scholarly journals Networks of Interorganizational Relations

Author(s):  
Mark Mizruchi ◽  
Joseph Galaskiewicz
Author(s):  
Lyudmila Ivanovna Khoruzhy ◽  
Yury Nikolaevich Katkov ◽  
Anastasiya Alekseevna Romanova

The article, based on the theoretical analysis, gives definitions of inter-organizational cooperation, inter-organizational management accounting, cost calculation system within the framework of interorganizational relations. Peculiarities of calculation of cost of interorganizational cooperation are disclosed, accounting practices of target-costing and kaisen-costing calculating system are described. The advantages of introducing and using inter-organizational accounting and a cost calculation system based on target costing and kaisen costing have been identified. Possible problem areas are identified when introducing these calculation systems into the practical activities of agro-formations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-476
Author(s):  
Niels Selling

AbstractWhat determines whether or not firms lobby on the same policy issues? Scholars offer two broad answers to this question. Firms that are (1) similar or (2) connected through interorganizational ties target the same policy issues. In this article, I argue that the co-occurrence of these two conditions produces the opposite outcome, namely a tendency to lobby on different issues. This expectation draws on ideas from collective action theory and the literature on issue niches. From these, I derive the following assumptions: similar firms share political objectives and they should, when possible, act collectively by jointly delegating their lobbying activities. The reason for doing this is that it allows them to focus on their issue niches. However, the ability to delegate hinges on coordination and monitoring, which is facilitated by interorganizational relations. To test this proposition, I study the largest American corporations. The dependent variable is activity overlap, a measure of the extent to which firms lobby on the same issues. According to expectations, activity overlap is reduced when firms operate in the same industry and, simultaneously, enjoy favorable conditions for social interactions, such as a concentrated market structure. These results lend support to collective action theory.


Author(s):  
V. Homburg

In the literature on e-government, the focus is predominantly on the organization of the front office and on the interaction among governmental agencies and citizens (Chadwick & May, 2003; Edmiston, 2003; Tat-Kei Ho, 2002). However, in order for e-government initiatives to be successful, back-office streamlining also has to be taken care of (Bekkers & Homburg, 2005; Homburg, 2005a). In a sense, back-office operations are the backbone of any form of e-government, and they may require information exchange and knowledge sharing among various units, departments, or organizations. The e-government phenomenon occasionally has paved the way for stirring rhetoric of technological and institutional change. For example, Wimmer, Traunmüller, and Lenk (2001) predict that “organizational boundaries will fade and give way to innovative organizational design. In this way, cooperation between administrative agencies will span wide: over distances, across organizational boundaries and even across hierarchical echelons” (p. 1). Actual e-government applications, however, show that the practice of e-government may not be as attractive as some of its benevolent proponents might claim. Back offices can be regarded as networks of organizations in which goals necessarily do not overlap and in which interests may collide. In practice, in these networks, information is the primary medium of value and exchange (Davenport, Eccles, & Prusak, 1992), and relatively uncontrolled sharing of such a powerful resource threatens information monopolies and may provide those organizations who receive information with significant power gains (Bekkers, 1998; Homburg, 1999, 2001; Homburg & Bekkers, 2002; Markus, 1983). Consequently, existing dependencies in organizational networks might be affected, and it can be expected that the exchange of information in back offices invokes a complex mixture of cooperation and conflict (Cunningham & Tynan, 1993; Homburg, 1999, 2001; Homburg & Bekkers, 2002; Knights & Murray, 1992; Kumar & van Dissel, 1996). In this article, I address the following research question: What does the nature and dynamics of interorganizational relations mean for the development and implementation of e-government information systems, and what methods and strategies are used to design and implement these systems? The focus in the analysis is on the interorganizational relations that are mobilized through the integration of various back-office systems (Bekkers & Homburg, 2005; Homburg & Bekkers, 2002). In the remainder of this article, I analyze existing e-government initiatives and, more specifically, information relations among various back offices, using a political economy view on information exchange (Homburg, 1999), and I explore methods and strategies of ICT process management in policy networks (de Bruijn, ten Heuvelhof, & In ’t Veld, 2002).


2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 1517-1541
Author(s):  
Mateo Manuel Córcoles‐Muñoz ◽  
Gloria Parra‐Requena ◽  
Pedro M. García‐Villaverde ◽  
María José Ruiz‐Ortega

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Levitsky

This article draws on a study of interorganizational relations in the Chicago gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender movement to elaborate a theory for how activists integrate divergent organizational approaches to social reform into a coherent "movement identity." Departing from the resource mobilization and collective identity literatures, which tend to reduce organizational specialization either to a competition over resources or to ideological differences among movement participants, I argue that organizational interests and shared beliefs play interrelated, but nonreducible roles in the construction of movement identity. Activists understand social reform as requiring competencies in a wide range of cultural and political venues. Focusing on specific forms of movement activity, or niches, organizations develop proficiencies that activists share as part of a collective effort in which each organization is seen as playing a necessary, but insufficient part. Rather than undermining a unified movement identity, then, organizational specialization is seen here as producing it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document