TABLE 1
FROM:
Small states, international pressures, and interlocking directorates: the cases of Switzerland and the Netherlands
Eelke M Heemskerk and Gerhard Schnyder
BACK TO ARTICLETable 1. Main features of the interlock networks
| Switzerland | Netherlands | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 2000 | 1996 | 2001 | |
| A. Company network: Size and structure | ||||
| Number of companies (N) | 106 | 108 | 250 | 250 |
| Giant component (% of N) | 90.7 | 86.1 | 78.4 | 54.8 |
| B. Company network: Ties | ||||
| Total number of board ties | 432 | 242 | 825 | 514 |
| Number of multiple interlocks | 66 | 20 | 47 | 33 |
| C. Company network: Main characteristics | ||||
| Average board size | 11.1 | 9.5 | 8.9 | 8.2 |
| Average number of interlocks | 8.2 | 4.4 | 7.9 | 7.0 |
| D. Directors network | ||||
| Number of directors | 888 | 848 | 1771 | 1721 |
| Average degree of directors | 17.8 | 14.2 | 12.8 | 11.4 |
| Average distance | 3.4 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 3.9 |
Source: The figures were computed based on our data sets using UCINET 6.
Notes: The giant component is defined as the sub-graph of the network which contains most nodes.
The total number of board ties reports all incidences where one person sits on two boards. Note that one board interlock can be created by more than one person. Hence, there are more ties than unique interlocks.
The average number of interlocks is defined as the number of other firms a firm shares directors with.
Average degree of directors refers to the freeman degree centrality for the nodes in the director network.
Multiple interlocks are created by two or more shared directors between two companies
Average distance is defined as the average of the 'longest shortest paths' between each pair of nodes in the network.
The table shows a disintegration of the network for both countries, in the sense that fewer firms are connected through fewer ties. Differences exist however between the two cases: while the Swiss network remains fairly encompassing, but each individual firm loses an important number of ties, the Dutch network appears to become smaller in the sense that fewer firms are part of the network, but the average number of ties per firm does not decreases as dramatically as in Switzerland.
