Economic and organizational sociologists have increasingly demonstrated that the actions of individuals and firms are affected by the social networks within which they are embedded. In recent years scholars have begun to recognize that the effects of these social networks may vary across populations or types of relations. This article examines the extent to which the effects of interfirm networks on the behavior of firms are historically contingent. Focusing on the level of debt financing among approximately 140 large U.S. corporations over a 22-year period, the authors show that the extent to which the firms' use of debt was influenced by those with which they were tied through director interlocks declined over time. The authors argue that this decline in the network effect reflected a shift in the institutional environment within which the firms operated, and that it was driven by three processes: the professionalization of the finance function within the firm, the internalization of financial decision-making, and the increased volatility of the environment. They conclude that corporate financing is socially embedded, but this embeddedness is historically contingent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerleAdolf A.MeansGardiner C. [1932]1968. The Modern Corporation and Private Property.New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
2.
BurroughBryanHelyarJohn1990. Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco.New York: Harper and Row.
3.
BurtRonald S.1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BurtRonald S.1997. “The Contingent Value of Social Capital.”Administrative Science Quarterly42: 339–65.
5.
ByrdDaniel T.MizruchiMark S.2005. “Bankers on the Board and the Debt Ratio of Firms.”Journal of Corporate Finance11: 129–73.
6.
DavisGerald F.1991. “Agents Without Principles? The Spread of the Poison Pill through the Intercorporate Network.”Administrative Science Quarterly36: 583–613.
7.
DavisGerald F.GreveHenrich R.1997. “Corporate Elite Networks and Governance Changes in the 1980s.”American Journal of Sociology103: 1–37.
8.
DavisGerald F.MizruchiMark S.1999. “The Money Center Cannot Hold: Commercial Banks in the U.S. System of Corporate Governance.”Administrative Science Quarterly44: 215–39.
9.
DiMaggioPaul J.PowellWalter W.1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.”American Sociological Review48: 147–60.
10.
DobbinFrankDowdTimothy J.2000. “The Market that Antitrust Built: Public Policy, Private Coercion, and Railroad Acquisitions, 1825 to 1922.”American Sociological Review65: 631–57.
11.
DoreianPatrick1990. “Network Autocorrelation Models: Problems and Prospects.” Pp. 369–89 in Spatial Statistics: Past, Present, and Future, Monograph 12, edited by GriffithI. D. A.. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Mathematical Geography.
12.
DoreianPatrickTeuterKlausWangChi-Hsein1984. “Network Autocorrelation Models: Some Monte Carlo Results.”Sociological Methods and Research13: 155–200.
13.
FestingerLeonSchachterStanleyBackKurt W.1950. Social Pressures in Informal Groups.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
FligsteinNeil1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
FranzeseRobert J.Jr.HaysJude C.2004. “Empirical Modeling Strategies for Spatial Interdependence: Omitted-Variable vs. Simultaneity Biases.” Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Unpublished manuscript.
16.
FreelandRobert F.2001. The Struggle for Control of the Modern Corporation.New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GranovetterMark [1974]1995. Getting A Job.2d ed.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GranovetterMark1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.”American Journal of Sociology91: 481–510.
GreeneWilliam H.HornsteinAbigail S.WhiteLawrence J.YeungBernard Y.2005. “Multinationals Do It Better: Evidence on the Efficiency of Corporations' Capital Budgeting.” Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY. Unpublished manuscript.
21.
GulatiRanjay1995. “Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis.”Administrative Science Quarterly40: 619–52.
22.
HaunschildPamela R.1993. “Interorganizational Imitation: The Impact of Interlocks on Corporate Acquisition Activity.”Administrative Science Quarterly38: 564–92.
23.
HaunschildPamela R.BeckmanChristine M.1998. “When Do Interlocks Matter? Alternate Sources of Information and Interlock Influence.”Administrative Science Quarterly43: 815–44.
24.
HeckmanJames J.1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.”Econometrica47: 153–61.
25.
HuberPeter J.1967. “The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under Non-Standard Conditions.”Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability1: 221–33.
26.
IsaacLarry W.GriffinLarry J.1989. “Ahistoricism in Time-Series Analysis of Historical Process: Critique, Redirection, and Illustrations from U.S. Labor History.”American Sociological Review54: 873–90.
27.
JensenMichael C.RubackRichard S.1983. “The Market for Corporate Control: The Scientific Evidence.”Journal of Financial Economics11: 5–50.
28.
KeisterLisa A.2002. “Financial Markets, Money, and Banking.”Annual Review of Sociology28: 39–61.
29.
LandKenneth C.DeaneGlenn1992. “On the Large-Sample Estimation of Regression Models with Spatial or Network-Effects Terms: A Two-Stage Least Squares Approach.”Sociological Methodology22: 221–48.
30.
LeendersRoger Th. A. J.2002. “Modeling Social Influence through Network Autocorrelation: Constructing the Weight Matrix.”Social Networks24: 21–47.
31.
LintnerJohn1959. “The Financing of Corporations.” Pp. 166–201 in The Corporation in Modern Society, edited by MasonEdward S.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
LongJ. ScottErvinLaurie H.2000. “Using Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model.”American Statistician54: 217–24.
33.
MacKinnonJames G.WhiteHalbert1985. “Some Heteroskedasticity Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimators with Improved Finite Sample Properties.”Journal of Econometrics29: 305–25.
34.
MarquisChristopher2003. “The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities.”Administrative Science Quarterly48: 655–89.
35.
MintzBethSchwartzMichael1985. The Power Structure of American Business.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
MizruchiMark S.1992. The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and Their Consequences.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
MizruchiMark S.1996. “What Do Interlocks Do? An Analysis, Critique, and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Directorates.”Annual Review of Sociology22: 271–98.
38.
MizruchiMark S.Brewster StearnsLinda1994. “A Longitudinal Study of Borrowing by Large American Corporations.”Administrative Science Quarterly39: 118–40.
39.
MizruchiMark S.Brewster StearnsLinda2001. “Getting Deals Done: The Use of Social Networks in Bank Decision-Making.”American Sociological Review66: 647–71.
40.
MizruchiMark S.Brewster StearnsLinda2003. “Social Networks, CEO Background, and Corporate Financing: A Dyadic Analysis of Similarity of Borrowing by Large U.S. Firms, 1973–1993.” Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Unpublished manuscript.
41.
MyersStewart C.1984. “The Capital Structure Puzzle.”Journal of Finance39: 575–91.
42.
OrdKeith1975. “Estimation Methods for Models of Spatial Interaction.”Journal of the American Statistical Association70: 120–26.
PaigeJeffery M.1999. “Conjuncture, Comparison, and Conditional Theory in Macrosocial Inquiry.”American Journal of Sociology105: 781–800.
45.
PalmerDonaldJenningsP. DevereauxZhouXueguang1993. “Late Adoption of the Multidivisional Form by Large U.S. Corporations: Institutional, Political, and Economic Accounts.”Administrative Science Quarterly38: 100–131.
46.
PfefferJeffreySalancikGerald R. [1978]2003. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
47.
PisatiMaurizio2001. “Tools for Spatial Data Analysis.”Stata Technical Bulletin60: 21–37.
48.
PodolnyJoel M.BaronJames N.1997. “Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace.”American Sociological Review62: 673–93.
49.
PowellWalter W.KoputKenneth W.Smith-DoerrLaurel1996. “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.”Administrative Science Quarterly41: 116–45.
50.
RemolonaEli M.McCauleyRobert N.RuudJudith S.IaconoFrank1992. “Corporate Refinancing in the 1990s.”Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review17: 1–27.
51.
SaxonhouseGary R.1976. “Estimated Parameters as Dependent Variables.”American Economic Review66: 178–83.
52.
SchneibergMarcClemensElisabeth S. Forthcoming. “The Typical Tools for the Job: Research Strategies for Institutional Analysis.” In How Institutions Change, edited by PowellWalter W.JonesDan L.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53.
ScottW. RichardRuefMartinMendelPeter J.CaronnaCarol A.2000. Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
StearnsLinda Brewster.1986. “Capital Market Effects on External Control of Corporations.”Theory and Society15: 47–75.
55.
StearnsLinda BrewsterAllanKenneth D.1996. “Economic Behavior in Institutional Environments: The Corporate Merger Wave of the 1980s.”American Sociological Review61: 699–718.
56.
StearnsLinda BrewsterMizruchiMark S.1993. “Board Composition and Corporate Financing: The Impact of Financial Institution Representation on Borrowing.”Academy of Management Journal36: 603–18.
57.
StearnsLinda BrewsterMizruchiMark S.2005. “Banking and Financial Markets.” Pp. 284–306 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by SmelserNeil J.SwedbergRichard. Second Edition. Princeton, NJ and New York: Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation.
58.
SteinmetzGeorge1998. “Critical Realism and Historical Sociology.”Comparative Studies in Society and History40: 170–86.
59.
ThorntonPatricia H.OcasioWilliam1999. “Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958–1990.”American Journal of Sociology105: 801–43.
60.
TolbertPamela S.ZuckerLynne G.1983. “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935.”Administrative Science Quarterly28: 22–39.
61.
UseemMichael1996. Investor Capitalism: How Money Managers Are Changing the Face of Corporate America.New York: Basic Books.
62.
UzziBrian1996. “The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect.”American Sociological Review61: 674–98.
63.
UzziBrian1999. “Embeddedness and the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing.”American Sociological Review64: 481–505.
64.
WaringGeoffrey F.1996. “Industry Differences in the Persistence of Firm-Specific Returns.”American Economic Review86: 1253–65.
65.
WhiteHalbert1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.”Econometrica48: 817–38.
66.
WilliamsonOliver E.1988. “Corporate Finance and Corporate Governance.”Journal of Finance43: 567–91.
67.
ZajacEdward J.WestphalJames D.2004. “The Social Construction of Market Value: Institutionalization and Learning Perspectives on Stock Market Reactions.”American Sociological Review69: 433–57.
68.
ZornDirk M.2004. “Here a Chief, There a Chief: The Rise of the CFO in the American Firm.”American Sociological Review69: 345–64.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
