Conference Agenda

While traditional research emphasizes interlocking directorates, this presentation explores the socialization of business elites outside of the corporate world, using the Moroccan bourgeoisie in Casablanca as a case study. We argue that upper-class neighborhoods and exclusive private clubs are essential locations for building networks and accumulating social capital. Our analysis, based on a socio-historical approach incorporating ethnographic fieldwork and over twenty interviews, examines the residential patterns of Moroccan’s bourgeoisie and the changing dynamics of the Club des Clubs de Casablanca, Morocco's most prestigious and exclusive club.

The inner circle has been recently subject to debates in the literature on US corporate networks. Some scholars argue that the fragmentation of corporate elites leads to the disappearance of the inner circle (Chu and Davis 2016), while others suggest that it remains influential but requires new approaches to be detected in the context of the decline of interlocking directorates (Murray and Jordan 2019).

Beyond these debates, little attention has been paid to how the composition of inner circles evolves over time. While research has highlighted the growing importance of foreigners and women among national corporate elites in different EU countries, the mechanisms that shape inner circles remain largely underexplored. Importantly, the inner circle does not simply reflect corporate elites at large; its selection processes vary across national contexts.

My previous research has shown that in France, the inner circle is primarily composed of corporate leaders who graduated from École Polytechnique and/or ENA, often belonging to prestigious state grands corps such as Mines, Ponts et Chaussées, and Inspection des Finances. I investigate whether these selection mechanisms have remained stable since the 2000s, or whether they have evolved to include other fractions of corporate elites with alternative visions of public action.

I assess these changes by analysing several waves of data on the directors of large companies and think tanks. I first examine alternative indicators for identifying members of the inner circle and propose an approach based on the social mechanism of regulation. Secondly, I apply this approach to several waves of data in order to measure changes in the inner circle. Finally, I consider the consequences of these possible changes on policy-making processes.

Who represents the corporate elite in democratic governance? In his seminal work on the “corporate inner circle”, Useem (1986) identifies the emergence of three network-related mechanisms that shaped the composition and political organization of American and British corporate elites in the postwar era: organizational brokerage, elite-level social cohesion and network centrality. Subsequent research has found similar dynamics at play across a variety of capitalist societies but all studies on corporate political representation rest on network analyses of a highly select sample of leaders from the top ranks of very large publicly listed firms. We cast a wider net. Analyzing new population data on all members of corporate boards in the Danish economy (~200,000 directors in ~120,000 boards), we locate ~1,500 directors that operate as brokers between local corporate networks and measure their network coreness using k-core detection. We find a highly connected network core of ~275 directors, half of which are affiliated with smaller firms or subsidiaries. Statistical analyses show a strong positive association between director coreness and the likelihood of joining one of the 650 government committees epitomizing Denmark’s social-corporatist model of governance (net of firm and director characteristics). The political network premium is largest for directors of smaller firms or subsidiaries, indicating that network coreness is a key driver of business political representation, especially for directors without claims to market power or weight in formal interest organizations.

The role of network centrality in firms' internationalization strategies has become increasingly relevant in understanding their choice of entry modes. While previous studies have explored the impact of network positioning on international activities, research focusing on greenfield investments and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) remains limited, particularly from the home-country perspective. Existing studies are also geographically concentrated in non-European contexts, often rely on fragmented data, and lack comprehensive measures of firm networks. Here, we examine how firms' network centrality—measured through degree, betweenness, and closeness—affects their likelihood of engaging in greenfield investments versus M&A. Using panel data on firms in 14 European Union countries between 2015 and 2022, we construct inter-firm networks based on managerial interlocks and analyze their impact on firms' entry mode choices. Our results show that firms with higher degree and betweenness centrality are more likely to undertake greenfield investments, while closeness centrality negatively influences such decisions. These findings suggest that well-connected firms leverage their network ties and intermediary positions to reduce uncertainties and identify new opportunities for autonomous international expansion. In contrast, firms with high closeness centrality, being tightly embedded within the network, may favor alternative strategies, such as collaborative ventures or acquisitions, rather than independent greenfield operations. This study offers a novel analysis of firms' network positions and internationalization strategies by integrating multiple databases and methodologies. It expands the literature by providing empirical evidence from a European home-country context and highlights the distinct roles of network centrality in shaping firms' strategic decisions for global expansion.

Many global corporations have several levels of ownership going through some cities which constitute “mandatory pathways” to reach other ones. The position of “relay”, “intermediate” or “bridge”, affords cities better access to the whole network as well as increased control over information transfers (Burt, 1992, 2007, 2015). One can interpret this cumulative process of concentration as a reinforcement of “social capital” of big cities as sociologists do at the micro level (Gould, Fernandez, 1989; Walker et al., 1997). The position of relay should be more precisely defined in urban geography, as in sociology this concept integrates the role of “tertius Gaudens” or structural hole (Simmel, 1922; Merton, 1957; Granovetter, 1973; Hannan & Freeman, 1977).

To emphasis cities of the world that have “relay” role of firms from 2010 to 2022 (every 3 years: ORBIS database), we will develop different kinds of indexes. In fact, observing the relays at the micro level of companies, but building indexes at the city level, numerous possibilities exist to reveal the size and the specialization of cities in these roles. Beyond the main results of this empirical implementation, the purpose of the presentation will be to discuss how far different indexes could reveal diverse aspects of this spatial role for cities and for their dynamics. Which ones reflect more the attractiveness and power dynamics of the cities? Which ones could reveal resilience properties or spatial balance? We will discuss these measures for better using these properties of relay in the future.