Contributions to the Impact Assessment of Network Cooperation among Social Enterprises

György  Kocziszky; József  Benedek

doi:10.18096/TMP.2019.02.03

Authors

György Kocziszky University of Miskolc
József Benedek University of Miskolc

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18096/TMP.2019.02.03

Keywords:

network, impact assessment, impact matrix, multiplier effect, cost-benefit analysis

Abstract

The literature of industrial management has been focusing, although with different intensity, on the question of optimal company size since the 1960s. Whithin this framework the focus shifted since the 1980s form the examinations of, the effects of business outsourcing to increase efficiency to the organizational and economic connections of network cooperation, since the 1990s.
Network cooperation analysis is especially relevant in the case of social enterprises, which are usually smaller than the sectoral average and are characterized with lower capitalization and higher risk than the average.
This paper reviews the literature and methods, trying to find the answers to the following four questions:
 What justifies network cooperation?
 Which factors enhance and which factors discourage the start up of social entrepreneurial networks?
 What kind of network types can be developed?
 How can the effect of network cooperation be measured?

Author Biographies

György Kocziszky, University of Miskolc

Professor

József Benedek, University of Miskolc

Professor

References

AMIN, A. (2000): Industrial Districts, in: Sheppard, E., Barnes, T. J. (ed.): A Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford, Blackwell, 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470693445.ch10

ATKINSON, M. M., COLEMAN, W.D. (1992). Policy Networks, Policy Communities and the Problems of Governance, in: Governance, 5(2), pp. 154-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1992.tb00034.x

BATHELT, H., GLÜCKLER, J. (2000): Netzwerke, Lernen und evolutionäre Regionalentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 3–4, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.2000.0012

BENEDEK J. (2006): Urban policy and urbanisation in the transititon Romania, Romanian Review of Regional Studies 1, pp.51 - 64.

BENEDEK J. (2009): The emergence of new regions in transition Romania, in: Scott, J. (Ed) De-coding New Regionalism. Shifting Socio-political Contexts in Central Europe and Latin America, pp. 233 – 246. Ashgate. Urban and Regional Planning Series, Aldershot.

BENEDEK J., HORVÁTH R. (2008): Chapter 12, Romania, in: Baun M, Marek D., (Eds) EU regional policy after enlargment, pp. 226 – 247. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

BENEDEK J., KOCZISZKY G. (2015): Paths of convergence and polarization in the Visegrád countries. In: Lang, T., Henn, S., Sgibnev, W., Ehrlich, K., (eds.): Understanding Geographies of Polarization and Peripheralization. Perspectives from Eastern Europe and Beyond, pp. 217-234. Palgrave/MacMillan, Basingstoke. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137415080_12

BENEDEK J., KOCZISZKY G., VERESNÉ SOMOSI M., BALATON K. (2016): Generating and Measuring Regional Social Innovation. Club of Economics Miskolc TMP, vol. 12, special issue, pp.14-25. https://doi.org/10.18096/TMP.2016.02.02

BENEDEK J., MOLDOVAN A. (2015): Economic convergence and polarisation: towards a multi-dimensional approach. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 64:3, pp.187-203. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.64.3.3

BENEDEK J., VERESS N. (2013): Economic Disparities and Changes in the Convergence of the Romanian NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 Regions. Romanian Review of Regional Studies. (9):1, pp.85-90.

BENEDEK, J., KURKÓ, I. (2010): The Evolution of Regional Economic Disparities in Romania. Transylvanian Review, 19 Supplement No. 4, pp.143-158.

BENKO, G., LIPIETZ, A. (1998): From the regulation of space to the space of regulation. GeoJournal, 44(4), pp. 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006817514094

BLECKER, T. (1999): Unternehmung ohne Grenzen: Konzepte, Strategien und Gestaltungsempfehlungen für das strategische Management. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95311-7_3

BODOCAN, V., BENEDEK, J., RUSU, R. (2018): Twenty first century cities: from global challenges to local responses. In: Solarz Wojchieh Marcin (ed.) New geographies of the globalized world. Routledge Studies in Human Geography, pp. 77-92. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315560083-4

BURT, R.S. (1984): Network Items in the General Social Survey, in: Social Networks, 6, pp. 293-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(84)90007-8

BURT, R.S. (1985): General Social Survey Network Items, in: Connections, 8, pp. 119-123.

BURT, R.S. & MINOR, M.J. (1983): Applied Network Analysis. A Methodological Introduction, Newbury Park. https://doi.org/10.2307/3340357

CAMAGNI, R. (2018): Functional integration and locational shifts on new technology industry. In: Aydalot, P., Keeble, D. (eds.) High Technology Industry and Innovative Environments: The European Experience, pp. 48-64. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315149769-3

EICHHORN, P. & MERK J. (2016). Das Prinzip Wirtschaftlichkeit: Basiswissen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07830-0

ERIKSSON, R.K., LENGYEL, B. (2019): Co-worker networks and agglomeration externalities. Economic Geography, 95(1), 65-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2018.1498741

FAUST, K., WASSERMAN, S. (1992) Blockmodels. Interpretation and Evaluation, in: Social Networks, 14. pp.5-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(92)90013-W

HASSINK, R. (2001) The Learning Region. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 3–4, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.2001.0013

KADERALI F. (2001): Handbuch Unternehmensnetze. Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.

KOCZISZKY GY., BENEDEK J., SZENDI D. (2018): The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the evolution of household incomes and wealth in Visegrad countries. Regional Statistics. 8:1. pp.1-27. https://doi.org/10.15196/RS080102

KONTOS, G. (2004): Bewertung des Erfolgs von Unternehmensnetzwerken in der F & E. PhD dissertation, Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule, Aachen.

KRÄTKE, S. (2001): Regionalforschung in regulationstheoretischer Perspektive. Geographische Revue, Jg. 2, Heft 1, pp. 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.1996.0001

LEBORGNE, D., LIPIETZ, A. (1988): New technologies, new modes of regulation: some spatial implications. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6, pp.263-280.Piore, M., Sabel, Ch. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Basic Books, New York. https://doi.org/10.1068/d060263

PIORE, M., SABEL, CH. (1984): The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity. New York, Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/25142899

PWG (2006): Unternehmenskooperation: Auslauf oder Zukunftsmodell? Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Berlin.

SABEL, C., HERRIGEL, G. (2019): Collaborative innovation in the Norwegian oil and gas industry: surprise or sign of a new economy-wide paradigm? In: Kingsbury, B., Malone, D., Stewart, R.B., Sunami, A. (eds.): Megaregulation Contested: Global Economic Ordering After TPP, pp. 1-24. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315142456-15

SERDÜLT, U. (2002): Soziale Netzwerkanalyse: eine Methode zur Untersuchung von Beziehungen zwischen sozialen Akteuren. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft. 31(2), 127-141.