouldhave been included, 1 replied to say tha t t h ~ y did not r ~ p l yto quest ionnaires .

From data already avai lable at t h Union of Internat ional Associa t ions , it was poss ible to complete the questionnaire for twonon-respondents, namely the NGO Liaison Sect ions of ECOSOC and

UNESCO by not dis t inguishing (as they would be obliged not to do)

between o rgani za ti on s o ther than in terms of the types of in te r

action envisaged under each consul ta t ive s ta tus category. Replies

were also compiled fo r two other non-respondents , the NGO(ECOSOC) Conference, and the NGO( UNESCO) Conference, in terms of ,

ths par t ic ipant l i s t s a t the i r l a s t meetings and the knownin teract ion charac te r is t ic of membership of the conferences.This gave a t o t a l of 31 useable responses.

One advantage of th i s form of survey i s t ha t each l ink is crosschecked. Depending on the nature of the analysis r e q u i r ~ d ,different assumptions can be made to improve or complete theinformation ava i lab le .



8

1. All non-matched c r o s s - l i n k s can be el iminatedi n the most s t r i n g e n t case .

2. Those l i n k s un-matched due to non-response can

be considered matched.

3. All l i n k s c i t e d by respondents can be considered

to e x i s t whether matched or n o t .

4. Link s "re ce i ved" by 0 r gani za t ion s are de r i ved fro m as u f f i c i e n t l y la rge number of o rg an iz atio ns to allouJ

f o r i n t e r - o rg a n i z a ti o n a l g e n e r al iz a ti o n , l i n k s "sent"are generated from s i n g l e organizat ional sources and

t h e r e f o r e do not permit such g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ( * ) . Inan e f f o r t to obtain e x t r a information, a compromise

technique can be used to compute probable rec iprocatedi n t e r a c t i o n s by weighting the importance of the two

c o n t r i b u t i o n s . One p o s s i b i l i t y i s :

= 0.25 (sum of l i n k s s e n t )+

0.75 (sum of l i n k s received)

where the bracket in the second term i s obtained from

= (Usable answers + Unusable answers( Usable answer s

(0.5» (Links received)) ( a c t u a l l y c it e d )

A combination of the above techniques (With the exception of 3)

was used a t d if f e r e n t s tages of the a n a l y s i s . In t h i s way,

i n t e r a c t i o n between 55 organizat ions could be examined in someway. (One non-respondent organization was dropped from thesample because it was not c i t e d by any other body.) These

techniques compensating for absence of information were, however,only applied to the presence or absence of a l i n k , not to thenature of the l i n k .

Table 6 shows a summary of i n t e r a c t i o n s in t h r e e groups:

1. presence of a l i n k of any type ( i . e . mUltiple i n t e r

a c t i o n s t r e a t e d as one l i n k )

2. presence of mult iple l i n k s ( i . e . mult ip le i n t e r a c t i o n s

t o t a l l e d )

3. r e c i p r o c a t e d l i n k s (assuming r e c i p r o c a t i o n with p a i r

non-respondents)

In the f i r s t t ~ J O cases an at tempt i s made, as outl ined e a r l i e r ,

to compute the probable number of i n t e r a c t i o n s given 100% response.The computed t o t a l from the s i n g l e l i n k case, 626, may be compared

(* ) Robert C. Anderson. A Sociometric Approach to the Analysisof I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Relat ionships . I n s t i t u t e for Community

Development and Services , Michigan S t a t e Univers i ty , 1969, 30 p.



types per pai r for aTable 9 covers thef requencies of theThese two tables

perceptions of the

9

with the t o t a l from the rec iprocal l ink cass , 507, obtainedwith the non-respondent assumption.

t ~ g u r e 1 shows the number of organizat ions with a given number

of reciprocated in te rac t ions based on the t e s t case .

Table 7 shows reciprocated and non-reciprocated in te rac t ions

again assuming. reciprocat ion with pa i r non-respondents . Theorganizat ions are ordered in terms of a ranking of the computed

in te rac t ions ( f i r s t case above) .

Table 8 shows the number of in teract ion

group of more i n t ~ r a c t i v e organiza t ions .

same group of organizat ions but shows themost f requent di rec t contact in te rac t ion .

indica te the d iffe re nc e in organiza t ion ' s

number and f requencies of i n t e rac t i on .

Using the rec iprocated l inks from Table 8, Figure 2 was producedto show the complexity of th e densest part of the in te rac t ion

network.

For reasons of time and computer ( in )access ib i l i ty , i t u!as -not

poss ib le to analyze the data any fur ther for t h i s paper . Theresu l t s so fa r , however, clear ly ind ica te a marked degree oforganiza t ional interdependence. Using one measure of densi ty ,

proposed by J .A. Barnes (*), namely

200 a/n (n-1)

where a = actual number of ( rec iprocated) l inks

n = number of bod ie s in vo lv ed

a value fo r the dens i ty of the network of 55 bodies of 34.2% i s

obtained. I f 3352, K, 3387 and 2575 are removed the dens i ty i sstill only reduced to 31.4%.

I t would also be in terest ing to examine the cent ra l i ty of p a r t i ~cular organizations with respect to the remainder of the network.For t h i s purpose it would be useful to have some dis t inc t ion between"horizontal" l inks and "ver t i ca l " l inks in order to locate

the "topdogs", th e " unde rdog s" , and the "bot t lenecks" . Theconcept of cent ra l i ty i s re la ted to tha t of the reachabi l i ty orcompactness of a network. J . Clyde Mitchel l (**) on . th i s point

(*) J .A. Barnes. Networks and P l i t i c a l Process . In: J . Clyde

Mitchell (Ed.) . Socia l Networks in Urban Si tua t ions .

Manchester Universi ty Press , 1969, P ' 51-76

(**) J . Clyde Mitchell . The Concept and Use of Social Networks.In : J . Clyde Mi t che l l (Ed. ) . Social Networks in Urban

Si tua t ions . Manchester Universi ty Press , 1969, p. 1-50



10

makes a dis t inc t ion between two dimensions of compactness(a) the p ro po rtio n o f bodies which can ever be contacted byeach body in the network and (b) the number of in termediariesthat must be t raversed to make the contact . He advocates a"crude measure" using a distance matrix to compute the average

number of points reach ed over a l l s teps in a network.

Using Johan Galtung's ins ights i t would be in te res t ing to look atsome forms of cent ra l i ty as fac i l i t a t ive of s t ruc tura l violence.Networks would appear to break down pure centre-periphery structuresby introducing many intermediate leve ls which neutra l ize hierarchiesby cross-l inking them or se t t ing up many competing or co un terbalancing centres - - i . e . increasing the socia l entropy (*) .

Hopefully the data draw3 at tent ion to the necessi ty of lookingnot only a t an organiza t ion ts f i r s t order contacts but also i t ssecond and higher order contacts through the network in which i t

i s embedded.(**)

I t i s hoped to use the methods developed by Robert C.Anderson (***)to analyze the network into blocks. "A block i s defined as anumber of organizat ions, a l l of which are rec iprocal ly chosen by

one another . lI Blocks are ordered by size with the l a rges t in thetop rows and le f t -most columns of the m atrix . This produces cluster :of matrices of rec iprocal choices along the matr ix d iagona l whichhe refers to as cons te l l a t ions . They are a par t icu la r configurationof the or ig ina l blocks chosen in such a way as to display most

luc idly the s t ructure of in te rac t ion .

Anderson a lso in tro du ce s the notion of cons te l la t ion se t s , namelya group of organiza t ions , some of which i re rec iprocal ly chosen bya l l members of the cons te l la t ion ( i . e . primary members). Organizations tha t in te rac t with members of more than one conste l la t ionset are cal led l i a i sons .

Features which are not immediately apparent from the resu l t salready given are :

- di fferences in the "cont inui ty" of the network due todi f fe ren t frequencies of in terac t ion ( i . e . i f low frequencyin te rac t ions were ignored the network would appear much

patchier in Figure 2).

(*) Johan G a l t u n g ~ Entropy and the General Theory of Peace.In: Proceedings of the Internat ional Peace Research Association,Second Conference, Assen, Van Gorcurn, 1968.

(**) cf . J.A. Barnes. Networks and Pol i t i ca l Process. op.c i t .

(***)Robert C. Anderson. A Sociometric Approach to the Analysisof Inter -organiza t ional Relat ionships. Michigan State Universi ty:Ins t i tu te fo r Community Development and Services , 1969, 30p .(Another approach of i n t e r e s t concentrates on mult iple membership or leadership roles of individuals . George M. Beal e t . a l .

System Linkages among Woments Organizat ions. Iowa StateUnivers i ty , Department of Sociology and Anthropology fOr theOffice of Civi l Defense, 1967, 155 p .)



1 1

- di f fe rences due to the type of in te rac t idn and thepresence s imu ltaneously (or a t d if fe ren t f requencies)of severa l di f fe ren t interact ion types between twobodies. C learly an apparently highly in teract ive body

in f igure 2 i s shown in a dif fe ren t l i gh t i f i t

involves primarily low frequency s ingle- type in te r -cictions involving exchange of printed matter .

- differences ar is ing because of the directedness of i n t e r -ac t ions . In some non-reciprocated in te rac t ions th i s maybe due to A sending B i nformati on wit hout receiving anyresponse. A l ink s t i l l exis ts however.

To convey th i s amount of information sa t i s fac to r i ly in a comprehensible manner requires the use of more sophis t icated techniques (*

I f the organiza t ions had not been selected as concerned with adef ini te f ie ld of in te res t , i t might have been valuable toattempt t.o c lass i fy them by f ie ld of in te res t and determinethe degtee of contact between the i n t e res t sec tors (or between

"governmental" and "nongovernmental"). In fact the networkof l inks between organizat ions may be useful ly conceived of asin terpenet rated by the l inks of each organization to a networkof in ter re la ted discipl ines and f ie lds of in te res t . Similar lyi t may be useful to conceive of the two networks as in terpenet ra ted by a network of in te r re la ted problems. There may even besome funct ional subs t i tu t ions between these dif fe ren t networks.

(*) See A.J.N. Judge. Computer-aided visual izat ion ofpsycho-social s t ruc tures . (Paper presented a t an

AAAS Symposium on Value and KnOWledge Requirementsfor Peace, Philadelphia, 1971).



12

I n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Network Roles

The above data makes c l e a r t h a t there i s a considerable amount ofi n t e r a c t i o n between o rg an iz ati on s in the selected group, asidefrom the i n t e r a c t i o n s of each of them with other bodies not s e l e c

ted t h e r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to o ther i n t e r s e c t i n g domains

of a c t i v i t y . The data does not , however, make very.c lear what

each organizat ion does for i t s various i n t e r a c t i o n par tners inthe network, or fo r other bodies with whom it only i n t e r a c t s i n d i

r e c t l y .

This area may perhaps usefully be i n v e s t i g a t e d in the l i g h t ofthe importance of inform al organizat ion to the effect iveness of aformal organizat ion. People are very ingenious a t adapting toformal p o l i c i e s and procedures imposed upon them by creat ing aninformal network with t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t communication l i n e s and

p r i o r i t i e s . The informal roles open to organizat ions may have

a s imilar r e l a t i o n s h i p to the formal i n t er - o r g a n iz a ti o n a l n e t work by which they are constrained. Donald Schon gives someevidence for t h i s in his account of the response by regionaladminis t ra t ive u n i t s to c e n t r a l l y formulated goverMmental programsi n the U.S.A. (*) The emphasis i s however on s t r a t e g i e s by which

the periphery can subvent the centre1s programs.

A recent a r t i c l e by George F a r r i s , on the informal organizat ionin government research l a b o r a t o r i e s with a high value on innovat ion and c r e a t i v i t y , s u g g e s t ~ some i n t r i g u i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s forencouraging more e f f e c t i v e informal organizat ion. He studiedthe key r o l e s colleagues could play in a problem-solving environ

ment, namely the functions one profess ional performed which wereuseful to the technical decision-making and project advancementof a col league. He found t h a t members of the laboratory i n t r a

organizat ional network performed the following funct ions for oneano th er during p roblem-solv ing:

1 . Suggestion s tage1 . 1 . provide o r i g i n a l idea1 . 2 . provide technical information1 . 3 . provide information on organizat ional developments

2. P roposal sta ge2 . 1 . provide help in thinking through ideas

2 . 2 . provide c r i t i c a l evaluat ion of them

3. Solut ion stage3 . 1 . ensure t h a t proposal gets a f a i r hearing3 . 2 . ensure t h a t adminis trat ive help ~ n resources are

forthcoming (*.*)

(*) Donald A. Schon. Beyond the Stable S t a t e ; public and pr ivatelearning i n a changing s o c i e t y . London, Temple Smith, 1971.

(**) George F a r r i s . Executive D e c ~ s i o n - M a k i n g in ~ r g a n i z a t ~ o n s ;Ident i fying the Key Men and Managing the Process. Cambridge,

SloanSchool of Management, (19717), W.P. 551.~ __ ~ _ Colleague Roles and Innovation in S c i e n t i f i c Teams.

Cambridge, Sloan School of Management, (19717) W.P. 552.



13

Equivalent functions, may wall be performed increasingly by organi za t ions for one another in the in te r -organiza t iona l network.Some evidence for th is i s the amount of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ~ e c 8 i v 8 dand answered by an organizat ion which brings no di rec t benef i tto th'e organizat ion but simpl y ensures tha t it i s recognized as

playing a par t in the network. This i s pa rt ic u la rl y s ig n if ic a n tin re la t ions between i ns t i tu t es with research i n t e res t s . Some ofthese network roles of organizat ions are undertaken del iberate ly

to compensate for mismatches between the in s t i tu t iona l map andthe problems perceived as important (*).

In th is connection i t i s useful to co nsid er th e number of funct ionstha t have to be performed to ensure tha t two organizat ions establ i sh a working re la t ionsh ip , when i n i t i a l ly they do not knowof each other t s exis tence , or i f they do, consider each o t h e r ~ sac t iv i t i e s mutually i r re levant or in competition for scarce re sources . These are l i s t ed in Annex 2.

The in te r -organiza t iona l network i s dynamic (a) in the p s r i o d i ~ i t yof t ransact ions along l inks , Cb) in the formatio n and dissolut ion

of l inks t h ~ m s e l v e s (c) in conf igura t ional changes due to smergenceor disappearance of focal centres for many l inks , (d) in theemergence and disappearance of ad hoc configurations, and (e) inthe longer term evolution of new types and pat terns of l inkingbetween organizations.

The dynamics of these changes may useful ly be considered in thel igh t of the ear l i e r paragraphs(and Annex 2) to be midwifed,st imulated and catalyzed by organizat ions performing a var ie ty ofoften informal network ro les . I t is possibly only through

general recognit ion of the mul t ip l ic i ty of these ro les tha t ind i vidual organizat ions could recognize and admit to ' the s ign i f i cance of the network to the i r own par t icu la r funct ions. An attempthas been made to l i s t out these network roles in Annex 3.

C learly the l i s t is not complete. One of the problems i s t ha tprac t i ce , par t icu la r ly the fo rmatio n of a group to respond to anewly-emergent problem, i s constant ly ahead of theory. New funct ions are undertaken by groups in "d i s t an t " par ts of the system inthe time it takes for the communication system to report on the i rexistence (**). The range of funct ions performed by organizat ionsfor one another i s in the f ina l a na ly sis c lo se ly re la ted to thenumber of organizat ions in exis tence and the manner in which they

are in te r - l inked . An organizat ion can be highly specia l ized (a) i fi t can depend on having other bodies performing cer ta in funct ionsfor i t , and (b) i f other bodies are wil l ing to al locate funds forthe special funct ion performed. Both condi t ions draw an organi zat ion into a web of interdependence.

Conclusions and policy impl ica t ions

1. The degree of organizat ional in ter l inkage would seem to precludes impl i s t ic a ssumpt ions about the funct ioning of the t ransnat ional

(*) Donald Schon , op .c i t .

(**) Donald Schon, op .c i t .



2.

"tu •

,.

'-1-.

5 .

14

organizat ional system. Further study i s required to determinewhen and to what extent a given organizat ion in a given n e t

work can be usefully and r e a l i s t i c a l l y conceived of as an iso-

l a t e d and "independent" e n t i t y .

Greater e f f o r t should be made to map out t r a n s n a t i o n a l organizat ional networks (possibly by a succession of overlappingsurveys) so t h a t organizat ions can see t h e i r d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t

r e l a t i o n s h i p s to one another . ( I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l mapsshould have the same s t a t u s and a c c e s s i b i l i t y as road maps inorder t h a t people can move more e f f e c t i v e l y through the socia lsystem.)

The network ro les performed by organizat ions in a t r a n s n a t i o n a l

s e t t i n g should be recognized and taken i n t o account in evaluating and funding organizat ions . E f f o r t s should be made toincrease the e f f e c t i v e n e s s with which such r o l e s can be per

formed.

The d i f f i c u l t process by which organizat ions are brought intocontact without " recognizing" or being associated ~ i t h one

another needs f u r t h e r examination to f a c i l i t a t e l inkage f o r

mation. A p a r t i c u l a r l y useful formula i s t h a t of the "mul t i meeting" (*) in which time s l o t s in a meeting program framework are taken up by a wide var ie ty o f independen t organizat ions which need not formally acknowledge each o t h e r t s presence but whose r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s can informally p a r t i c i p a t e ,

where appropria te , in each o t h e r t s meetings, as well as meet

each other a t s o c i a l funct ions or in informally establ ished

working groups.(e .g . the American Associat ion for the Advancement of Science annual meeting).

The i n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l network i s cons tant ly evolving in

response to new i n s i g h t s , p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and problems. I t i s

therefore l e s s the p a t t e r n a t anyone moment which shouldbe the focus of concern and much more the pat tern-formingp o t e n t i a l of organizat ional subunits and act ive i n d i v i d u a l s .

Means must be found t o bring into contact bodies as soon asthey are able to formulate a problem or i n t e r e s t in common.Prior to enter ing i n t o some d ir ec t r e l a ti o n s h i p , p o t e n t i a l

par tners need to be conceived of as "members" of a " p o t e n t i a l

associat ion"(**) from which p a r t i c u l a r groupings gel as requiredand into which they dissolve when t h e i r object ive i s achieved.Such a p o t e n t i a l a s s o c i a t i o n could be given th e n ece ssa ry ope r a t i o n a l framework by s u b s t i t u t i n g a specia l type of i n f o r

mation sy stem cum r e f e r r a l service fo r normal ly-cons t i tu tedmembership organizat ions - - th us avo id ing problems of "recognit ion" and proof of "relevance".

A.J.N. Judge. "The Use of Mult i-Meetings" ; p roposal fo r improvement to NGO/UN r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Associations,236 , 1971, p . 354-359.

_____ . New Types of Social Enti ty ; the role of the "poten

t i a l a s s o c i a t i o n " . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Associat ions, 23, 3, 1971,p. 148-152.



15

6. I t i s not yet c l e a r to what degree i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r

action should be maximized and the organizat ional universerendered t r a n s p a r e n t . Study i s required to e s t a b l i s h thedegree of r e l a t i ~ 8 i s o l a t i o n and privacy necessary for organizat ion to provide p a r t i c i p a t i v e , c r e a t i v e environments which

would guarantee generat ion of a var ie ty of a l t e r n a t i v e modesof action and would r e s i s t overcoordination from any centre .

7. L i t t l e work seems to have been done on the action s t r a t e g y oft ransnational organizations functioning as a network. Howshould t he requi remen ts of coordination and autonomy be balancedin the absence of any prime c o n t r o l l e r or any single permanentobjectiv'e? Some suggest ions for a network action s t r a t e g y

are offered in Annex 4.

8 . The degree of interconnected ne ss and d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t i n t e r

dependence of organizations suggests t h a t , where two organizat ional systBms have common object ives or concerns, it i s s h o r t

sighted and possibly counterproductive f o r the f i r s t system torequest the second fo r a ssista ncB in the accomplishment of i t s

own s ystern obje c t i v e s - - and to ignore the second when ' i t pursuesthe same object ives in a d i f f e r e n t manner. Both systems shouldrather seek to impr'ove t h e i r functioning as interdependent systemsand ensure t h a t t h e i r operat ions mesh e f f e c t i v e l y .

9. I t may well be time to abandon the misleading term " in ternat ionalnongovernmental(nnnprofi t) organizat ion" . " I n t e r n a t i o n a ~ i s

increasingly inappropriate . " O r g a n i z a t i o ~ l h a s been appropriatedby those concerned w ith intergovernmental bodies . "Nongovernmenta l" n eed s to be dropped because mixed or li i n t e r s e c t " orga

nizations are increas ingly important , p a r t i c u l a r l y in developingard s o c i a l i s t countries - - also in some c u l t u r e s o r languagesystems "non-" may well mean something very close to " a n t i " . Inaddition, to define "X" as "non-V" i s a pla in confession ofi n a b i l i t y to conceptualize "X". The term " t ransnat ionalassocia t ion networks" seems more appropriate p a r t i c u l a r l y

since i t takes the s t r e ss off the "independent" organizat i onalunit (*).

* * * *

(*) See A.J.N. Judge and Kjel l Skjelsbaek. Bibliography ofDocuments on Transnational Association Networks ( i n t e r

national nongovernmental organizat ions as a f i e l d of study).Brussels , Union of In ternat ional Associat ions, 1972, - -

66 p . , d r a f t ( includes selected l i s t of 112 t h e s i s t o p i c s ) .



l ab i a l

Tentative Qual i f ica t ion of Different Styles of Organization

Involvement Formality Ephemerality Activityas Member

ConventionalMembership L/H H L M

Ad Hoc H M H H

Meeting in a series. H H M M

One-off meeting H H H H

Demonstration H L H H

Be-in H L H L~ 1 o v e m e n t s H L L M

Campaign H M M H

Invisib le college M L L L

Primary groups L/H L L H

Belief-ship L L L L

Spectator-ship H L H L

Subscribership L L M L

Listenership M L H L

Consurnership (mater ia lgoods) M L M/H M/H

Employeeship H H L H

Information systems H M L M

Agreement H H L L

<

..



Table 2

Governmental Nongovernmental .Dimension

1 . Administration of an intergovernmental agreementMinister ia l l eve l organizat ionJo in t m ilita ry command

Technical agency

2. Corps diplomatiqueInter -Par l iamantary Union

Ententes cordia lesBilderberg Group

3 . lATAI n te rna ti ona l Sec re ta r ia t fo r Volunteer ServiceINTERPOL/International Union of Offic ia l Travel Organizations

4.NGOs

with governments asmembers (e .g .

IUCN,IIAS,

ICSU)In te rsec t or Mixed organizat ionsGovernment technical people in INGOs ( in unof fic ia l c ap a ci tie s)

INGOs a d m i n i s t e r e ~ by of f i c i a l s on government payro l l s

INGOs receiving off ice space or f ac i l i t i e s from governmentsINGOs funded by governments

5. INGOs spec i f ica l ly al igned with a pol i t i ca l par ty!'(;leoples o rg an iz atio ns" in the Marx ist s en seInternat ional pol i t i ca l par t ies

Internat ional organizat ions of pol i t i ca l par t i es

Front organizat ions

6. I ~ t e r n a t i o n a l t evo lut iona ry o rgan i za ti onsLiberat ion movements

Assembly of Captive European Nations

7. National governmental agencies with in te rna t iona l programs

( e ~ g . , U.S. Peace Corps, U.S. Department of Defense)secret services (e .g . CIA, KGB)

8. Inter-governm ental e nte rp ris es ( e.g . Eurofima and Eurochemic)Multinational enterpr i ses with governmental shareholders

9. Transnational bodies to which s ta te churches report (e .g . Vatican)



•

Table 3_ .. •• I. . ., •. -. ,

prof l t jNOnprot l t DlmenSlon

1. All resources received as untied donat ions, subsl.ol..es, or grants

2. Some resources received in exchange for services a t cos t (a .g .consultancy or sale of publicat ions)

3. Some r esources. r ece ived as a prof i t on services performed (e .g .

consultancy or sa le of publicat ions)4. All resources received as a pro f i t on services p a r f o r ~ e d , but

prof i t s are used to develop the organizat ion and are neverredis t r ibuted to s ha re ho ld er s (e .g . no t - fo r -p ro f i t researchi ns t i tu t es )

5. Government control led and possibly subsidised ( ~ . e . where prof i t

i s not the major c r i t e r i a , e .g . nat ional ized enterpr i ses , possiblywith in te rna t iona l operat ions)

6. Intergovernmental business enterpr i ses created by intergovernmental

agreement (e .g . European Company for the Chemical Processing ofIrradiated Fuels , European Company for the Financing of Railway

Rolling stock)7. Nonprofit corpo ra tio ns c re ate d or sustained by pro f i t corporations

and receiving di rec t subs idies from the "parent" body (e .g .

Esso European Research Laboratory (Research funct ions onlyh ITTEurope (adminis t ra t ive funct ions only) , cer ta in corporat ion-createdfoundations)

S. Organizations which in themselves are non-prof i t , but from which

members derive f inanc ia l pro f i t by the regulatory and exclusivefeatures ar ls ingfrom membership (e .g . t rade unions, and cer ta in

profess ional bodies; t rade associat ions and chambers of commerce;

car t e l s , monopolies, and t r u s t s ) .

Table 4National! Internat ionalDimension

This d imension can in fac t be applied to three di s t inc t features ofan organizat ion, namely i t s representat iveness , ac t iv i t i e s , or f ie lds

of i n t e r e s t .

1. Universal organizat ion with countr ies from a l l cont inents asmembers. A dis t inc t ion can be made between such organizat ions which

permit representat ives from countr ies and t e r r i t o r i e s ; and organizat ions whic only permit t e r r i t o r i e s to be r ep re se nte d v iacountr ies . A dis t inc t ion can also be made between universal organizat ions which have major off ices in one cont inent , and those which

have major off ices in a l l cont inents .2. Po l i t i c a l bloc organizat ions (e .g . Atlant ic bodies)3. Si-cont inental organizat ions (e .g . Afro-Asian)4. Continental organizat ions (e .g . Asian)5. Sub-cont inental organizat ions (e .g . Scandinavian)6. Bi- la te ra l organizat ions7. Organizations with the majority (75%) of i t s members, or off icers ,

or funds from one c o u n ~ r y . There are two subtypes, those with

the i r most important ac t iv i t i e s in the one country only, and thosewith much ac t iv i ty in other countr ies .

S. The na ti ona l o rgani za ti on s s p ec if ic a ll y i nt er es te d in worldaf fa i r s and in te rna t iona l i ns t i tu t ions .



Tibia Ihowlng dlgr l•.01 ov.rlap In conlull lt lv. r.latlona

The top i igure in eaCh square is a perc entege of the total In the same row, the bottom ligure is t he number 01 INGOs.

Thus 46 % of the INGOs In consu ltat ive relat ions with ECOSOC (I or 11) 1110 have consul tetive relat ions wi th UNESCO (A or B). Allematively,

132 INGOs have ECOSOC I or 11 status and of Ihem 61 have UNESCO A or B consultative status.Ail percentages greater or equal 10 30 % are In bold characters.

COUNCil OF 28EUROPE 30

100

132

u0 ..l I loOa :

21 S

21 9

21 72

17 58

4

3

1

7

6

33

5

9

4

4

1

1

12

9

3

1

6

1

77

11

14

-I

15 100

7 46

3

1

13

2

10

2

21

4

33

25

20

7

31

5

u.

°w. . .Jd, •

o z ; : )

5wu

23

30

2

18

33

30

18

19

15

26

1717

9

7

2

1

5 1005 106

7

6

5

5

3

5

3

3

1

1

4

1

3

1

14

3

15

3

4

3

23

8

8

10

87

7

7

2

1

50 100

8 16

11

10

13

14

5

9

5

5

3

2

14

4

9

3

20

3

43

9

32

6

10

8

1419

312

lLWU

Z;: )

23 100

8 35

19

3

24

25

20

9

13

2

10

2

21

4

10

10

28

23

42

55

521

42

39

28

30

27

48

5 100

4 77

22

6

5

0(w

17

6

19

3

4

4

; ;

3

19

6

27

4

24

5

8

10

96

8

7

9

10

5

8

;1

26 100

5 19

3

2

26

9

19

3

2

2

5

6

311

5

5

6

6

3

5

2;

6

16

5

13

2

2

2

2

2

4

3

5

6

5

6

3

3

6

6

4

7

21

4

3

2

9

3

10 100

2 21

14

4

19

6

9

3

6

1

2

1

68

3

7

1

1

55

4

7

3

3

4

3

24

5

32

6

25

7

40 100

6 15

11

4

6

1

22 100

7 32

27

4

29

6

15

3

79

3

13

2

2

3

3

2

4

1

1

1

1

4 100

1 28

9

3

20

3

26

5

30

23

6

2

6

1

7

7

2

1

1317

6

58

4

1

9

3

13

2

5

1

11

2

13

10

·14

5

19

3

16

17

9

4

8130z;: )

16

21

25

9

14

4

22

7

47

7

24

5

42

8

62

48

26

9

31

5

26

26

20

9

46

61

17 47

39 111

21

28

..1

3

16

5

40

6

29

6

5310

39

30

40

14

31

5

18

19

7

3

7

o::!

11 10 100 5

11 10 100 5

19 11 25 6 100

15 9 20 5 81

2

3

1

20

3

24

5

37

7

51

39

29

10

38

6

28

30

13

6

39

51

921

100 26 51 12 16

92 24 47 11 15

22 100 34 9 8

24 107 36 10 9

27 21 100 11

47 36 175 20

17

18

9

4

46

13

22

7

40

6

53

11

32

6

26

21

34

12

44

7

9

25

8

40

6

29

6

59

10

72

55

54

19

63

10

32

30

14

100

235

55 23

51 21

25 36

28 39

35 64

61 111

OAS

IMCO

WMO

IAEA

WHO

IlO

FAO

ITU

UNIDO

UNICEF

ECOSOCRos

UNCTAD

ECOSOC1/11

UNESCO

A/B

UNESCOC

Table 5. Analysis of IGO-INGO system (from data in the Yearbook

of Internat ional Organizat ions, 1970-1971 edi t ion) .



Interact ion Data

(1 ) In teract ion (?) Multiple Link I ~ Recip--, ~ J rocated

Organiz. Sent Rectd Comp- Rank- Sent Rec'd Comp-uted ing uted

* 107 :3 4 18= 4 6 3112 1 NO

* 144 3 4 18= 4 6 3217 22 12 18 5= 44 24 36 19

*A 6 8 15= 10 14 6* 407 6 11 13· 10= 18 21 27 5* 409 4 10 11 12= 12 18 22 4*8 17 6 11 12= 33 12 21 12

*c 19 9 14 9= 38 17 27 13

61415 13

17 6 33 25 34 13*0 2 8 9 14= 2 15 16 "*E 13 18 5= 25 35 13

*1026 8 11 12= 12 17 8*1032 8 11 12= 13 18 8*1133 3 4 18= '2 /. 3J q

1302 8 7 9 14= 21 18 24 41286 3 '2 4 18= 17 4 8 3J

*1363 10 14 9= 21 29 10

1533 2 3 19= 5 7 0*1588 11 15 8 24 33 111728 11 7 10 13= 28 20 28 7

1708 8 4 6 17= 15 6 10 3*1794 5 7 16 11 15 52128 9 8 11 12= 11 12 15 52138 16 7 11 12= 31 15 13 32144 12 6 9 14= 17 11 16 9

*2162 6 8 15= 8 11 62189 10 9 12 11= 21 17 23 9

*F 7 10 13= 12 17 7*2340 3 4 18= 5 7 3*2341 14 19 4 27 38 14

2369 15 8 12 11= 26 16 23 102466 19 13 18 5= 30 29 38 15

2575 27 13 20 3= 30 33 41 19G 20 5 10 13= 46 13 25 12

*2664 2 3 19= 2 3 22687

l:;6 8 15= 8 13 20 5

2747 2 2 3 19= 6 5 7 1*2866 6 8 15= 12 17 6*2951 3 4 18= 4 6 3*H 7 10 13= 13 18 73148 13 7 11 12= 15 12 16 10

*1 8 11 12= 16 22 11*J 6 8 15= 11 15 6*3228 10 14 9= 25 35 10



2

(1 ) Interact ion (2) Multiple Link (3) Recip-rocated

Organiz. Sent Rec'd Comp- Rank- Sent Rec1d Comp-

uted ing uted

K 45 20 32 2 137 55 91 41*L 16 12 16 7 32 21 30 13*3352 54 23 38 1 74 49 70 463387 25 13 '20 3= 51 31 45 233388 6 10 12 11= 11 18 21 6

* 3416 8 11 12= 18 25 83418 1 1 '! n 13 10= 26 14 21 9I IU

*3502 8 11 12= 12 17 83546 5 6 8 15= 8 10 12 5

*3572 8 11 12= 17 24 8

3581 17 5 9 14= 36 8 17 7

..



XXXXXXXI x IXO IXXX , x xxoxxxxxxxXXXOXXXI xxxxoxxxx ' x xx I I

x x 0 x x x x x x X 3 X x X x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x

l

£t

II

"VII

V

9

9

L

9

L

L

8

OtS

£

9£L

9

9£,

6

6

6lL

Lt9

6

6

£t

5

l

Lt.OL

9

OL

LLl l t

LL

lL

1Jt.

IJL

tI L'O l

• 9 L

SL

Ot.

"llf J

l.fJ

I I I 1

, I • 1

I I I

I 0 1 X

I 1 I

I I 1 I I I

X I X X I

1 1 I I I 1

I I I I I I

i I I I I , I

I I 1 I I I

I I 1 I I I

I 1 I I I I

1 I , I 1 I

X , X 1 I I I

,I 1

I I , 1

I I I I

i I I I 1

I , I I

I I I

, , I I

1 ,

I I

1 I

" I I

' I I I

• I I I

" • I I 1 I

t. I 1 I 1

1 I I I I ,

! 1 I I I

I 1 I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I 1

1 1 I I , I I I I ,

I I I , I , I

x

X I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I • I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

x

,I

I i I , 1 ,

1 I I I I I I I I ,

, I I 1 1 , 1 ,

I , , , I 1

I I I I I I I 1 1 , I I

I I I l ' I I I I I I

I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I

I 'I I I I I I , I I

I 0 1 , I I I I 1 I I , ,

10 I I I , I I

I I I , , I I I 1 1 1

I , 1 I I I X , I I I I 1

'. 1 I I 1 I I L I

I I 1 1 I I I

, . . 'I 1 1 I I 1 I

I I I • I 1 1 1 I I I

X

I 1 X

I I

I I , I

I I

I I

, , I

o

I I I I I I

X Ix

OXXOXXXXXXXXXXO

r---\D \ O ~ c o " " - : : : t n \ l ) o ~ n " " t " ' -OJ\D qC1 \OO- - : r nCO ' ! l f J n Q --:r\Om I f } t ' ' ' - - t ' - ~ .. . . -C ' ' ' ' r ' 1 ( ' , , , \ l f ) \U( ' ' ' -

NNnn"",",- ~ r N N ~ C ' \ I N* * * • * * * * •

I I

• I

x

I I 1

I I I

I I I

I I

I I I I

• I

XI XI I I

X

1 I I -< 0 X X 0

I ,( X , I , X I I

o I I I

1 X I I I

o

o 0

o I 1 I 1 I • I I I

X

1 I

X I

o

o

x x

o 0 x x x

I 1 • I

I I I I I I I I

x

x

x 0

,

1 I

x

X I 1 I

0 .1 I I

X I 1 I I I

1 I ,X

X X I 0 I X I

x

1 I • I 1 X I XX

o x'><;<1

I IX X 1

x

o

1 I I I I I I I

I I I 001 1 1 0

o I 000 x

o I

o

I I

X I I I I

X I 0 , I I I I I I

I I

1 1

I X

x

x

i i

X

1 I 1

X X 0 1 1

1 1

I I I I I

X i

x

I X I I I I I X 1 I

x

I 0 X I 1 X 0

o I I I I I 1 I

X X X

x

X 1 X

x x 0 0 x x X I I I X X X 0

I

I X X I I

I X

o I X I

I I I I I

X X I I I I

o I 0 I X X I X

I I I 0 I I I X III

X I 'I '..-i I I I

o

I I I I 0 0

x 0 I X 1 0 1 0 1

;:) I , I I X I I I I I I

I I X I 1 X 0 I I X

I I I I I 1 0 I I I X I 0

I I I 0 'x I I I X I I I

I I X 0 I 1 I I

X! ! I I

I X 001

o x X 1 X i X 1 X X X I I 0 X X , X , X X

oHHID

X 1 X I I

XXIXO X

X X I X I I 1 I I I

X X I I I I X I I 0

(I)

Q)

' r l

eno..-.loa.m

..........

X I I X I XI I I

I 1 I I X X I I 1 X I

x X I

XO I IIXXIOI I IX

o I X X X X I 1 1 X 0 X I

4-> C.. . C ID

ID.:;,{.D mC4->o0.(1)(I) 'r-!OJ

H IDI H

C 0o (JC (J)

DID

4->

m(J

oH

0 .'r-!(J

Q)

H

x

il l

..-.l

.D

mI- -

(J)

co'r-!4->( J

mHQ)' 11 11

4->

cx*1-1 ..........

CIDID

:34->

ID

..0

(I)

"'0 HID 'r-!4-> m,.....m 0." '0

(I) ( J ID

C 0 >'4->

o H c m'r-! 0. m (J

.4-> 'r-! 0m ( J . ! : : HNID(JQ.

·r l H'rl ' r l

C c .c ( J

m :::J :3 IDen HH 11 Ho 0 W04- ro

x X 1 X X I

X X X X I. x I

xxxxxxo I

Lt la

"tl99l

££SL

" L96Z

"OI7£Z

99l L..££LL

"fJtlL"LOL

BOLL

"tl6l. L9t1S£

*e,,998ZLB9Z

.Z9Ll

*\1

L8S£

tItI tZ'

lOO

o*H

:J

*JBZU

..lLS£

. lUS\:

,,9 t t;£

"I

BllL£B£Ll9ZLl

*<:£0 L

*9 l0 t

860t;

88£\:

69£l

68Ll

LOll

8 Lt;£

"9l l , ,

J

.£9£L

.Best1

tlL9, , ]

l.. Ll

99l l l

.. LlJl:l

Sl.SlL9££

>l

lS££



N r- ID ..... \0 CO CO CO

l./') CO r- q \0 r- <;t CO CO <;t

M M ID M · <;t ..... <- ID M .....

M t"'J N N N N W 10 -l ..... U M CO t" ) t: l

3352

K 1: 2 -

3387 1:3 1 : 1 -*2575 2:2 3:3 1 : 1 -*2341 2:2 4:4 1: 1 1 : 1 -*2466 1:2 1:4 2: 1 1 :- 1 : 1 -

217 1: 2 1 :1 1 : 1 ... :2 1·: .. - : 1 -* E 2 :23 :3 1 : 1 1 : 1 4:4 -

614 1 : 2 /1 .1 'l: • 'I 3: 1 3 : - 5: 1 1 : 1.. ..

(.... oJ . , I :' I *: non respondent

* L 2:2 1 : 1 for which pair ' sscoring i s taken)

*1588 2:2 4:4 1 : 1 1: 1 3:3

*C 2:2 1 : 1 4:4

3388 1 :2 1 : 1 1: 2 1 : 1 1: 3

8 1: 2 3:1 3: 1 2:2 .3 :3 3:4 1 :- 1: 1

3148 1:2 1:4 - :2 - : 1 3:- 1 : 1 1: 1 - .1 : 1 - :2

G 1 : 3 1 : 1 1 : 1 1 : 1 2:3 3:3 1 :- 1 : 1 1;3

Table 9 . Frequency of most frequent direct contact between mostin teract ive pairs

N r- <;t ..... \0 co co coID co r- <;t \0 r- <;t co co' <;t

t"'J t"'J ID t"'J <;t ..... .... ID t" )....

t ') t' ) N N N N W \ 0 -l .....

U t ') . co t' ) to:!

3352

K 4: 1

3387 2:3 2:3 -2575 - : 1 3:5 1: 2 -

\ . * 2341 2:2 5:5 2:2 1 : 1 -2466 2:1 4:5 2:2 1 :- 3:3 -

..

217 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 - :2 -*E 1 : 1 1 : 1 3:3 1 : 1 3:3 .. ( *= non respondent

614 2: 1 3:4 3:2 3: 1 2:2 1 : 1 2:2 2:2 - for which pair ' sscoring i s taken)*L 2:2 2:2 2: 1 .

*1588 1 : 1 5:5 1 : 1 1 : 1 2:2 2:2 ..

*c 2:2 - :2 2:2 .. 2:2

3388 2: 1 2:3 1 : 3 1 : 1 1 :-

B 1 : 1 2:2 3:2 2:- 1 : 1 2:2 2:- 2 :-

3148 1 : 1 1 : 3 - : 1 - : 1 2:2 1: 2 1 : 1 1 : 1 -':1..

G 3:4 4:2 3:2 2:_ 4:2 4:4 1 : - 2:2 4:3

Table 8 • Numberof

types ofinteract ion

between mostin teract ive pairs .



,/

, /

,/

15 19 23 27 31 35 39 43 47 49

3

3 7 11

1

2

6

7

8

9

1 0 " - - ' . _ " - - O - ' ~ ' ~ - : - " --. -··:':':T-····.,.-_·· __ · : - : - ~ : " " : ~ ; : : ~ ~..

Number oforganizat ions

Reciprocated interact ions

Figure 1. Number of organizat ions with a givennumber of reciprocated in terac t ions :



-----

Figure 2. Interactions between selected organizations in t he densestpar t of the network (based Dn Table 8)



Figure 3. illustration of how oM

part ~ the w o r ~ d ntItwork of organizations might appeal with rllt&pectto two di fferent Issues (or, alternatively, at two different dates).

Network with respect to Issue A(same organizations as for Issue B,

but different pattern of links(·j

Organl- Linkszations

Primary 22 14

secondary 33 8Tertiary 147 228Isolates 58 n.a.Isolated groupe 4 n.a.

Le. network is more integrated, withfewer isolates; but scme primarycoordinating bodies are only related via tertiary l inks.

0

0

0 00

0 0

0 0

0

Network with respect to Issue B

0(same organizations as for Issue A,but different pattern of Iinks)(*)

0Organl- Links

00

zalions

Primary 8 9

secondary 12 0

Tertiary 140 130

0Isolates 100 n.8.

0

Isolated groups 34 n.a.

Le. network is less integrated, with

more isolates; but all primary0 coordinating bodies are related

0 0

0 via primary links.0

0

0-;0

r:. ( ' ) Organ izat ions may be of primary. se-

0 oPcondary or tertIary SIgnIficance to the

network in response 10 any g'\ len Issue. or

0 they may operate 85 isolates.



Annex 1

List of Organizations Questioned

Numbered organizat ions are l i s t ed in the Yearbook of In te rna t iona l

Organizations (1970-71 edi t ion) . Let te red o rgan iz at ion s are lGO

subunits or bodies not l i s ted in the Yearbook.

Associat ion for the Development of European Po l i t i c a l Science 107

Associat ion fo r tha Study of European Problems 112

Association of In s t i tu te s of European Studies 144

Carnegie Endowment for Internat ional Peace 217

The Club of Rome AConference of Internat ional (UNESCO) NGOs 407

Conference of Internat ional (ECOSOC) NGOs 409

Consortium on Peace Resea rch, Educa tion and Development BECOSOC (NGO Sect ion) CEuropean Centre for Coordination of Research and Documentation in

the Social Sciences 614

European Consortium for Po l i t i c a l Science Research (Essex) DFord Foundation EIn s t i tu te for Strategic Studies 1026

In s t i tu te of Internat ional Law 1032

In te rna t iona l Academy of Po l i t i c a l Science and Const i tu t ional Law 1133

In te rna t iona l Association of Legal Science -I JU'L

Internat ional Associat ion of French Language Sociologis ts 1286

Internat ional Associat ion of Universi t ies 1363

Internat ional Commission for the History of Representat ive and

Parl iamentary Ins t i tu t ions 1533

Internat ional Committee for Social Science Documentation 1588

In te rna t iona l Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies 1728

In te rna t iona l Cooperation for Socio-Economic Development (ClOSE) 1708Inter i ,a t ional Economic Associat ion 1794

In te rna t iona l Ins t i tu te for Peace (Vienna) 2128

In te rna t iona l Ins t i tu te of Admin is tr at iv e Sci ences 2138

In te rna t iona l Ins t i tu te of Differing Civi l iza t ions 2144

Internat ional Ins t i tu te of Soc iology 2162

Internat ional Law Associat ion 2189

Internat ional Peace Academy Committee FInternat ional Peace Bureau 2340

In te rna t iona l Peace Resea rch Associat ion 2341Internat ional Po l i t i c a l Science Association 2369

Internat ional Social Science Council 2466

Internat ional Sociological Association 2575

Internat ional Studies Association GIn te rna t iona l Union fo r Social Studies 2664

Internat ional Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences 2687

Internat ional Union of Orien ta l i s t s 2747

Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences 2866

Mediterranean Social Sciences Research Council 2951Peace Research Society ( In te rna t iona l ) HPugwash Conference on Science and World Affai rs 3148Rockefeller Foundation ISociety For General Systems Research J

Society for In te rna t iona l Development 3228Unesco (Social Sciences Divis ion) KUnesco (NGO Sect ion) L

United Nations In s t i tu te fo r Training and Research 3387



2

Union of International Associations 3352

United Nations Research Ins t i tu te for Social Development 3388

Univers i t ies and the Quest for Peace 3416

Vienna Ins t i tu te f o Development 3418

World Council of Peace 350.2

World F utu re S obie ty 3546World Peace Through law Center 3572World Society for Ekist ics 3581



Some Funct ions Performed Prior to the Establishment of an ! n t e r

organizat ional Relationship

1. need model or paradigm showing the funct ions each performs as

one of the following:d i f f e r e n t but complementarys i m i l a r but supplementaryhaving common geographic base or area of act ionhaving operat ional d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t can best be solvedin common

2. need t r a n s l a t i o n of the model into the language and framework of each party to demonstrate the relevance of col laboration ac tive in the l i g h t of "enlightened s e l f - i n t e r e s t " or,poss ibly , the more e f f e c t i v e accomplishment of object ives

3. need access to in form ation systems by which both p a r t i e s are

~ n f o r m e d of events of common i n t e r e s t a t which there i s somep r o b a b i l i t y t h a t they wil l meet

4. need gO-be tween to introduce and catalyze the i n t e r a c t i o n between

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the two p a r t i e s in the l i g h t of the model,

building each up in the eyes of the other

5. need informal contact on neut ra l t e r r i t o r y to e s t a b l i s h mutual

awareness and spark off proposals fo r c olla bo ra tio n

6. need i n t e r n a l adminis t ra t ive adjustment to permit recognit ionand exohange of information

7. (may) need weakening of each p a r t y ' s dependence upon some common

t h i r d party which tends to p assiv ely discourage i n t e r a c t i o n

between them i n preference to ~ o n t r o l l e d i n t e r a c t i o n viai t s e l f

8. need recognit ion as a p o t e n t i a l operating p a r t n e r from policyl e v e l , namely operat ional l e g i t i m i z a t i o n ofcomplementaritysuggested in the model

9. need adminis trat ive adjustment to produce adequate i n t e r a c t i o n

and coordination between each p a r t y ' s i n t e r n a l departments tohandle a l l the (cross-modal) aspects of ( m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y )i n t e r a c t i o n . .

10. need legi t imat ion of the col laborat ive model in d i s c i p l i n a r y ,modality and organizat ional survival terms in the eyes of thebodies expected to fund the col laborat ive programs, p a r t i c u l a r ~ly since such bodies have a preference for neat p r o j e c t s withinwell -es tabl ished boundaries and procedures in which the v i s i

b i l i t y of t h e i r contr ibut ion i s not d i l u t e d

11. need someone (or some organizat ional u n i t ) within each body

wil l ing to s t i c k his neck out , be i d e n t i f i e d with the p r o j e c t ,

grow with i t , and take a l l the blame i f it f a i l s

12. need an appropriate occasion on which the p r o j e c t can be

announced and launched with the blessing of each par tyt s i n t e r

a ctio n p artn ers or consti tuency



Annex 3

Some Nerwork Roles

1 . Value or goal generating and maintaining role

z. Research ro les

model elaborat ion continually re la t ing more factors togethermodel development

3 . Interpretat ive" ro les

communication of ins ights to other spec ia l i s t s of the domain

in te rpre ta t ion fo r neighboring spec ia l i s t domains

(sc ient i f ic journalism)in te rpre ta t ion for program expertsin te rpre ta t ion for policy formulationin te rpre ta t ion fo r o rg an iz at io n's consti tuencyin te rpre ta t ion fo r general public

4. System defining ro les

in ter re la t ion of elements of network emerging from di f -ferent spec ia l i s t s ' models

education concerning system

5. Information ro lesprovis ion of information systems able to s tore , i n t e r -

re la te and supply data on and for a l l elements of thenetwork

provis ion of widely known channels via which suggest ionscan be funneled to an appropriate leve l for consideration(by-passing uni t s locked into conservative procedures)

6. Look-out ro les

detect and define the nature of emerging problems anddraw the i r existence to the a t ten t ion of the appropriatebodies in the network

7. Emergency rolesreor ient and rapidly mobilize avai lable organizat ionalresources in the network in response to cr ises for which

no exis t ing off ic ia l body in the network has a clearrespons ib i l i ty

8. Involving ro lesformulate appeals to general public cal l ing for supportpossibly

byclarifying

the humanin te res t and emotional

content of the issuesuggest and fac i l i t a te entry of the previously uninvolvedto par t ic ipa t ive ro les in the network

9. Strategy or policy f o r m u l a t ~ o n ro lesclar i fy the problems l ike ly to emerge on a long-term basisformulate long-term s t ra tegy for action within the net-

work in the l i gh t of the models and organizat ional re -sources avai lable

10. Broker roles (*)ass i s t par t ies to ident i fy one another, serve as a channel

fo r information supplementing the pa r t i e s ' own information

(*) These and the following roles are adapted from Donald A. Schon,op .c i t . p. 198-200.



systemsnegotiate deals between the par t ies

clear away ins t i tu t iona l , regulatory and adminis t ra t ivedebris which stands in the way of t ransactions

maintain a special network cut t ing across cr i t i ca l elements

of the networks to be deal t~ i t h ,

which would othsrwise bedisconnected

11. Systems negot ia ti on r ol esombudsman, guide, middleman or "tolkatch" serving as thevehicle by which others negot ia te a di f f i cu l t , isola ted

r igid or fragmented network

12. "Underground" manager rolesmaintains and operates a coherent network across ju r i s -dic t ional l ines , possibly performing functions havingl i t t l e to do with the formal agencies

13. Manoeuverer rolespersuades or coerces ins t i tu t ions to make shi f ts in policyand procedures to make possible a project tha t cuts acrossins t i tu t iona l l ines in the network

14. Network manager rolesoversees off ic ia l networks, assuring the flows of in for-

mation, the processes o r e f e r r a l ~ tracking and fol low-' up , and th e p rovisio n of re sour ce s r equi red for thenetworks to operate

15. Fac i l i t a to r ro lesfos te rs (as consu lt an t, exped it er , guide and connector)

the development and interconnection of regional or spe-c ia l i s t organizations in the network, each of which

cons t i tu tes a variant of central themes of policy orfunction

provide the meta functions of t ra ining and consultationwhich enable regional bodies to es tab l ish and maintainthe i r own networks



Annex 4

Network Action s t ra tegy in a Transnat ional Sett ing (*)

The problem for t ransnat ional organizations i s to develop a wayof increasing the dynamism and s t rength Df the network withoutre t rea t ing to the unsuccessful formula of the coordinating um-bre l la body - - which i s probably following the dinosaurs in to

social his tory .

Peter Rudge (**) has summarized the charac te r is t ics of the Systemics ty le of closed-system management. We can attempt to t r ans l a t e

and modify these for the open-system in ter-organizat ional se t t ing .

The Network s ty le may therefore be charac ter ized by:

(a) emphasis on the contr ibut ion of special knowledge, competence, and experience by any appropriate t ransnat ional organizat ion to the common task of any ad hoc group of t r ansna t i ona l

organizations se t up for a spec i f ic task

(b) the " rea l i s t i c" nature of the program of any t ransnat ionalorganization which is seen as se t by i t s percept ion of themost s ign i f ican t problems for which i t i s competent, in termsof th e in fo rmatio n which it has managed to receive

Cc) the adjustment and continual redef ini t ion by each t r ans

nat ional organizat ion of i t s programs through in te rac t ion withand in response to others : the network i s conceived as cons tan t ly changing and evolving, sub -ne tworkso f t r ansna t iona l

organizations with a special i n t e res t in common come in to exis

tence fo r any r equired per iod; t ransna t iona l organizations mayeach be par t ic ipa t ing in any number of such par t ia l networks;

par t i a l networks are del iberate ly terminated when no longerur:eful

(d) the shedding of "responsibi l i ty" as a l imi ted f ie ld of r igh ts ,

obl igat ions , and methods (e .g . world problems o may not be sytema t ica l ly ignored as being some other organizationCs sole re

spons ib i l i ty )

(e) the spread of commitment of a t ransna t iona l organizaion tosociety as a whole beyond any technica l def ini t ion of programsor le ga l d ef in it io ns of const i tu t ion or s ta tu tes

( f) a network s t ructure of control , author i ty , and communication;

the sanctions which apply to the individual t ransnat ional assoc ia t ion ' s conduct in i t s working re la t ions derive more from

presumed community of i n t e res t with the res t of the network inthe surv iva l and evoLution of the open society , and l e s s from

any temporary contrac tua l re la t ionship between the organization andsome body recognized as coordinator for the program in question

C·)Adapted from:A.J.N. Judge. The World Network of Organ ize t ions . ln te r

nat iona l As soci at io n s, 24, 1, 1972, p. 18-24.

(**) Peter F. Rudge. Ministry and Management; the s t ~ d y of ecc le s ia s t i ca l

adminis t ra t ion. London, Tavistock, 1968., p. 30.



(g) omniscience no longer imputed to key organizations in thenetwo rk; knowledge about the economic,· soc ia l , cul tura l , scient i f i c , technical , e tc . problems of the immediate task may be

located anywhere in ~ h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l network; th i s locat ionmay, i f appropriate , become the ad hoc centre of control ,

author i ty , and communication for tha t tasK

(h) l a t e ra l ra ther than ver t ica l direct ion of communication throughthe network, communicat ion between o r g a n i z ~ t i o n s of dif fe ren t

s ta tus ; consultat ive contacts are emphasized with each par t i

cipant adjusting i t s programs in consequence i f it perceivessuch adjustment to be warranted

( i ) a content of communicat ion between bodies which consis ts ofinformation and advice ra ther than ins t ruc t ions and decisions

( j) commitment to the problems of the development of the open

society is more highly valued than loyal ty and obedience to

the individual t ran sna ti ona l a ssoci at ion(k) importance and prest ige at tach to a f f i l i a t ion of the t rans

nat ional o rg an iz atio n to professional , sc ien t i f i c , or cul tura l

networks not direct ly conce rned with the t ransnationa1 organiza t ionfs immedia te program t asks .

Each of these points concerning in ter-organizat ional re la t ions may

require some adjustment in the in te rna l organization of the t rans

nat io na l o rg an iz at io n and more spec i f ica l ly to the way the organization conceives i t s e l f . Although comment has been r es t r i c t ed toth e t ra nsna ti on a1 associat ion network, th i s i s clear ly in t imatelyre la ted to the network of governmental agencies to tha t of business

enterpr ises and to tha t of the academic community.

The organiza t ional network is an "organic" form appropriate totodayf s rapidly-changing condit ions which constantly give r i se tofresh problems and unforeseen requirements for action - - r e q u ~ r e -ments which cannot be rapidly and sa t is fac tor i ly dis t r ibu ted toorganizations working in i so la t ion within r ig idly defined programs.The network permits a l l the decent ral izat ion necessary to sa t i s fy

the need for autonomous organizat ional development and ind iv iduali n i t i a t ive . I t also provides for very rapid centra l iza t ion , canaliza t ion , and focusing of resources the moment any complex problem(or natural disas te r ) emerges which requires the ta len ts of a

par t icu la r configuration or conste l la t ion of t ransnat ional organizations (or o th er b od ie s). The cent ra l iza t ion i s only binding onthe fransnat ional organizations concerned with the problem inquest ion, and for the period during which they have ·common cause"and in no way affects others in the network. The network i s , fur ther

more, multidimensional in character since t ransna tiona1 o rgan izations may centra1iZB themselves to dif fe ren t extents in manydi f fe ren t par t i a l networks and a t the same time decent ral ize (ordisassocia te) themselves on other i ssues (see F igure 3) .

The network i s not "coordinated" by any body: the part ic ipat ing

bodies coordinate themselves so tha t one ·may speak of "autocoordination" ra ther than coordination. S im ila rly , th e network as

The Nature of Organization in Transnational Networks

Documents

Transcript of The Nature of Organization in Transnational Networks