A network is a set of relationships between individuals, groups, or organizations. A relationship, for example, might be a friendship between two Members of Parliament or a cooperative exchange between two public agencies. Although conXict between two individuals or organizations could also count as a relationship, network institutionalism tends to presume positive relationships. Informed by a Durkheimian perspective on social solidarity, many network studies emphasize the social and aVectual bases of relationships. However, it is not always necessary to assume that networks are solidaristic. Networks may be merely patterns of interaction or connection. For instance, two stakeholder groups may interact frequently in the context of a policy arena or the boards of two NGOs might share the same directors. Such relationships do not necessarily produce social solidarity and may be rife with conXict. But they imply the possibility that these connections are conduits, even if inadvertent, for information, ideas, or resources. Frequent interaction in a legislative committee, for example, might be the basis for the Xow of critical information (regardless of whether the actors involved have any sense of mutual obligation). Interdependence oVers a third way to interpret networks. For example, one lobbyist might have information that another lobbyist needs or two nations might have extensive trading relations. This interdependence may motivate them to engage in exchange relationships with each other. Successful exchange can, in turn, generate strong norms of mutual obligation and reciprocity (sometimes referred to as ‘‘generalized exchange’’). The prominence of bargaining in political relationships makes this exchange approach to networks a natural one for political science.
Granovetter (1985) has argued that social network approaches steer a course between oversocialized (norm determined) and undersocialized (self-interest determined) understandings of social behavior. From this perspective, social net- works have both a social (aVectual) and instrumental (exchange) dimension. If the neoclassical market exchange takes places at ‘‘arms-length,’’ we should expect little loyalty in such relationships and we should not expect them to provide the basis for the kind of trust or reciprocity necessary to produce exchange where goods are ill-deWned or the timeframe for exchange is poorly speciWed. It is precisely the social character of network relationships built on loyalty and mutual obligation that allows us to think of them as social structures. Yet, Granovetter suggests, social actors are not mindlessly governed by these social norms. An instrumental calculus, mediated by social norms, remains at work in most social relationships. A relationship between two actors (dyad) is the basic unit of any network.
However, network approaches are typically interested in sets of interconnected dyadic relationships. The term network typically refers to this aggregate of inter- connected relationships. The simplest network therefore actually requires at least three diVerent actors—a triad. Much of network analysis is concerned with the global properties of a network as a single social structure—that is, as an aggrega- tion of interconnected dyads. In network analytic terms, a typical organizational hierarchy is one kind of network. Subordinates are connected to their superordin- ates, who are in turn connected to their superordinates, until one reaches the top of the pyramid. However, many discussions, particularly in organization theory, suggest that networks are diVerent from hierarchies. As pointed out by Kontopou- los (1993), the diVerence is that hierarchies are distinguished by ‘‘many-to-one’’ relationships, in which many subordinates are linked to only one superordinate. A network by contrast is an ‘‘entangled’’ web of relationships characterized by ‘‘many-to-many’’ relationships. Ansell (2000) uses this many-to-many criterion to characterize regional (subnational) policy in Europe.
Thus, a network can be distinguished both by the content of relationships (positive recurrent relations, built on mutual obligation, aVection, trust, and reciprocity, etc.) and by its global structure (interconnected dyads, many- to-many relationships).
