Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The Review of International Organizations
Erschienen in: The Review of International Organizations 2/2008

01.06.2008

Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking

The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting

verfasst von: Rafael Biermann

Erschienen in: The Review of International Organizations | Ausgabe 2/2008

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This article combines inductive and deductive theory building to identify building blocks for a theory of inter-organizational networking, a phenomenon that has gained prominence in international relations, but is largely neglected by IR scholars. Organizational and network theory are identified as the major starting points for theory building. Hypotheses are generated from the network of Euro-Atlantic security institutions, which has become the most sophisticated network of its kind since the early 1990s. The article looks specifically at the genesis of dyadic inter-organizational relations and of entire networks, at the relevance of networking for policy output and at the system effects that networks have on individual organizations. The theoretical findings are presented so as to allow a transfer to other geographical and functional areas of networking.
Vorheriger Artikel The International Monetary Fund: A review of the recent evidence
Nächster Artikel Networks of regulatory agencies as regional public goods: Improving infrastructure performance

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
For their substantial and detailed comments I thank David M. Andrews, Jeffrey W. Knopf, Scott Siegel, Dirk Stelzer and David S. Yost. The anonymous reviewers provided very stimulating suggestions. I would also like to thank my graduate students, who discussed the substance of this article extensively with me. An early version of this paper was presented at the University of the German Armed Forces in Munich in June 2006.
 
2
I will subsequently use the widely used term security institutions though I restrict myself to International Governmental Organizations. According to the seminal work by Haftendorn et al. (1999: 1–2) security institutions are “designed to protect the territorial integrity of states from the adverse use of military force, to guard states’ autonomy against the political effects of the threat of such force, and to prevent the emergence of situations that could endanger states’ vital interests as they define them.”
 
3
The term itself was introduced earlier in organizational theory (Hall et al. 1977: 457).
 
4
This departs from the definition offered by Van de Ven (1976: 32) and Van de Ven and Walker (1984: 601).
 
5
Article IV of the modified Brussels Treaty of 23 October 1954 called for “close co-operation” with NATO. Recognizing “the undesirability of duplicating the military staffs of NATO,” the Council would “rely on” NATO for information and advice (Western European Union 1954).
 
6
Cornish and Edwards talk of “island mentalities” (2001: 598).
 
7
On institutional preferences see Koremnos et al. (2001: 767).
 
8
Examples in Schmidt (1992), Buchsbaum (1993: 132 and 134), and Peters (1997: 398).
 
9
By the mid-1990s NATO took over CSCE’s phrase of “mutually reinforcing institutions;” the term “interlocking institutions” disappeared in official texts.
 
10
For telling empirical examples see Haas (2002: 297).
 
11
This is based on Eckstein’s culturalist analysis of change (1988: 796–801).
 
12
On learning through failure se Levy (1994: 302–5). This is, though, not to say that learning always precedes cooperation; there can also be “shared learning” through cooperation (Knopf 2003).
 
13
Adler and Barnett’s (1998) analysis of the rise of security communities stimulated this paragraph.
 
14
It should be noted, though, that multipurpose institutions like UN and EU work in several issue-areas and thus networks.
 
15
Boundary spanners are responsible for managing relations to other organizations (Van de Ven 1976: 34, Gottfredson and White 1981: 472, Schopler 1987: 705).
 
16
Strategic Alliances are dyads comprised of two organizations, which are commanding central positions in a network (Gulati and Gargiulo 1999). Both are highly visible in the network, dispose of most resources, and yield maximum influence. Social psychologists find that people prefer to join others with similar status—a phenomenon called homophily (Marsden 1992: 1889). The same seems to hold true among international organizations.
 
17
The transfer of authority from the NATO-led SFOR to the EU-led EUFOR operation in Bosnia in December 2004 was first blocked by the U.S. administration in NATO for one year, later by France and especially Turkey for another year (Kupferschmidt 2006).
 
18
The consequences for principal–agent relations are profound, but cannot be discussed here.
 
19
The Petersberg Declaration of 1992 of the WEU, which was later transferred to the EU, foresees EU military operations in humanitarian and rescue, peace keeping and peace making tasks (not collective defense). The Constitutional Treaty added some new categories of operations, but was not ratified.
 
20
See “the three D’s” (no duplication, no decoupling, no discrimination) of former U.S. Secretary of State Madleine Albright; Interview in Financial Times, 7 December 1998; also Heise and Schmidt (2005: 12); Haine (2004: 137–38); Cornish and Edwards (2001: 591–93).
 
21
This issue arose forcefully when Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg in April 2003 proposed to set up a joint permanent headquarter for EU-led operations (Haine 2004: 140–42, and Heise and Schmidt 2005: 12).
 
22
This corresponds with Waltz’ finding that systems further the conformity of state identities and behavior (Waltz 1979: 74–77).
 
23
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain und United Kingdom are members of UN, EU, NATO, OSCE and CoE (leaving WEU aside here).
 
Literatur
Adler, E. (1997). Imagined (security) communities. Cognitive regions in international relations. Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 26(2), 249–277.CrossRef
Adler, E., & Barnett, M. (1998). A framework for the study of security communities. In E. Adler & M. Barnett (Eds.), Security communities (pp. 29–65). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ahrens, G.-H. (2007). Diplomacy on the edge: Containment of ethnic conflict and the minorities working group of the conferences on Yugoslavia. Washington, DC: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aldrich, H., & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: making the most of simplicity. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Vol. 1: Adapting organizations to their environments (pp. 385–408). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alvarez, R., & Robin, L. (1992). Organizational structure. In E. F. Borgatta & M. L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology, Vol. 3 (pp. 1394–1404), New York: Macmillan.
Archer, C. (1993). International organizations (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.CrossRef
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules of the world: International organizations in global politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Biermann, R. (1999). The Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe—potential, problems and perspectives (Discussion Paper C 56). Bonn: Center for European Integration Studies.
Biermann, R. (2006). Lehrjahre im Kosovo. Das Scheitern der internationalen Krisenprävention vor Kriegsausbruch. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Borchert, H. (2001). Strengthening Europe’s security architecture: Where do we stand? Where should we go? In H. Gärtner, A. Hyde-Price, & E. Reiter (Eds.), Europe’s new security challenges (pp. 165–215). London: Lynne-Riener.
Buchsbaum, T. (1993). The CSCE and international organizations: Expanding cooperation with the Council of Europe. In M. R. Lucas (Ed.), The CSCE in the 1990s: Constructing European Security (pp. 125–142). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Cameron, F. (1993). The European Community and the CSCE. In M. R. Lucas (Ed.), The CSCE in the 1990s: Constructing European Security (pp 265–277). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Cornish, P., & Edwards, G. (2001). Beyond the EU/NATO dichotomy: The beginnings of a European strategic culture. International Affairs, 77(3), 587–603.CrossRef
Dembinski, M. (2005). Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU von “Berlin” zu “Berlin plus”: Konzepte und Konfliktlinien. In J. Varwick (Ed.), Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU. Partnerschaft, Konkurrenz, Rivalität? Opladen: Budrich.
Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789–804.CrossRef
Ehrhart, H.-G. (2002). What model for CFSP? Chaillot Paper 55. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.CrossRef
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–918.CrossRef
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 281–304.CrossRef
Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 454–479.CrossRef
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goertz, G., & Diehl, P. F. (1995). The initiation and termination of enduring rivalries: The impact of political shocks. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 30–52.CrossRef
Gottfredson, L. S., & White, P. E. (1981). Interorganizational agreements. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Vol. 1: Adapting organizations to their environments (pp. 471–486). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gow, J. (1997). Triumph of the lack of will: International diplomacy and the Yugoslav war. New York: Columbia University Press.
Grusky, O. (1992). Intergroup and interorganizational relations. In E. F. Borgatta & M. L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology, Vol. 2 (pp. 962–968). New York: Macmillan.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? The American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.CrossRef
Haas, F. C. (2002). Das Konzept der interlocking institutions—Realität oder Chimäre im Einsatz? In R. Biermann (Ed.), Deutsche Konfliktbewältigung auf dem Balkan. Erfahrungen und Lehren aus dem Einsatz (pp. 285–311). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Haftendorn, H., Keohane, R. O., & Wallander, C. A. (Eds.) (1999). Imperfect unions. Security institutions in time and space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haine, J.-Y. (2004). ESDP and NATO. In N. Gnesotto (Ed.), EU security and defense policy. The first five years (1999–2004) (pp. 131–451). Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.CrossRef
Hall, R. H., et al. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 457–474.CrossRef
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1989). International institutions and state power. Essays in international relations theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Keohane, R. O., Haftendorn, H., & Celeste A. W. (1999). Conclusions. In H. Haftendorn, R. O. Keohane, & C. A. Wallander (Eds.). Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions in Time and Space (pp 325–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, J. (1998). Interface between NATO/WEU and UN/OSCE. In M. Brenner (Ed.), NATO and collective security. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Knopf, J. W. (2003). The importance of international learning. Review of International Studies, 29(2), 185–207.CrossRef
Koremnos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.CrossRef
Krahmann, E. (2005). Security governance and networks: New theoretical perspectives in transatlantic security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(1), 15–30.CrossRef
Krasner, S. D. (Ed.) (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (1984). Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics. Comparative Politics, 16(2), 223–246.CrossRef
Kupferschmidt, F. (2006). Strategische Partnerschaft in der Bewährung. Die Zusammenarbeit von NATO und EU bei der Operation Althea. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP-Studie S 7.
Levy, J. S. (1994). Learning and foreign policy. Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization, 48(2), 279–312.
Libal, M. (1997). Limits of persuasion. Germany and the Yugoslav crisis, 1991–1992. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
Marsden, P. V. (1992). Social network theory. In E. F. Borgatta & M. L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology, Vol. 4 (pp. 1887–1894). New York: Macmillan.
Martin, L. L. & Simmons, B. A. (1998). Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization, 52(4), 729–757.CrossRef
Mockaitis, T. R. (1999). Peace operations and intra-state conflict: The sword or the olive branch? (pp. 79–124). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Nerlich, U. (1994). Das Zusammenwirken multinationaler Institutionen: Neue Optionen für kollektive Verteidigung und internationale Friedensmissionen? In B. von Plate (Ed.), Europa auf dem Weg zur kollektiven Sicherheit (pp. 283–304). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Ness, G. D. & Brechin, S. R. (1988). Bridging the gap: International organizations as organizations. International Organization, 42(2), 245–273.CrossRef
Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265.CrossRef
Ortega, M. (2005). The European Union and the United Nations. Chaillot Paper 78. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
Otte, M. (2002). ESDP and multilateral security organizations: Working with NATO, the UN and OSCE. In E. Brimmer (Ed.), The EU’s search for a strategic role (pp. 35–55). Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Paris, R. (2000). Broadening the study of peace operations. International Studies Review, 2(3), 27–44.CrossRef
Peters, I. (1997). Relations of the OSCE to other international organizations. In Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (Ed.), OSCE Yearbook 1996 (pp. 385–399). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Peters, I. (2004). The OSCE, NATO and the EU within the “Network of interlocking European security institutions”: Hierarchization, flexibilization, marginalization. In Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (Ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2003 (pp. 381–402). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Rittberger, V., & Zangl, B. (2006). International organization. Polity, politics and policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scheffer, J. H. (2007). NATO and the EU: Time for a new chapter. Keynote speech in Berlin, 29 January.
Schmidt, P. (1992). Partners and rivals: NATO, WEU, EC and the reorganization of European security policy: Taking stock. In P. Schmidt (Ed.), In the midst of change: on the development of West European security and defence cooperation (pp. 187–228). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Schmidt, P. (2001). The compatibility of security organizations and policies in Europe. In H. Gärtner, E. Reiter, & A. Hyde-Price (Eds.), Europe’s new security challenges (pp. 149–163). London: Lynne-Riener.
Schopler, J. H. (1987). Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 702–713.CrossRef
Schwegmann, C. (2003). Die Jugoslawien-Kontaktgruppe in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos (short version: The contact group and its impact on the European institutional structure. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, Occasional Papers 16, June 2000, http://​www.​iss-eu.​org/​occasion/​occ16.​pdf).
Scott, R. W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Simmons, B. A., & Martin, L. L. (2002). International organizations and institutions. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (pp. 192–211). London: Sage.
Singer, J. D. (1961). The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. In K. Knorr & S. Verba (Eds.), The international system. theoretical essays (pp. 77–92). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith-Doerr, L., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Networks and Economic Life. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology, 2nd ed. (pp. 379–402). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sobel, R., & Shiraev, E. (Eds.) (2003). International public opinion and the Bosnia crisis. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1976). On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 24–36.CrossRef
Van de Ven, A. H., & Walker, G. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 598–621.CrossRef
Varwick, J. (Ed.) (2005). Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU. Partnerschaft, Konkurrenz, Rivalität? Opladen: Budrich.
Verbeek, B. (1998). International organizations. The ugly duckling of international relations theory? In B. Reinalda & B. Verbeek (Eds.), Autonomous policy making by international organizations (pp. 11–26). London: Routledge.
Wallander, C. A., & Keohane, R. (1999). Risk, threat, and security institutions. In H. Haftendorn, R. O. Keohane, & C. A. Wallander (Eds.), Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions in Time and Space (pp. 21–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walt, S. M. (1990). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Webber, M., Croft, S., Howorth, J., Terriff, T., & Krahmann, E. (2004). The governance of European security. Review of International Studies, 30(1), 3–26.CrossRef
Woodward, S. L. (1995). Balkan tragedy. Chaos and dissolution after the Cold War. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Yost, D. S. (2007). NATO and International Organizations. Forum Paper no. 3. Rome: NATO Defense College (in press).
Yost, D. S., & Dufourcq, J. (Eds.) (2006). NATO–EU cooperation in post-conflict reconstruction. NDC occasional paper no. 15. Rome: NATO Defense College.
Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 891–903.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking
The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting
verfasst von
Rafael Biermann
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2008
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
The Review of International Organizations / Ausgabe 2/2008
Print ISSN: 1559-7431
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-744X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-007-9027-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2008

The Review of International Organizations 2/2008 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Networks of regulatory agencies as regional public goods: Improving infrastructure performance

OriginalPaper

The International Monetary Fund: A review of the recent evidence

Book Reiview

Xinyuan Dai, International Institutions and National Policies

Book Review

Politics and institutions in the regulation of global capital: A review article

OriginalPaper

IMF conditionality: An approach based on the theory of special interest politics