Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking

The Euro-Atlantic security institutions interacting

  • Published:
The Review of International Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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).

References

  • Adler, E. (1997). Imagined (security) communities. Cognitive regions in international relations. Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 26(2), 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, C. (1993). International organizations (2nd ed). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules of the world: International organizations in global politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, P., & Edwards, G. (2001). Beyond the EU/NATO dichotomy: The beginnings of a European strategic culture. International Affairs, 77(3), 587–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSCE (1992). CSCE Helsinki Document 1992. The challenges of change. Retrieved from http://www.osce.org/documents/mcs/1992/07/4046_en.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2006.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 454–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, B., & Borawski, J. (1998). The OSCE, NATO, and European security in the twenty-first century. London: The Institute of Science in Society Briefing Paper 17. http://www.isis-europe.org/ftp/download/bp-17.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2006.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gow, J. (1997). Triumph of the lack of will: International diplomacy and the Yugoslav war. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? The American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. H., et al. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heise, V., & Schmidt, P. (2005). NATO und EU: Auf dem Weg zu einer strategischen Partnerschaft? In T. Jaeger, A. Höse, & K. Oppermann (Eds.), Transatlantische Beziehungen. Sicherheit-Wirtschaft-Öffentlichkeit (pp. 65–86). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.kas.de/upload/dokumente/trans_portal/nato-eu.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2007 (citations follow this pagination).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Crisis Group (2001). Bosnia: Reshaping the international machinery. Europe report no. 121. Retrieved from http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1495&l=1. Accessed 14 December 2006.

  • Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O. (1989). International institutions and state power. Essays in international relations theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. (1998). Interface between NATO/WEU and UN/OSCE. In M. Brenner (Ed.), NATO and collective security. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopf, J. W. (2003). The importance of international learning. Review of International Studies, 29(2), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koremnos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahmann, E. (2005). Security governance and networks: New theoretical perspectives in transatlantic security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libal, M. (1997). Limits of persuasion. Germany and the Yugoslav crisis, 1991–1992. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. & Simmons, B. A. (1998). Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization, 52(4), 729–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mockaitis, T. R. (1999). Peace operations and intra-state conflict: The sword or the olive branch? (pp. 79–124). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • NATO (1991a). Partnership with the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. North Atlantic Council, Copenhagen, 6–7 June. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c910607d.htm. Accessed 19 October 2006.

  • NATO (1991b). Rome declaration on peace and cooperation. North Atlantic Council, 8 Nov. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c911108a.htm. Accessed 19 October 2006.

  • NATO (1992). Final communiqué. North Atlantic Council, Oslo, 4 June. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c920604a.htm. Accessed 23 August 2006.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, G. D. & Brechin, S. R. (1988). Bridging the gap: International organizations as organizations. International Organization, 42(2), 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OSCE (2006). 2005 Annual Report on OSCE Activities, Prague. Retrieved from http://www.osce.org/publications/sg/2006/04/18784_589_en.pdf. Accessed 11 September 2006.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2000). Broadening the study of peace operations. International Studies Review, 2(3), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press Conference (2003). NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, 4 December. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s031204e.htm. Accessed 12 November 2006.

  • Rittberger, V., & Zangl, B. (2006). International organization. Polity, politics and policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopler, J. H. (1987). Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 702–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Walker, G. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 598–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (1990). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, M., Croft, S., Howorth, J., Terriff, T., & Krahmann, E. (2004). The governance of European security. Review of International Studies, 30(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western European Union (1954). Text of the Modified Brussels Treaty. Retrieved from http://www.weu.int/Treaty.htm. Accessed 22 August 2006.

  • Wohlfeld, M. (2001). Developing ways of co-operation and mutual reinforcement between the EU and the OSCE. In EU Civilian Crisis Management Capability. Conference Report. 20 April. Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.svenska-freds.se/konflikthantering/EU/konferensrapport.PDF. Accessed 24 October 2006.

  • Woodward, S. L. (1995). Balkan tragedy. Chaos and dissolution after the Cold War. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, National Security Affairs Department, 1411 Cunningham Road, Gl 381, Monterey, CA, 93943, USA

    Rafael Biermann

Authors
  1. Rafael Biermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Biermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biermann, R. Towards a theory of inter-organizational networking. Rev Int Organ 3, 151–177 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-007-9027-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-007-9027-9

Keywords

JEL Codes

Search

Navigation