Asistencia religiosa de las confesiones minoritarias

Centrality is a measure of position and importance within the network and is used to describe the position of actors in relation to the centre of the network (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994). It is also used to indicate power within the network, which may indicate a strategic advantage for that actor (Madhavan et al., 1998). The amount of power held by an actor is as a result of their position based on relationships with others within the network, not on any attributes that the actor might hold (Boje & Whetton, 1981; Cook & Emerson, 1978; Hanneman, 2001). Actors that are extensively involved with others have more ties and are more central, and so have a greater ability to mobilise resources (Boje & Whetton, 1981; Wasserman & Faust, 1995).

Power, which leads to actor centrality, arises from access to and relative control over resources, as well as brokerage of information. Actor centrality can be measured and compared with others in the network to uncover an actor’s degree of centralisation, i.e. whether they are on the periphery of the network or are located centrally. The most influential actors within a network are located centrally in positions of strategic importance. Actors that are prestigious or have the most status within the network will have more incoming ties than outgoing ties and are preferentially chosen over other actors. Simply put, these actors are the most ‘popular’; they hold favoured positions within the network. As a consequence of their structural embeddedness, i.e. their holding the most power based on information flows within the network, they also have better information on potential partners (Brass et al., 2004; Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007;

Wasserman & Faust, 1995). Their central position expands their probability of potential partnering by increasing their visibility beyond their direct ties, and it expands the influence of the positional embeddedness that they have for the creation of new ties. It also gives them a comparative advantage over less active actors (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Walker, Kogut, & Shan, 1997). Evidence of the effect of actor centrality on partnering is presented in the findings of Gulati and Gargiulo (1999) who comment that actors on the periphery of the network are more likely to build ties with core actors in central positions rather than with actors in similar positions to themselves. Also, core actors in central positions are more likely to build ties with other core actors rather than with actors on the periphery of the network.

An actor may hold a similar position within the network as another based on similarity of ties, although these ties might not be the same ties. An actor with a similar position and role to another in the network can be described as having structural equivalence (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994). Actors that are structurally equivalent compare themselves against each other to evaluate this equivalence (Burt, 1976; Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007; Wasserman & Faust, 1995). Actor attributes that indicate role might be their size, the resources that they control, or the geographic location that they occupy (Wasserman & Faust, 1995). These attributes all influence an actor’s perceived value to other actors and affect their negotiating leverage for network exchanges (Erickson & Kushner, 1999). Actors use position as a competitive tool for individual reward, and so structure results from actors seeking a network position as part of their organisational strategy (Cowan et al., 2007).

Actors within the network are prepared to use their power to manipulate others to improve their individual position. Power is based on influence over others through relative control of resources (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Kodama, 2001; Walker et al., 1997). An example of power influencing actor network position is noted by Wolfe et al. (2002) in which the more attractive actors in a sport-industry setting were able to dictate terms to event sponsors whereas less attractive actors were not able to do this. As a result, less attractive actors lost revenue opportunities. Another example is cited by Dyer and Nobeoka (2000)

who, in their study of the Toyota Production system network, noted the threat of sanctions that might be imposed by the central broker for transgressors of the network norms.

A second view of actor centrality is based on ‘closeness’ or ‘betweeness’. Closeness is the measure of distance between one actor and another. Actors that have closeness are able to interact directly with all others and not have to rely on going through an intermediary actor to reach another, i.e. they have minimum steps to reach others (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994). This closeness enables efficient interactions between those actors in which power can be used by direct exchange and bargaining (Hanneman, 2001; Wasserman & Faust, 1995). Betweeness occurs when actors that are not linked directly depend on another to link them; the actor that links others by brokering has power over the connection and, as a result, more influence and power. Actors performing as brokers may be able to charge for this service. They may also be able to prevent connections being made as well as to isolate actors. Being involved in many connections enables an actor to keep up with network developments and be included in information and resource flows. If the actor is essential to these resource and information flows they are also able to exert power over them. Measurements of centrality allow comparisons between one network and another, and between one actor and another in the same network. This enables an understanding of whether the network is built around a focal actor (Hanneman, 2001; Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007; Wasserman & Faust, 1995).

Connections between actors can either be direct or indirect. The benefit of having many connections is greater reliability and less likelihood of disruption. Actors with many ties have different alternatives for connecting with other actors and as a result are less dependent on others. Moreover, the more ties they have, the greater their potential to act in a brokerage capacity for others (Hanneman, 2001). The directionality of these ties indicates the tie flows from one actor to another. If the tie flows both ways there is reciprocity and mutual commitment between the two actors (Hanneman, 2001; Mitchell, 1969; Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007; Wasserman & Faust, 1995). Reciprocity is important as it is critical for sustaining positive relations amongst actors (Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007). Brass et al. (2004) note the effect of work groups with dense networks as being able to achieve

more than work groups with sparse networks. Work groups that are able to perform at high levels and finish projects early have more ties between their leaders, peer groups and higher managers as well as external ties. However, these work groups are also less likely to have access to new resources (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003). Furthermore, groups that are more central in the exchange process of resources tend to be more innovative (Brass et al., 2004). This is also supported by Ahuja (2000) who notes direct ties provide benefits of greater knowledge sharing to the actors involved through collaboration. Through joining complementary skills from each actor, economies of scale can be achieved without the investment required in resources should the collaboration not have taken place. This finding is also supported by Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) who note the multiplicity that exists between suppliers in the Toyota network, an attribute of the network that is actively developed by the central broker.

The more ties there are within the network, the denser the network. Density is the proportion of the possible number of ties that exist which connect actors to other actors in a network (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994). Networks with more weak ties are easier to maintain, are less dense, and have access to greater resources compared with denser networks that have more strong ties and are more time consuming to maintain. Strong ties are more likely between actors that are similar and who share similar values. The effect of strong ties is to develop cliques (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994) which may become closed and isolated, thus making the adoption of innovations and access to new information difficult and slow. Networks of strong ties may also limit the understanding of actors of their environment as they become dependent on their closely linked network actors for information. However, the benefit of strong ties is that these actors are more likely to be motivated to assist and be more readily available to other actors in need. Actors which are reliant on network resources are more likely to invest more time in developing strong ties than actors that are not wholly reliant on the network (Granovetter, 1973, 1983; Uzzi, 1997).

Network position based on relationships with others is an indicator of power held by that actor within the network. This concept along with density of the network may explain the role of the central broker within each of the three embedded NZAS networks.