International Organization Networks
A Complementary Perspective
- / -
Printed in A J R Groom and Paul Taylor (Eds). International Organizations:
a conceptual approach. Frances Pinter, 1977, pp. 381-413. Also appeared
in Anthony Judge. From Networking to Tensegrity Organization: collected
papers. Brussels, Union of International Associations, 1984, pp. 121-130
This chapter first discusses briefly the extent to which an inter-organizational
perspective is currently used in connection with the theory or practice
of international organization. The distinction between 'network' and 'system'
is then examined and the complementarity of the two perspectives in relation
to a structure-process continuum is emphasized. An attempt is made to sketch
out a network model of society and the challenge it poses for data collection.
The availability of data on organizational and related networks is then
discussed before reporting on one extensive data collection exercise which
demonstrates the feasibility of the approach. Some directions for analysis,
and the possibility for predicting various kinds of network growth, are
then considered. Finally, the question of network design and various policy
implications are examined.
The conventional approach to the analysis of organizations, and especially
international organizations, has focussed on individual organizations.
(1) These have either been studied in isolation as particular cases (embedded
in an environment of pressures and processes) or considered as members
of a set on which some form of quantitative analysis could be performed
(members, personnel, budget, and the like). Both these approaches tend
to avert attention from the pattern of linkages between existing international
organizations or to the 'international organization' which emerges from
any relatively stable pat tern of linkages across national boundaries.
Clearly there are exceptions to this statement. For example, Edward
Miles has undertaken a number of studies of the complex of international
organizations concerned with special issue areas (e.g. space, law
of sea). However, he is more concerned with the particular case and
less with the general problems of analyzing and describing such patterns
of structural interaction. There has also been much work on the analysis
of transactions or exchanges across national boundaries and on the formation
of coalitions between nation states. The former tends naturally to emphasize
the flows rather than the pattern constituted by the set of flows. The
latter is, of course, primarily concerned with the nation state as air
actor, and the power blocs constituted by such coalitions, rather than
their fine structure.
William Evan, in his introduction to a reader on inter-organizational
relations (2), makes the point that:
"One basic assumption, however, has unified researchers from diverse
disciplines and vantage points, viz., that a significant amount of the
variance of organizational phenomena can be accounted for by concentrating
on intra-organizational variables... In recent years, one can detect a
rising tide of discontent with the predominantly intra-organizational
focus of organizational research. One expression of this discontent
is as follows: 'Too much sociological theory arid research has been based
mainly on the model of a single organization, and attention has been focused
on its internal processes. by and large. Surely this dominant model is
not sufficient to analyze newer arid more complex organizational forms
such as the interlocking networks of organization in the civil service,
the multi-campus state university, regional consortia of educational institutions,
multi-outlet distributive organizations in business, and multi-plant industrial
concerns. Having become rooted in its social and technological environment
arid more complex ways, organizations find themselves both constraining
and being constrained by these environments in new ways. Yet investigators
of formal organizations have barely begun to attack these new relationships."
There has of course been no lack of studies of the 'international system'
but these have tended to focus on aggregated quantitative data relating
to geographical areas or individual nation states rather than to organizational
'fine structure' which is the vehicle for the international system Where
a network orientation has been specifically used, it has been applied to
the network of relations between nation states as in the case Harary and
Miller, Schofield or Vaughn (3)
Vaughn, in fits analysis of the EEC, also includes enterprises and
the Commission itself. Where individual organizations or groups of
organizations have been considered, they tend either to have been studied
in terms of their use as control mechanisms for the international
system (e.g. the United Nations) or as being limited in their activities
by features of that system. Again the richness and diversity of the interacting
organizational forms has been ignored (for example, the variety of
forms discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume). Efforts to move towards a
broader perspective have been made: by various people advised by Chadwick
Alger, focusing on problem-area organization networks; by Elise Boulding,
in connection with women's organizations and religious groups (4); and
by Diana Crane, in extending her work on discipline-related networks of
scientists and the invisible colleges to networks of international scientific
and professional associations (5). The author, partly in collaboration
with Kjell Skjelsbaek, has explored possibilities of tracking evolving
networks of international organizations. (6) This resulted recently in
the establishment of a data base on networks of organizations, problems.
treaties, disciplines, and the like, which was used to produce the Yearbook
of World Problems and Human Potential.
Before considering the contribution of research on social networks or
the distinction, if any, between 'system' and 'network', it is useful to
note the emergence of the use of 'network' in the practice of international
'Network' in practice
It is no exaggeration to state that the number of interlinked international
organization units is such that no one has a clear overview or understanding
of how the complex functions (if at all, as some would have it). This was
first clearly stated in 1969 with respect to one international organization
system in the Capacity Study of the United Nations Development System
under Sir Robert Jackson, who commented:
'For many years, 1 have looked for the "brain" which guides policies
and operations of the UN development system. The starch has been in vain.
Here and there throughout the system there are offices and units collecting
the information available, but there is no group (or "Brain Trust"
which is constantly monitoring the present operation . . . '(vol. I., p.
Elsewhere it is noted in the Study that:
'In short, there are now simply too many separate, inconsistent, incomplete
information systems relating to some facet of development cooperation activities,
and these system are undirected or uncoordinated by an), central authority.'
(vol. I., p. 223).
The situation remains the same in 1977. There is no unit within the UN
system which records the existence of all other units in the system or
has a mandate to do so. This shows how difficult it is to obtain an overview
of the interlinkages in even one large organizational complex. The impression
of complexity and the operational constraints imposed by it have led those
working with or within such environments to use the term inter-organizational
'network' to describe their perception. The term is also used to describe
any complex of organizations (UN or not) which may be relevant to a particular
issue. As will emerge from the discussion of the relationship between 'network'
and 'system' there is obviously a well-founded reluctance to speak of a
'system' under such circumstances. (Sir Robert Jackson even went as far
as to refer to the UN development system as a 'non-system'.)
In such an environment, therefore, when a proposal is now made for the
creation of some broad-purpose organizational instrument, there is a tendency
to advocate the creation of a 'network' of some kind even at the intergovernmental
level. This deliberately avoids introducing the kinds of systemic linkages
which are perceived as having malfunctioned in previous exercises.
Consider the following examples:
1. United Nations International System for Information ot Science
and Technology: 'UNISIST is a continuing. flexible programme based
on a joint Unesco- ISCU Study whose aims are to coordinate existing
trends towards cooperation and to act as a catalyst for the necessary developments
in scientific and technical information. The ultimate goal is the establishment
of a flexible and loosely connected network of information services based
on voluntary cooperation.' (UNISIST Newsletter, 1 at January l973, page
Studies by international organizations of their environments also lead
increasingly to documents which refer to the existence of 'networks' of
one kind or another.
2. Multinational Corporations in World Development. 'While the terms
"corporation", "film" and "company" are generally used interchangeably,
the term "enterprise" in sometimes preferred as clearly including a network
of corporate and non-corporate entitles in different countries joined together
by ties of ownership '
'By contrast, most developed host countries belong to a network of advanced
economic, and even political, relationships which allow for more successful
economic and political bargaining.' (ECOSOC report on Multinational Corporations
in World Development, page 4.)
When employed in connection with multinational corporations, the term
may be used with negative connotations. At the national level studies have
been made to identify the networks constituted by 'interlocking directorates'
which are viewed as undesirable. (7)
It should also be remembered that the term achieved widespread use with
the development of espionage and, more recently, terrorist networks. It
is appropriate to note that a 1975 conference of the United Nations Institute
for Training and Research, in identifying the main problems of using the
potential of NGOs in social and economic development, included that of
developing the network of NGOs and made suggestions for a 'network approach'.
(5) In a 1976 review of the action of environmental NGOs, a similar
point is made at length in a report to the United Nations Environment Programme.
(9). The author has recently described 34 practical problems hindering
the utilization of NGO networks. (10). Alvin Toffler, in testimony before
a US Senate Committee in 1975, has also stressed the importance of a network
focus. (11). The Alliance for Volunteerism, a consortium of 14 U.S. volunteer
groups has recently launched a research project on interagency collaboration
which will focus on the question of networks.
There appears to be an emerging awareness amongst practitioners that
the concept of a network, network organization and 'networking' are appropriate
to the current rapidly changing conditions which constantly give rise to
fresh problems and unforeseen requirements for action -- requirements which
cannot be rapidly and satisfactorily distributed to organizations working
in isolation within rigidly defined programmes. Networks are perceived
as permitting all the decentralization necessary to satisfy the need for
autonomous organizational development and individual initiative. They also
permit very rapid centralization, canalization, and focussing of resources
the moment any complex problem (or natural disaster) emerges which requires
the talents of an unforeseen configuration or constellation of organizations.
There has been a considerable amount of work on 'social networks' by
which is meant primarily networks of individuals, usually analyzed in terms
of the pattern of their relationships around one individual. Arnold Toynbee
favours the conception of society as the act of such networks:
"Society is not a crowd or cluster or clump of human beings; it is
a set of networks of relations among human beings. Every human being is
linked with others it) a number of networks which are not mutually exclusive
and are also not coextensive with each other." (12)
A very useful clarification is made by J. Clyde Mitchell as follows:
'When Radcliffe-Brown ... defined social structure as "a network of
actually existing social relationships" . . . he was using "network" in
a metaphorical and not an analytical sense. His use of the word evoked
an image of the inter-connections of social relationships but he did not
go on to specify the properties of these interconnect ions which could
he used to interpret social actions except at the abstract level of
"structure" Perhaps more often titan not the word "network" when used in
sociological contexts is used in this metaphorical way But the metaphorical
use of (lie word, however common it Is. should not prevent its from appreciating
that it is possible to expand the metaphor into an analogy ... avid use
the concept in more specific and defined ways." (13)
But despite the amount of work done on social networks, very little of
it deals with inter-organizational networks. When it does, it is either
at the community level or between individuals in institutional structures.
There does, however, seem to be a marked sensitivity on the part of scholars
in this area to the implication that much work remains to be done on
interorganizational networks. Some believe the development of formal analytical
procedures is far ahead of the ability to collect adequate data. Consequently
there is resistance to the optimistic note sounded by scholars such as
'The abstract notion of a network is undoubtedly called to play a role
in the social sciences comparable to the role played in physics by the
concept of euclidean space and its generalizations. But the poverty of
concepts and methods stands in dramatic contrast to the immense conceptual
and methodological richness available for the study of physical spaces.
A whole reticular imagery remains to be developed. At this time a network
is understood to contain simply nodes and links and little else." (14)
(Paraphrase and translation).
The formal analysis of social structure from a network viewpoint is therefore
still in its early stages. In a review of the literature, Scott Boorman
notes that, to a large extent:
"the most fundamental problem is still the pre-formal one of whether
networks matter: or, to put the question more definitely, when do networks
matter and what kinds of social networks are operative in given circumstances?
One of the continuing problems with the network concept is that it is deceptively
vivid as a metaphor and all too elusive in practice... The still unfinished
task of the theory is to give more concrete instances where a network perspective
really buys something for scientific sociology in addition to a largely
new vocabulary and a set of appealing metaphors." (15)
Since the study of social networks has focussed on individuals, it remains
to be seen to what extent the weaknesses of the approach would also apply
in the case of organizations, particularly since data on relationships
between large numbers of organizations may be more easily collected and
as such any analysis would tend to be more relevant to decision-making
about the network and about particular organizations in it. It is not for
nothing that one of the early studies in this area was funded by the US
Office of Civil Defense.(16)
'System' versus 'Network'
The definition of 'system' (like that of 'structure') is the subject
of continuing confusion. It is not surprising therefore that the implication
that 'network' is in some way distinct from 'system' tends to give rise
to vigorous debate. It is the mathematics-based pure and applied sciences
which are most disturbed by the possibility of any distinction. Clearly,
in purely formal mathematical terms, both system avid network consist of
an interconnected set of elements. But even when account is taken of the
nature of those elements, the manner of their interconnection and the properties
of the resultant whole, the distinctions between definitions of system
and of network are confused especially where value-related questions are
raised concerning the relative equitability of different social structures.
The confusion and overlap is illustrated by the following definitions taken
from the Yearbook of World Problems and Human Potential (17)
of which the first two are for system and the last for network:
Any recognizable delimited aggregate of dynamic elements that are in some
way interconnected and interdependent and that continue to operate together
according to certain laws and in such a way as to produce some characteristic
total effect. A system, in other words, is something that is concerned
with some kind of activity and preserves a kind of integration and unity;
and a particular system can be recognized as distinct from other systems
to which, however, it may be dynamically related. Systems may be complex,
they may be made up of interdependent each of which, though less autonomous
than the entire aggregate, is nevertheless fairly distinguishable in operation.
A regular interacting of an interdependent group of items forming a unified
whole. A set of elements standing in interaction as expressed by a system
of mathematical equations or an organization seen as a system of mutually
dependent variables. A system may be characterized by: a particular relationship
between elements which turns a mere collection of elements into something
that may be called in assemblage; a pattern in the set of relationships
which turns the assemblage into a systematically arranged assemblage; and
a unified purpose which turns the systematically arranged assemblage into
A group of elements which may be partially or completely interconnected.
The connections (termed branches or arcs) can represent roads, power lines,
airline routes, information flows, predator-prey relationships in aft ecosystem,
logical relationships, of the generalized channels through which commodities
flow. The elements (termed points or nodes) cart represent Individuals,
communities, power stations, airline terminals water reservoirs, libraries,
organizations, namely any point where a flow or relationship of some kind
originates, or terminates. In a more general case, the elements or points
in the network may themselves be sub-networks composed of combinations
of other kinds of elements.
The characteristics of the network's elements and relationships can be
described by values, which may of may not be quantitative. The values can
be fixed or they can vary in some way with time. Thus the relationship
between two points may not exist during a particular period of lime (as
in an electrical circuit), or several possible relationship paths may exist
between two points (as in a telephone circuit). Different types of relationship
may exist between the same two points.
The question of interest may be less the distinction between system
and network, if any, and inure the connotations of the terms in contexts
associated with international and organizational activity. The question
may then be why is there a preference for - 'network' instead of 'system'
under certain circumstances. Consider the distinctions in the case of a
road system/network. a telephone system/network of a concept system/network
before reflecting on the case of an interorganizational system/network
Under what circumstances is there a negative connotation to either term?
The author recently presented to a meeting in Montreal the following
suggestions as to how the distinction tends to be made in practice. Further
points appear in the report of the debate. (18):
1. System tend to require more information for their description than
networks, since flows must be described as well as structural relationships.
2. Systems are described primarily with quantitative information (which
is both difficult and costly to obtain and has a short useful life), whereas
networks may be described with non-quantitative structural information
(which is more readily available at lower cost and has a longer useful
3. Systems tend to have a unique (or ultimate) controller regulating
the state of the system as a whole, whereas networks tend to have a plurality
of controllers (if any), with a relatively high degree of autonomy. (in
other words, systems tend to be centralized in some sense, whereas networks
tend to be decentralized or polycentric.)
4. Systems tend to be associated with imposed structures or patterns
(even if limited to the choice of the system boundary), whereas networks
tend to be associated with emergent structures or patterns.
5. Systems tend to have well-defined boundaries (even if they are open-
systems) whereas the outer-limit (or fine detail) of a network is ill-defined
and not of major significance to its description.
6. Systems tend to have well-defined, stable goals or functions, whereas
networks. if (hey have any, may have ill-defined goals, a plurality of
goals (possibly fairly incompatible), or may change goals relatively frequently.
7. Systems tend to have a more limited tolerance of changes to then
whereas networks tent] it) maintain a fate degree of invariance and coherence
even in tile event of highly turbulent
to) their environment
8. Societal system descriptions tend to be meaningful only at macro-
level to detached observers, whereas network descriptions retain their
utility even when limited to the immediate environment of an involved participant
at a particular node of the network.
9. Systems, and particularly their dynamics, tend to be difficult to
represent, whereas complex networks can be represented with relative case.
Complementarity of system and network perspectives
Rather than attempt to resolve the distinction between system an network,
it may be useful to conceive of the two terms as being different but complementary
conceptual approaches to a structure-process continuum. (19). When a system
perspective is used, in practice the emphasis is on the properties and
the characteristics of the whole conceived as a set of interlinked processes
(over which a measure centralized control is described). In the extreme
case the set of processes can be viewed as energy field effects. The structure
supporting the processes, if considered at all, is perceived and represented
in terms of its gross features. When a network perspective is used, in
practice the emphasis is on the properties and character of the continuous
pattern of linkages constituting the structure. The processes which
may occur in the network, if considered at all, are perceived and represented
in terms of the pathways through the network (the mapping of which constitutes
the initial challenge). The concern with processes builds up, the perspective
shifts toward the system focus, whereas concern with detailed representation
of structure shifts the perspective towards the network focus.
The system perspective therefore tends to be used when the structure
is assumed to be relatively simple and conceptually well- defined but where
the complexity of the processes poses a challenge to conceptualization
and representation. The network perspective, conversely is used when the
processes are assumed to be relatively simple and well-defined but where
the structural complexity poses a challenge to conceptualization and representation.
Expressed in these terms, the complementarity of the two perspectives
highlights the problem of description, analysis and policy formulation
in relation to global society. A focus on the system process dynamics,
as typified by the current approaches to world modelling, is obliged to
eliminate structural (and especially fine structural) features to reach
a level of aggregation which tenders the analysis viable. A focus on the
network of fine structure would presumably only be practicable if the complexity
of process characteristics was highly simplified. Either filter can be
employed, but both cannot yet be removed together and result in any practicable
comprehensible investigation. On the question of the importance of fine
structure Donald Schon comments that:
"The map of organizations or agencies that make up the society is as
it were, a sort of clear overlay against a page underneath it which
represents the reality of the society ... There's basically no social problem
such that one can identify and control within a single system all the elements
required in order to attack that problem. The result is that one is thrown
back on the knitting together of element in networks which are not
controlled and where the network fun and the network roles
become critical." (20)
In the introduction to the Yearbook of World Problems and Human Potential
(see note 17) the editors raise a related question:
'To what extent is the complexity of the problem system with which
humanity is faced greater than that which its organizational and intellectual
resources are capable of handling? Worse, is there a widespread unacknowledged
preference for simplifying the representation of complex problem (and other)
systems down to less than 10 elements so that they lend themselves to easy
debate in public and in a policy- making environment (at might be suggested
by some work of communication psychologist George Miller)? Are organizational
and conceptual resources then marshalled and structured to match the problem
system as simplified rather than to handle it in its more dangerous complexity,
thus running the (unacknowledged) risk of leaving the problems uncontained
and uncontainable by the resources available? Does this suggest a corollary
to Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety which might read: 'That any attempt
to control a psycho-social system with a control system of less complexity
(i.e. of less variety) than that of the psycho-social system itself, can
only be made to succeed by suppressing or ignoring the variety (i.e. reducing
the diversity) in the psycho-social system so that it is less than the
relative simplicity of the control system? Such suppression lends to breed
Some of these matters were recently explored during a panel on complexity
as a constraint on social innovation during a meeting of the International
Foundation for Social Innovation (21). Such views suggest that it is of
value to explore the possibility of representing aspects of global society
as a network, especially the networks associated with international organization.
There does not seem to be available any well-articulated conceptual
model of the network structure of society. Such a model would be based
upon the stable networks of interpersonal relationships whose existence
is established by the many social network studies. It would include:
(a) the growth of such networks in terms of their present pattern as
(b) the multiplication of parallel networks distinguishing themselves
by different priorities regarding the same field of concern,
(c) the periodic changes in structure of the network in response
to occasional changes in the state of the environment (e.g. activation
of political networks at election time), and
(d) the evolution of such networks, namely the emergence of new forms
as a result of marked changes in the pattern of 'structural formula' (possibly
determined by 'saturation' or 'maturation' thresholds).
Within such a model it should be clear how changes in the network of interpersonal
relationships are catalyzed by changes in
(a) the network of concepts making up the body of knowledge,
(b) the network of values in terms of which activities are undertaken,
(c) the communication and information networks which facilitate contact
and exchange and
(d) the networks of treaties, laws and regulations which regulate or
inhibit such contact and exchange.
It should be clear how changes in relationship patterns are catalyzed by
events such as isolated (or periodic) meetings which provide focal points
through which new links are momentarily made and then possibly given permanence
through the establishment of working relationships or even formal organizations.
Such changes are provoked by changes in the perceived nature of the network
of problems with which any particular zone of the interpersonal or inter-organizational
network is confronted. Indeed there is considerable interaction between
the various kinds of network noted above, leading to sympathetic structural
changes, whether resulting in fragmentation or greater integration. (None
of this is effectively registered by currently proposed social indicators.)
Clearly new concepts, values or problems give rise to new meetings,
new organizations, new information system and new regulations. These in
turn catalyze the emergence of further concepts, values or perceived problems.
There are many shifts and waves in the changing patterns of relationships.
Many patterns are extremely short-lived and cannot constitute a basis for
institutions of any permanence. Others survive for. and are exhausted by,
a single meeting. Others give rise to information systems. possibly of
rapidly diminishing significance. And of course some give rise to organizations
through which particular networks of inter-personal relationships are activated
and supported for long periods. The emergence of organizations in this
way leads to the establishment of formal or informal networks of relationships
between such bodies at the same level, with others at a 'lower' level (e.g.
member organizations), or with others at a 'higher' level (e.g. bodies
of which it is a member). Such networks themselves provide a framework
through which new concepts, values or problems give rise to new meetings,
new organizations, new Information systems and new regulations. And the
forms of the networks are themselves modified, to a greater or lesser extent,
by such activity and by ongoing structural developments in the 'parallel'
network of concepts, values or problems.
The structure of any of these networks is not only a matter for detached
observation. Much energy is devoted by individuals and organizations associated
with these networks to reordering them. Domains of influence are established
around focal points: specific problems, values, and concepts are given
territorial characteristics and stimulate appropriate behaviour. Portions
of the network are ordered, bi-directional relationships are made uni-directional
and focussed on particular modes. Efforts are made to rationalize these
changes by establishing hierarchical structures with well-defined boundaries.
whether from exciting networks of as a development within existing networks.
Just as hierarchies are created and embedded in networks, so there
are networks which emerge and evolve within and between hierarchical structures.
Very large hierarchical structures (e.g. the United Nations) are associated
with very complex networks. Other hierarchical structures may be nested
within such networks. A set of otherwise unrelated hierarchies may be tightly
linked by networks (e.g. interlocking corporation directorates, invisible
colleges) which may extend between different kinds of hierarchies (e.g.
old boy networks).
The model should also make clear how the variety of organizational forms
and preoccupations is generated and interrelated within such networks (which
would appear to be information analogues of the complex food webs which
interrelate very diverse species in nature). In particular it would be
valuable to clarify the functions of organizational variety of form and
preoccupation and the advantages and disadvantages of reducing or increasing
such variety. This would also help to determine the current significance
of antiquated institutions and of the bodies created for fun or out of
whimsy (e.g. the Association for the Promotion of Humour in International
Affairs). Do such bodies perform any useful function or would society function
better it such organizational clutter was rapidly eliminated?
Assuming that a model such as that sketched out above constituted a
useful representation of one aspect of societal activity, the question
is whether the relationships represented could be adequately captured in
in information system. There is a considerable gap between the richness
and diversity implied in the above model and in those depicting the international
system as made up of some 150 states linked through an equal number of
intergovernmental bodies and alliances into a handful of power blocs. An
equivalent perspective is common at the national level within each nation
Clearly whilst it would be desirable to examine global society in terms
of social networks of individuals, this does not seem to be practicable,
although the implications of such networks should be borne in mind ---
particularly when considering the significance of census data on individuals
abstracted from such networks. And although census data is available on
individuals and on the commercial enterprises by which they are employed
or from which they purchase products, none is readily available on (he
groups and associations in which (hey are active and through which their
views are expressed and frequently molded. The importance of such information
to government is illustrated by the fact that when it is collected such
data tends to be maintained in central registries for official purposes
often linked to national security avid personnel vetting. Such data is
also actively sought both by commercial groups eager to expose association
members to particular products and services and by opinion forming bodies
(e.g. the UN Office of Public Information) eager to orient association
members to new values, issues and fund-donating opportunities. it is appropriate
to note that data on national and local government units and their relationships
is frequently also difficult to obtain in any systematic manner.
In the present circumstances it is perhaps fortunate that such national
and subnational data is not more readily available, given the misuse to
which it would tend to be subject. In fact, for purposes of initial research
and general education, it would be much simpler, less costly avid possibly
more enlightening to simulate the growth and change of a variety of complex
networks (and levels of networks) in a computer environment with suitable
visual display facilities. A variety of conceptual and organizational entities
and relationships could be 'grown' and analyzed under different conditions
and subjected to different constraints. It would be relatively simple to
work over extended time periods with a population of 104 or
even 106 entities and an equivalent number of relationships
which would otherwise constitute a formidable coding investment. It would
be instructive to determine to what extent modules from the conventional
system-oriented world models could be blended into such a framework. In
relation to the formal analogue noted earlier. Such a simulation might
explore the following questions noted elsewhere by the author (see note
"6. Can the relationships between problems (or between organizations)
be usefully conceived as analogous to the food webs and trophic levels
within which animals are embedded? Does this help to suggest why different
kinds of problems emerge as being of major importance at different times?
How might the evolution of problems and problem systems be conceived in
7. From what is the stability of a 'problem ecosystem' (as it might
emerge from the previous point) derived? Is it useful to distinguish between
degrees of (negative) maturity of problem ecosystems and to attempt to
determine the amount of energy required to maintain them? Is anything suggested
for better understanding of problem systems by the fact that a highly diversified
ecosystem has the capacity for carrying a high amount of organization and
information and requires relatively little energy to maintain it, whereas,
conversely, the lower the maturity of the system, the less the energy required
to disrupt it. Thus anything that keeps an ecosystem oscillating (or 'spastic'),
retains it in a state of low maturity, whence the possible danger of simplistic
reorganization of organizational, conceptual, or value systems. Is the
problem of understanding and organizing the maturation of natural ecosystems
of a similar form to that of understanding and organizing the disruption
of problem ecosystem?"
Partly in an attempt to explore the possible characteristics of a model such
as that sketched above, a special programme was initiated in 1972 by the Union
of International Associations (publishers of the Yearbook
of International Organizations) jointly with Mankind 2000 (which initiated
the series of International Futures Research Conferences). This programme
resulted in 1976 in the publication of an experimental 13 section Yearbook
of World Problems and Human Potential. Each of the sections is devoted to
a particular kind of entity (whether international organizations, world problems,
values, multilateral treaties, and bite like.) Each section is structured on
computer files as a series of entities linked together in networks. Entities
in different sections are also linked in networks. A summary of the numbers
of entities and relationships is given as Table 1 (see p. 403).
The kinds of relationships that could be registered in this way clearly
depend on the nature of the entity-pair so linked. Formal relationships
(e.g. membership, consultative status) were registered between organizations,
but most relationships could only be established as related subjects (e.g.
a treaty on 'child labour' and a world problem of 'child labour').
Some data collected for the 1977 edition of the Yearbook
of International Organizations (a companion volume to the above publication)
is useful as an indication of intra-organizational networks (relating to international
organizations). This has been presented as Table 3 of Chapter 2 and summarizes
the national member links to International bodies. Clearly it does not cover
This project illustrates the possibility of tracking complex networks
involving international organizations although it remains to be seen how
best the data can be analyzed and whether they can be effectively updated
as is intended.
Directions for analysis
Organization is best depicted as a network. The mathematical theory
of networks derives largely from certain branches of topology and abstract
algebra. The theory of graphs is often presented as a kind of general theory
of networks; however. other than in the area of operations research
it has riot proved itself to he very useful in sociology. The theory rarely
handles networks with several distinct types of relationship, each with
its own configuration of links. It is precisely such networks which are
of most interest in sociology. It also tends to exclude networks in which
some of the points have links back to the selves, and it is often just
such networks which are important in representing social structures.
A final disadvantage of the theory of graphs is that it only offers
a fairly limited range of means of global analysis of networks. In such
a situation it is not possible to provide more precise descriptions of
networks as structures with particular characteristics, or as made up of
sub-structures with particular characteristics. It is therefore difficult
to distinguish clearly between networks of different types; especially
since an adequate description depends upon structural rather than quantitative
information. It is curious that none of the sciences appear to have developed
a terminology to facilitate communication about irregular, complex, multi-dimensional
Conventional analysis of networks provides information on such characteristics
at number of nodes, number of links, centrality of a node and interconnectedness
of a group of entities. Such characteristic give very little Information
on the structural features, patterning or irregularities of a network.
The term network generally implies the presence of:
(a) relationships between a particular node and some more central node
(i.e. 'vertical' relationships);
(b) relationships between anode and less central nodes (i.e. a network
of more thin one level);
(c) relationships between nodes having a similar relationship to a
more central node (i.e. 'horizontal' relationships); and possibly also:
(d) relationships between a particular node and more central node
other than the one noted in (a) (i.e. a network with several centres);
(e) relationships between a particular node and nodes more central
than those noted in (a) and (d) (i.e. a network with links across levels
or 'jumping' levels); and possibly also
(f) direct relationships between the most central node(s) and the least
(g) relationships such that the node which is the least central under
one set of conditions may be the most central node (in the extreme case)
under another act of conditions.
Clearly networks vary a great deal in their possession of one or more of
these characteristics. The first three are typical of most formal organizations
(organizations as networks), although (c) is less frequent or raises problems,
in organizations of a more bureaucratic style. An organizational hierarchy.
having characteristics (a) and (b), may therefore be considered as an ordered
network. The degree of ordering is decreased or diluted (at least in one
sense) with the presence of the
To the extent that the last four characteristics are embodied in networks,
and particularly the last two, there is a tendency for the networks to
become less formal and more difficult to document. This does not of course
necessarily imply a decrease in their functional significance in society
- it may even imply an increase.
The degree of centralization raises a difficulty in that some may prefer
not to apply the term network in situations where centralization is high,
particularly where this implies ultimate control by a single centre. Others,
however, may consider that situations of (very) low or 'variable' centralization
are not of immediate interest, whether or not they can he adequately studied.
The problem in determining directions for analysis is that so little of
the considerable body of literature on social networks has been explored
in terms of its relevance to the study of inter-organizational networks
and few of the scholars interested in social networks have any interest
in inter-organizational networks except as networks of individuals. It
is appropriate to note that Johan Galtung has recently suggested that 'structural
analysis is indispensable at any level of society analysis, from inter-
personal to inter-national'. He advocates the use of this approach
for the development of a needed range of social indicators, particularly
of relevance to development. (22)
The data available and the manner of its organization suggest interesting
possibilities for predicting:
the growth of networks. namely the extension of an existing network
of a given pattern or 'structural formula'
the multiplication of networks,. namely the emergence of parallel
networks with a different slant or mode of activity in relation to a common
the evolution of networks, namely the emergence of new forms with the occurrence
of marked changes in the pattern or 'structural formula'
impact-effects within and between networks.
Such prediction is not confined to networks of
is in fact dependent upon examination of the interactions between networks
of organizations, occupations, disciplines, problem-areas, and the like.
Growth or evolution of
any of these networks will tend to provoke
corresponding growth or evolution in the others with which it interacts
1. Network growth: It is possible to make use of existing
ordered subject domains. applied
against semi-ordered domains or organizations problems, disciplines
or occupations, to detect subjects which have a significant probability
of being expressed in organizations, problems or like phenomena.
The simplest and most common example of an ordered subject
domain is a hierarchically organized thesaurus (e.g. the Universal Decimal
Classification system). Specialized thesauri have, for
example, been developed to order occupation (23), commodities (24),
economic sectors (25) and diseases (26).
A simple procedure (perhaps overly simple in the light of further investigation,
but an advance on the current state of affairs) that can be adopted, is
to check off in any such hierarchy the nodes for
which corresponding organizations, problems, or the like exist. Then,
by inspection, it is possible to note unchecked nodes which are apparently
'late' in being activated in terms of any such correspondence. This may
best be clarified by the following diagram:
*** Insert Diagram (tree structure)***
The solid circles indicate checked nodes for which a corresponding organization,
problem, or appropriate phenomen exists, whereas the unfilled circles indicate
the lack of any such correspondence (or lack of adequate data). The degree
to which any particular branch is 'filled' may be considered to exert a
'probability pressure' on the change in the status of those remaining unfilled.
This approach at least raises the question as to why a particular correspondence
has not been found. This may he very useful, in the case of organizations
for example, to identify domains in which a formal organization has not
been created because an organizational substitute has been found satisfactory
(e.g. a periodic meeting, a journal, a treaty). The possibilities of this
approach emerged in the collection of information on world problems. Where
these were related to commodities, economic sectors, diseases, or occupations,
gaps in any hierarchy of problems immediately became apparent and raised
Clearly there are possibilities for refining this technique by exploring
matches between several hierarchies simultaneously. Matching the disciplines
against the (ILO) catalogue of professional occupations brings out underdeveloped
features of the latter which may suggest areas of emergence of organizations,
problems, and treaties. This approach is not limited to matches between
hierarchies. It may also, and possibly more realistically and usefully,
he applied by rising computers to
degrees of correspondence between any isomorphic structure This would
of course he more appropriate in the case of those networks which cannot
he usefully assumed to be hierarchically ordered. In this way it could
well prove possible to explore the manner and speed at which networks of
organizations are likely to develop specialized branches to break down
some subject domain - possibly to a point of saturation at which a paradigm
shift becomes necessary.
Where parts of the network are tied to geographical regions (e.g. Scandinavia,
Europe, Caribbean), the presence or absence of particular regional components
could be used in a similar way to predict the emergence of others. For
example, European professional regional organizations are likely to emerge
before equivalent African or Asian bodies. It might be possible to estimate
the degrees of lag for certain categories between different regions. (This
would of course be dependent on the national and sub-national networks.)
2. Multiplication of networks: In
attempting to predict the emergence of organizations, it is of course not
possible to limit attention to the simple breakdown of subject fields.
Even a superficial check of the range of international organizations shows
that a particular subject may be the focus of an organization with slants
or modes such as:
study of / research on
in support of
media information about
specialized documentation on
Each of these modifiers, and the list is neither complete nor systematic,
may give rise to parallel networks interwoven to different degrees. Presumably
at sonic stage it will be possible to clarify the possible scope for organization
formation by combining a series of factors of this kind.
3. Evolution of networks In the absence
of any analyses and comparisons of organizational networks which could
be used to distinguish types of networks, or structural formulae for networks,
it is only possible to suggest that networks may be subject to structural
shifts after periods of growth. (Some indications may possibly be gleaned
from the literature describing transport and communication networks within
and between urban centres.)
When a network has grown, in terms of a given formula, it appears to
reach a point of strain, in relation to the demands placed upon it, at
which some new structural formula becomes desirable. (From a strictly formal
point of view, the need for such changes and their nature is evident in
the evolution and morphogenesis of biological forms.) It is through such
structural transformations that new varieties of organizational network
emerge. This is perhaps most clearly seen in the emergence and increasing
complexity during the twentieth century of inter-corporate networks, whether
in terms of financial control (e.g. holding companies, inter-locking directorates)
or movement of products (between corporations producing or using goods
and services). It is less clearly documented in the case of the academic
environment. Other possible models of interest might be developed from
efforts to define the emergence of conceptual relationships between disciplines
-- particularly since it is probable that this would influence the inter
relationships between the corresponding professional or scientific associations
(cf. Jantsch (27), Wahlin (28), Kedrov (29).
4. Impact-effects within and between networks: The structure
of the international system of bodies which have mutual effects on one
another may be described as a network of organizations and associations.
Some of the bodies in the network may directly effect some of the problems
in the problem complex which may also be described as a network.
In considering how impact occurs and is transferred:
(i) between organizations,
(ii) on to problems,
(iii) between problems, and
(iv) from problems onto organizations,
a series of possibilities of increasing structural complexity may be borne
in mind. To illustrate this series, consider the structures illustrated
in Table 1.
*** Insert Table 1 ****
A particular element transferring impact-effects may do so as follows:
1. Directly onto the target structure (i.e. no branching. 1 element)
2. Via a series of intermediary elements (i.e. no branching, more than
3. Via two branches, both going direct to the target structure (this
case could possibly be combined with the first).
4. Via two branches, one going direct to the target structure and the
second via one intermediate element.
5. Via two branches, both with more than one intermediate element
6. Via two branches. each with one element connected to (fiat in the
The situation is complicated by the fact that most of the above structures
contain branches, implying a divergence
of impact. But clearly if
the impacts were transferred from the branches, rather than to them, there
would be convergence
of impact through the structure:
*** Insert Diagram ***
The structures may be combined in branching or converging series and
even with loops back to an earlier structure - thus constituting networks
of varying degrees of complexity. (Note that normally a structural element
can not be considered an 'absolute originator' of impact nor an 'absolute
sink' for impact.)
Up to this point the elements making up the structures have been considered
as made up entirely of organizations or entirely of problem But impact
can be transferred between organization and problem structures as noted
above. In other words the structures considered above can be either organizations
or problems. and they can transfer impact to organizations or problems
(in similar structures).
This leads to mixed impact-transferring structural sequences of that
*** Insert List
Clearly these sequences can he further extended to cover more complex
patterns of interaction between organization and problem networks. It should
be stressed that the organization structure, for example, in any of tile
above sequences (e.g. PPOP) may itself he a complex sequence of structures
as discussed earlier. To the extent that it is advisable to distinguish
between intergovernmental organizations and international associations
(i.e. nongovernmental structures), the organization structures must be
split into two types (e.g. 0 and 0').
This approach would probably demand that the problems be also split
into at least two groups, those recognized by intergovernmental organizations
and those recognized by international associations (e.g. P and P' ).
Combining these together would result in description of impact chains
of such forms as OPO'OPOP', etc. Whether or not this split (namely O and
O' and P and P') is made, the real situation is probably much more complex
because of the network characteristics which would give impact networks
**** Insert diagram
Such situations are somewhat more complex than those addressed by conventional
studies of impact such as whether organization A makes an impact on B.
Clearly organization A may not make an impact directly on B, but it may
do so on C and D (perhaps via many intermediate bodies or problems) which
then may make an impact on B.
The social sciences are some way from being able to describe such sequences
and track impacts through them. It is even uncertain that there would be
any consensus that such an approach is relevant to current preoccupations
which depend upon simplication of complex situations to render them communicable
within the political arena.
At some stage it may be possible to track the movement of impact through
such structural sequences in terms of how different structural components
amplify, dampen or store and release impact under different conditions.
The meaning of 'impact' well be as elusive as that of 'electricity',
to whose movement through circuitry the above situations bear some resemblance.
The question of the distinction between positive and negative impact would
also have to be considered.
a. Inter-organizational design There is little available
knowledge on interorganizational design for the obvious reason that whenever
there is any organizational initiative, there is a natural tendency to
design a single organization, however large and cumbersome, and little
incentive to explore the possibility of interorganizational networks with
a minimum, if any, of centralized control. As William Evan notes in an
editorial comment introducing a chapter of readings on designing and managing
'Given the state of the art in research on interorganizational relations,
it may seem both premature and hazardous to concern oneself with normative
questions of designing and redesigning interorganizational system.' (See
The three articles he includes as illustrations of potentially useful approaches
make the point that much remains to be done. One deals with strategies
for resolving inter-organizational conflict, the second focuses on the
Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, and the third examines
the role of computer-based communications systems in effecting interorganizational
linkages (in a product marketing context). None gets to grips with the
actual design of organization networks. There have however been a number
of studies of decision-making in an interorganizational environment. (34)
b. Matrix organization: This approach, developed and implemented
by NASA for the moon project, is a major step toward network design but
in itself is inadequate because it has a single-purpose structure in which
the purpose is formulated by one body and is thus more like a 'system'.
Within the matrix structure each participating body. whether controlled
by NASA or not, is considered to he at the Intersection of influences from
other parts of the structure and itself in turn influences several others.
It is a system which tends to diminish the visibility of authority and
to as all operative mode. Operating decisions are part of the give and
take of specialized units struggling for a share of the system's total
c. Potential association: The insights derived from use
of a network model as a way of structuring perceptions concerning society
can be used to move towards the development of an alternative style of
organization. In testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the United Stages Senate, Alvin Toffler outlined this possibility in the
case of international NGOs, in response to a question on how to organize
a wide variety of interest groups into a coherent network:
"One of the reasons I argue (lie case for much more attention to the
NGO's is that (the NGO's form the potential for any number of temporary,
mission-oriented consortia that could be brought together, whether they
are environmental organizations or scientific organizational or oscillations
concerned with community development of food or whatever the issues ale.
It is possible to put together temporary consortia to deal with specific
problems. Now in order for that to work you have to have some coordination
or management. But what I am describing need not be a pyramid.
Now, here is one way to verbalize the alternative-organizational structure.
Think of the pyramid. Then think of a thin frame, a very thin frame which
is essentially coordinative, which is a thin layer of management and direction,
with a whole series of essentially temporary organizational clusters of
modules that have relatively short life spans, and among which people float
quite freely. They move from one module to another rather than being frozen
in a single bureaucratic niche. If we pump some funds into the nongovernmental
sector, we might help to create precisely this thin coordinative system
at the top. We would then have a basis for a very large, very diverse,
very flexible, ad-hocratic organization a that could operate in the international
field." (See note 11)
Nor does Toffler limit this technique to NGOs:
"... we need to think in terms of the creation not of a single center,
or a single world government that will some day govern the nations of the
world, but rather in terms of a self-regulatory network of transnational
institutions, multiple institutions. a polycentric system. Such a transnational
network can provide a higher degree of stability for the planet
than the centralized model based on a single international governmental
organization . . . we must first recognize that the U.N. is only a tiny
piece of a swiftly emerging transnational mosaic or network of institutions
which are part of the new super-industrial system. This network
consists of thousands of organizations and millions of individuals around
the world in continually shifting relationships with one another." (See
Elsewhere the author has discussed the concept of a 'potential association'
(30) as an innovative response to the new operational requirements necessitated
by the approach suggested by Toffler. Such an association would, as such,
not have 'members' in the conventional sense of a defined set of individuals
or units of organization subscribing in common to a particular set of views.
The emphasis would be switched to objectifying the tenuous concept of a
group of bodies which could link together in different transient
patterns under appropriate conditions.
The need to centre attention on existing organizations (with their tendency
to self-perpetuation and to constituting obstacles to social change) is
diminished in favour of recognition of the range of potential patterns
into which the component entities in the potential pool could 'gel'
in response to new conditions. A meaningful and dynamic social framework
for conventional, organizations is thereby supplied. Thus whilst society
may, with the use of an approach of this type, form a highly ordered (low
entropy) complex at any given time -- satisfying short term, stability
requirements -- the high probability of switching later to completely
different high order patterns supplies the 'randomness' (high entropy)
condition essential to the facilitation of social change and development
in response to new conditions. In this connection Johan Galtung's view
of the importance of high entropy for world peace is noteworthy:
"Thus the general formula is: increase the world entropy. i.e. increase
the disorder, the messiness, the randomness, the unpredictability - avoid
the clear-cut, the simplistic blue-print, the highly predictable, the excessive
order... Expressed in one formula, this seems to capture much of what today
passes as peace thinking, particularly of the associative variety." (31)
In other words, we have a means of ensuring high social stability at each
point in time with low predictability over time, or alternatively, and
paradoxically, we can think of it as a potentially (i.e. unrealizable)
highly ordered situation over time which 'contains' a sequence of very
disordered situations. An advantage of this is that people and power groups
have somewhat greater difficulty in taking up feudalistic roles in potential
structures (if in fact it is possible to do so).
d. Organizational tensegrity: There is an unexpected formal
analogy between some architectural design constraints and aspects of organization
and network design. Architecture is no longer restricted to simple arches
and domes which derive their stability by allowing structural weight to
impinge on the compressive continuity of bearing members and protecting
the result by occasional tensional reinforcement - an approach which bears
considerable resemblance to the conventional hierarchical organization.
Instead of thinking in terms of weight and support, the space enclosed
may be conceived as a system of equilibrated omnidirectional stresses.
Such a structure is not supported by the lowest level. It is pulled
outward into sphericity by inherent tensional forces which its geometry
also serves to restrain. Gravitation is largely irrelevant. Many parallels
can be explored with the organizational development from hierarchies to
networks and away from oppressive structures. The value of this is that
considerable thought has already been given to the nature, construction
and stabilizing forces within the resultant architectural geodesic and
tensegrity structures. (32). It may well be that this will provide the
necessary clues on how to design some useful organizational networks for
those cases where the hierarchical form is no longer appropriate.
1. Facilitation of network processes: It is clear that
intra- and inter-organizational networks are growing, multiplying and evolving
in response to perceived social problems and possibilities for action.
These changes are in large part unplanned (and unfinanced) from any central
point and appear to be self-correcting in that 'excessive' development
is compensated by the emergence of
counteracting networks. Little attention is given to facilitating this
growth so that in some cases it may be considered dangerously 'spastic'.
Despite this the network of organizations (international, national,
and local) of every kind and with every pre-occupation, represents a major
unexplored resource. The (synergistic) potential of this network, if its
processes were facilitated. is unknown.
Possibilities for facilitating these processes include:
2. Network organizational strategy:
facilitative (as opposed to obstructive) legislation
subsidized postal and telephone communications
creation of facilitative environments where organizations and people can
meet and interact informally to catalyze, wherever possible, the emergence
of action programmes or formal collaboration
creation of information systems and devices to facilitate the development
of new contacts in response to new issues (e.g. social action 'yellow pages',
network maps, on-line intellectual communities, community interaction software
examination of the significance of the number and reticulation of organizations
in a society as a social indicator, both in terms of development and quality
The elements of the strategic
problem at this time include:
a vast and largely uncomprehended network of perceived problems and problem
systems, on which no single body has (or possibly could have) adequate
a vast and fragmented network of conceptual tools and knowledge resources
which is not (and possibly could not be) comprehended by any single body.
a vast and largely uncomprehended network of agencies, organization groups
and active individuals spanning every conceivable human interest on which
no body has (or possibly could or should have) adequate information.
These networks, and others, are not static structures. They are changing
rapidly in response to pressures and opportunities perceived in very different
parts of the social system. As such they, and
component sub-networks, are not controlled or controllable by any single
body, if only because the complexity cannot be handled by any single body
or group of bodies.
The strategic problem therefore is how to ensure that the appropriate
organizational resources emerge, and are adequately supported, in response
to emerging pressures and opportunities. But it would seem that this must
be achieved without organizing and planning such organized response
- for to the extent that any part of the network is so organized, other
parts will develop (and probably should develop) which will favour and
implement alternative (and partially conflicting)
The challenge is therefore to develop the meaning and constraints of
what may be termed a network strategy. This is an approach which facilitates
or catalyses (rather than organizes) the emergence. growth, development,
adaptation and galvanization of organizational networks in response to
problem networks, in the light of the values perceived at cacti particular
part of the social system.
3. Network vocabulary: Whether amongst academics, policy-makers,
administrators, or other practitioners, the frequency with which 'network'
is now used is not matched by any increasing facility in distinguishing
between types of network. Because clear and simple concepts are lacking,
together with the appropriate terms, discussion of such social complexity
can only be accomplished, if at all, by the use of extremely cumbersome
and lengthy phrases which tend to create more confusion than they eliminate.
A vocabulary is required which is adapted to complexity. In the absence
of such a vocabulary, debate tends to avoid discussion of issues which
emerge from such complexity and concentrates on issues which can be adequately
expressed via the existing vocabulary. This creates the illusion that the
issues which can he discussed are the most important because of the visibility
accorded them by the vocabulary a hand.
There is therefore a real challenge to the social sciences to identify
concepts associated with complexity and to locate adequate terms wit which
to label them. Johan Galtung, has for example, offered suggestions for
"a simple vocabulary, with a minimum of terms as well as for some graphic
symbols that can be used to depict various structures from family relations
to international conflict formations, across levels of social organization."
(22) The author has also suggested a series of terms as an illustration
of the possibilities. (33)
The development of such a network vocabulary would provide a
powerful means for objectifying and de-mystifying the complexity of the
organizational. problem and conceptual networks by which we are surrounded
and within which most of our activity is embedded.
1. Brian C Aldrich. Relations between organizations: a critical review
of the literature. International Associations 24, January 1972,
Michael Aiken and Gerald Nage. Organizational interdependence and
Intraorganizational structure. American Sociological Review. 33,
1968, 6, pp. 912-930.
Herman Turk. Interorganizationial networks in urban society: initial
perspective and comparative research. American Sociological Review,
35. February 1970, pp. 1-19.
Roland L Warren. The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, December 1967, pp. 396-419.
M. F. Tulle, M. Rednot and R.K. Chisholm (Eds.). Interorgunizational
Decision Making. Chicago. Aldine-Atherton, 1972.
E. Utwak and L. F.Hylton. Interorganisational analysis: a hypothesis
on coordinating agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6,
March 1962, pp. 397-420.
E. Litwak with J. Rothman. Towards the theory and practice of coordination
between formal organizations. In W.R. Rosengren and M. Lefton (Eds.).
Organizations and Clients. Charles E. Merrill. 1970. pp. 137-86.
P. F. While and G. J. Vistak (Eds.). Inter-Organizational Research in
Health. Conference proceedings, National Center for Health Services Research
and Development, US Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1970.
2. William Evan (Ed.). Inter-organizational Relations; selected readings.
3. P. Doreian. Interaction under conditions of crisis; applications
of graph theory to international relations. Peace Research Society Papers,
Xl. Budapest, 1968, pp. 89-107.
F. Harary and H. Miller. A graph theoretic approach to the analysis
of international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution,
1970, 14, pp. 57 63.
Norman J. Schofield. A topological model of international relations.
(Paper presented at the 8th European Conference of the Peace Research Society
(International), London 1971).
William M. Vaughn. Network analysis of regional subsystems: some applications
to the EEC. (Unpublished paper. St. Thomas University, New Brunswick, 1972.)
4. Elise Boulding. Network capabilities of transnational religious
associations. International Associations, 26, 1974, 2, pp. 91-93.
Elise Boulding. Female alternatives to hierarchical systems. past
and present. International Associations. 27. 1975. 6 -7, pp. 340-346.
5. Diana Crane. Transnational networks in basic science. International
Organization, 25, 3.Summer 1971. pp. 585 -601.
Diana Crane. Invisible Colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific
communities. University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Diana Crane. The international system as a network; factors affecting
the political and social impact of international scientific and professional
associations. (Paper presented at a conference on international scientific
and professional associations and the international system. Philadelphia,
6a. Anthony Judge. The visualization of the organizational network.
International Associations, 22, May 1970, pp. 265-268 [text]
6b. Anthony Judge. Information systems and inter-organizational space. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 393, January 1971, pp. 47-64 [text]
6c. Anthony Judge. The world network of organizations. International Associations, 24, January 1972. pp. 18-24 [text]
6d. Anthony Judge. Nature of organization in transnational networks. Journal
of Voluntary Action Research, 1, 3, Summer 1972 (Abridged version of a paper presented to the convention of the International Studies Association.
Dallas 1972). [text]
6e. Anthony Judge and Kjell Skjelsbaek. Bibliography of documents on transnational
association networks. In: Yearbook of International Organizations. Brussels.
Union of International Associations, 1974, pp. 55-73
6f. Anthony Judge. Transnational association networks; selected list of research topics on international nongovernmental organizations. International Associations, 24, October 1972, pp. 481-485. [text]
6f. Anthony Judge. Inter-organizational relationships; in search of a new slyle. In: The Open Society; report of a seminar to reflect on the network of international associations. Brussels, Union of International Associations,
1973, pp. 115-132. [text]
7. J. Sonquist and T. Koenig. Interlocking directorates in top US corporations;
a graph theory approach. Insurgent Sociologist. 5. 1975. Spring.
pp. 196- 229.
R J. Mokken and F.N. Stokman. Invloedsstructuren van Politieke en Ekonomisch Elites in Nederland. Amsterdam, Institute of Political Science. Department of Research Methodology. 1971.
8. The potential of NGOs in social and economic development; report of a UNITAR Conference (July 1975). International Associations, 28, 1976. 2. pp. 95-100.
9. The potential environmental action 1976; report to the United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, NGO Environment Liaison Centre, 1976, pp. 40- 48 (UNEP Project RB -0303-75-01).
10. Anthony Judge. Practical problems in using the potential of INGO networks. In: The Future of Transnational Associations In the perspective of a new world order. Bruisels, Union of International Associations. 1977, (Document 22). [text]
11. Alvin Toffler. The USA, the UN, and transnational network. (Extracts from testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 94th Congress 1975). International Associations, 27, 1975, 12, pp. 593 -599.
12. Arnold Toynbee. Aspects of psycho-history. Main Currents In Modern
Thought. Center for Integrative Education, 1972.
13. J. Clyde Mitchell. Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester University Press, 1969, p. 2
14. François Lorrain. Reseaux sociaux et classifications sociales. Paris,
15. Scott A. Boorman. Outline and Bibliography of Approaches to the Formal Study of Social Networks. Harvard University, Department of Sociology, 1973 (Fels Discussion Paper, no. 87).
H. C. While. Do Networks Matter? Harvard University, Department of Sociology, 1972, p. 35.
16. George Beal et al. System Linkages among Womens Organizations. Iowa
State University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology. 1967.
17. Union of International Associations and Mankind 2000. Yearbook of World Problems and Human Potential. Brussels, Union of International Associations and Mankind 2000, 1976. [http://www.un-intelligible.org/projects/homeency.php]
18. Anthony Judge. Organizational systems versus network organization. Transnational Associations. 29. 1977, 9 and 10.
19. Gerald Holton. The roots of complementarity. Daedalus. Fall 1970, pp. 1015-1054.
20. Donald Schon. What we can know about social change. The Listener, November-
December 1970 (BBC Reith Lectures. London)
21. Anthony Judge. Complexity: its constraints on social innovation. Transnational Associations, 29, 1977. 4, pp. 120-125; 5 pp. [text]
22. Johan Galtung. Structural analysis. vocabulary, graphs and structures
as indicators. Oslo, University of Oslo, 1976 (World Indicators Program, no. 12).
23. International Labour Office. International Standard Classiciation
of Occupations. Geneva, ILO, 1969.
24. United Nations. Standard International Product Classification. New
York, United Nations. 1961 (and updates).
25. United Nations. International Standard Industrial Classification
of All Economic Activities. New York United Nations. 1968 (and updates).
26. World Health Organization. International Classification of Disease. Geneva WHO, 1967.
27. Erich Jantsch. Towards interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary in education and innovation. OECD, 1971. pp. 97-121.
28. Eijnar Wahlin. A common classification for Swedish research projects.
International Classification, 1. 1974, 1, pp. 21 26.
29. B. M. Kedrov. Concerning the synthesis of the sciences. International Classification, 1, 1974. 1. pp. 3 - 11.
30. Anthony Judge. Wanted: new types of social entity. International Associations, 23, March 1971, pp. 148-152 (The role of the potential association), pp. 154-170 (Matrix organization and organizational networks).
31. Johan Galtung. Entropy and the general theory of peace. In: Proceedings of the International Peace Research Association. Assen, Van Gorcum, 1968.
32. R. Buckminster Fuller with E. J. Applewhite. Synergetics: explorations in the geometry of thinking. Macmillan, 1975.
33. Anthony Judge. Network-related concepts; a vocabulary adapted to social complexity and social process. In: Les Problhmes du Langage dans la Sociiti Internationale, Bruxelles, Union des Associations Internationales, 1975, pp. 218-221 (Report of a symposium held in Paris. 1974) [text]
34. M.F. Tuite, M. Radnor and R.K. Chisholm (Eds). Interorganizational Decision Making, Chicago, Aldine-Atherton, 1972.