Abstract
In responding to Kentor and Jang’s article, the authors point to methodological problems that have led them to underestimate the level of interlocking in their reference year (1983), and thus to exaggerate the extent of the shift towards transnational interlocking. The authors also argue that Kentor and Jang fail to adequately theorize the social processes that produce corporate interlocks, and to place the practice of interlocking within its specific historical settings. It is only on the basis of sound conceptualization, valid empirical data and detailed, contextualized analysis that the contours and character of the emerging transnational business community can be ascertained.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
