The article analyses the boards of Italian listed companies and applies Social Network Analysis (SNA) to the members of board of directors of the former public enterprises in the Italian stock market. The description of these networks is a useful tool to envisage what relational resources public enterprises hold through their members, compare them within-country and cross-sector, assess individual resources, and describe the differences between companies owned by local and national governments. The overall aim is to provide a more complete picture of the patterns of state intervention in the economy and to develop measures and hypothesis for future studies.
AhujaG.SodaG. and ZaheerA. (2012) “The origins and dynamics of organizational networks”, Organization Science, 23(2): 434–448.
2.
AsquerA.“Liberalization and regulatory reform of network industries: A comparative analysis of Italian public utilities”, Utilities Policy, 19(3): 172–184.
3.
BarucciE. and PierobonF. (2007) Le privatizzazioni in Italia, Roma, Roma, Carocci editore.
4.
CitroniG. (2008) “Adapting public-private governance to the local context. The case of water sanitation services in Italy”, Public Management Review, 10(5): 619–640.
5.
CONSOB (2013) 2013 Report on Corporate Governance of Italian Listed Companies, November 2013.
6.
DagnesJ. (2011) “Reti sociali fra inerzia e cambiamento. Il caso delle imprese italiane quotate in borsa (1987–2007)”, Sociologia del lavoro, 122: 111–125.
7.
DavisF.G. and CobbJ.A. (2010) “Corporations and economic inequality around the world: The paradox of hierarchy”, Research in organizational behavior, 30: 35–53.
8.
DragoC.ManestraS., and SantellaP. (2011) “Interlocking directorships and cross-shareholdings among Italian blue chips”, European Business Organization Law Review, 12(4): 619–652.
9.
DreesJ.M. and HeugensP.P. (2013) “Synthesizing and Extending Resource Dependence Theory. A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Management, February.
10.
FiorioM. and FecherF. (2011) “The future of public enterprises: Contribution to a new discourse”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82(4): 361–373.
11.
GouldR. and FernandezR. (1989) “Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks”, Sociological Methodology, 19: 89–126.
12.
GrafH. (2011) “Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(1): 175–198.
13.
GranovetterM. (1973) “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–1380.
14.
GranovetterM. (1985) “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.
15.
HaunschildP. and BeckmanC. (1998) “When do interlocks matter?: Alternative sources of information and interlock influence”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4): 815–844.
16.
HeemskerkE. (2011) “The social field of EU corporate élite: A network analysis of interlocking directorates among Europe largest corporate boards”, Global networks, 11(4): 440–460.
17.
HéritierA. (2002) “Public-interest services revisited”, Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6): 995–1019.
18.
HodgeG.A. and GreveC. (2009), “PPP's: The passage of time permits a sober reflection”, Economic affairs, 29(1): 33–39.
19.
Le GalèsP. (2001) Local production systems in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
20.
MajoneG. (1997) “From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance”, Journal of Public Policy, 17(2): 139–167.
21.
McCannD. (2000) “Economic Internationalization, Domestic Political Crisis and Corporate Governance Reform in Italy”, South European Society and Politics, 5(1): 53–72.
22.
MizruchiM., (1996) “What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique and assessment of research on interlocking directorates”, Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 271–298.
23.
PerottiE.C. (1995) “Credible Privatization”, The American Economic Review, 85(4): 847–859.
24.
PfefferJ. and SalancikG.R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York.
25.
PowellW.W. (1990) “The transformation of organizational forms: How useful is organization theory in accounting for social change”, in OwenR. and RobertsonA. (eds.), Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking economy and society, De Gruyter, New York.
26.
SandersonR. (2013) “Italian capitalism: No way back”, Financial Times August 20.
27.
SantellaP.DragoC.PoloA. and GagliardiE., (2008), Una Comparazione Tra Le Reti Di Amministratori Nelle Principali Società Quotate In Italia, Francia E Gran Bretagna, SIDE-ISLE fourth annual conference.
28.
SchusterP.SchmittC; and TraubS. (2013) “The Retreat of the State from Entrepreneurial Activities: A Convergence Analysis for OECD Countries 1980–2007”, European Journal of Political Economy, (32): 95–112.
29.
SodaG.BergamiM. and CelliP. (2012) National Monopoly to Successful Multinational: The Case of Enel, London, Palgrave.
30.
ThatcherM., (2002) “Analysing regulatory reform in Europe”, Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6): 954–972.
31.
ThompsonJ. (1967) Organizations in Action, New York, McGraw-Hill.
32.
ThynneI. (1994) “The incorporated company as an instrument of government: A quest for a comparative understanding”, Governance, 7(1): 59–82.
33.
ThynneI. (2011) “Ownership as an instrument of policy and understanding in the public sphere: Trends and research agenda”, Policy Studies, 32(3): 183–197.
34.
UseemM. (1984), The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity, New York: Oxford University Press.
