World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Interlocking directorate

Article Id: WHEBN0003662828
Reproduction Date:

Title: Interlocking directorate  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: State (polity), Board of directors, Corporate media, Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 20, Merger mania
Collection: Business Terms, Corporate Governance
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Interlocking directorate

Network diagram showing interlocks between various U.S. corporations/institutions, and four major media/telecom corporations (circled in red).
Network diagram showing interlocks of the board members of American International Group (AIG), from 2004 with other U.S. corporations.
Network diagram showing interlocks between various U.S. corporations and institutions and the Council on Foreign Relations, in 2004

Interlocking directorate refers to the practice of members of a corporate board of directors serving on the boards of multiple corporations. A person that sits on multiple boards is known as a multiple director.[1] Two firms have a direct interlock if a director or executive of one firm is also a director of the other, and an indirect interlock if a director of each sits on the board of a third firm.[2] This practice, although widespread and lawful, raises questions about the quality and independence of board decisions.


  • Socio-political importance 1
  • Modern interlock networks 2
  • Legality 3
  • See also 4
    • Bibliography 4.1
  • Further reading 5
  • References 6
  • External links 7

Socio-political importance

According to some observers (John Asimakopoulos), interlocks allow for cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power of corporate executives.[3] They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals.[4] They help corporate executives maintain an advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation.[2][5] In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."[6]

Interlocks act as communication channels, enabling information to be shared between boards via multiple directors who have access to inside information for multiple companies.[1] The system of interlocks forms what Michael Useem calls a "transcorporate network, overarching all sectors of business".[7] Interlocks have benefits over

  • -- tool for mapping out board interlocks between large corporations, foundations, nonprofits, and universities, using data from SEC filings

External links

  1. ^ a b Scott, 1997: p. 7
  2. ^ a b c Salinger, 2005: p. 438
  3. ^ a b c Asimakopoulos, John (2009). "Globally Segmented Labor Markets". Critical Sociology 35 (2): 175–198. 
  4. ^ a b Salinger, 2005: p. 437
  5. ^ Mizruchi, Mark S. & Schwartz, Michael (1992). Intercorporate relations: the structural analysis of business. Cambridge University Press. p. 58.  
  6. ^ a b c Bowman, 1996: p. 21
  7. ^ Useem, 1986: p. 53
  8. ^ Dogan, Mattéi (2003). Elite configurations at the apex of power. BRILL. p. 200.  
  9. ^ Beder, Sharon (2006). Suiting themselves: how corporations drive the global agenda. Earthscan. p. 4.  
  10. ^ Barrow, Clyde W. (1993). Critical Theories of State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 19.  
  11. ^ a b Domhoff, 2006: pp. 30-31
  12. ^ Knoke, David (1994). Political networks: the structural perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 159.  
  13. ^ Fennema, M. (1982). International networks of banks and industry. Springer. p. 208.  
  14. ^ Zweig, Michael (2001). The working class majority: America's best kept secret. Cornell University Press. p. 19.  
  15. ^ Bowman, 1996: p. 22
  16. ^ Sklair, Leslie (2001). The Transnational Capitalist Class. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 13.  
  17. ^ Domhoff, 2006: Chapter 3
  18. ^ Ackerman, Frank (2000). The political economy of inequality. Island Press. p. 55.  
  19. ^ a b Domhoff, 2006: p. 26
  20. ^ Krantz, Matt (2002-11-24). "Web of board members ties together Corporate America". USA Today. 
  21. ^ Johannes M Pennings, 1980. Interlocking Directorates: San Francisco: Jossey Bass
  22. ^ Slaughter, Sheila & Rhoades, Gary (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press. p. 234.  
  23. ^ Domhoff, 2006: p. 27
  24. ^ Devine, Fiona (1997). Social class in Ameriontent-Type: multipart/form-datagh University Press. pp. 109–110.  
  25. ^ Mintz, Beth &; hidegeonoticeCampusAmbasite book (1987). The Power Structure of American Business. University of Chicago Press. p. 135.  
  26. ^ Glasberg, Davita Silfen (1989). The power of collective purse strings: the effects of bank hegemony on corporations and the state. University of California Press. p. 12.  
  27. ^ Scott, 1997: pp. 18-19
  28. ^ Saunders, Frances Stonor (1999). The cultural cold war : the CIA and the world of arts and letters ([New ed.]. ed.). New York: New Press. pp. 138–139.  
  29. ^ Carroll, William K. & Carson, Colin (2006). "Neoliberalism, capitalist class formation and the global network of corporations and policy groups". In Plehwe, Dieter; Walpen, Bernhard; Neunhöffer, Gisela. Neoliberal hegemony: a global critique. Taylor & Francis. p. 66.  
  30. ^ Wardrip-Fruin, Noah & Montfort, Nick (2003). New Media Reader. MIT Press. p. 480.  
  31. ^ Pennings, Johannes M. (1980 ) Interlocking Directorates. San Francisco: Jossey Bass



  • Domhoff, G. William (August, 2005); Interlocking Directorates in the Corporate Community.
  • Mizruchi, Mark S. (August, 1996); "What Do Interlocks Do? An Analysis, Critique, and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Directorates". Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22: 271-298.
  • Phillips, Peter S. (June 24, 2005) "Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America".
  • Scott, John (1990). The Sociology of Elites, Volume 3: Interlocking directorships and corporate networks. University of Michigan Press.  

Further reading

  • Bowman, Scott R. (1996). The modern corporation and American political thought: law, power, and ideology. Penn State Press.  
  • Domhoff, G. William (2006). Who Rules America?: Power, Politics, and Social Change. McGraw-Hill.  
  • Salinger, Lawrence M. (2005). Encyclopedia of white-collar and corporate crime. Vol. 1. SAGE.  
  • Scott, John (1997). Corporate Business and Capitalist Classes. Oxford University Press.  
  • Useem, Michael (1986). The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. Oxford University Press.  


See also

In the United States, the Clayton Act prohibits interlocking directorates by U.S. companies competing in the same industry, if those corporations would violate antitrust laws if combined into a single corporation. However, at least 1 in 8 of the interlocks in the United States are between corporations that are supposedly competitors.[30]


Analyses of corporate interlocks have found a high degree of interconnectedness amongst large corporations.[19][20] It has also been shown that inbound interlocks (i.e. a network link from external firms into a focal firm) have a much greater impact and importance than outbound interlocks, a finding that laid the foundation for further research on inter-organizational networks based on overlapping memberships and other linkages such as joint ventures and patent backward and forward citations.[21] Virtually all large U.S. corporations are linked together in a network of interlocks.[22] Most corporations are within 3 or 4 "steps" from each other within this network.[19] Approximately 15-20% of all directors sit on two or more boards.[11] The largest corporations tend to have the most interlocks, and also tend to have interlocks with each other, placing them at the center of the network.[23] Major banks, in particular, tend to be at the center of the network and have large numbers of interlocks.[24][25][26] With the globalization of financial capital following World War II, multinational interlocks have become progressively more common.[27] As the Cold War escalated, well-connected members of the CIA harnessed these interconnections to launder money through front foundations, as well as more substantial institutions such as the Ford Foundation.[28] A relatively small number of individuals—a few dozen—bind this multinational network together by participating in transnational interlocks and sitting on the boards of multiple global policy groups (such as the Council on Foreign Relations).[29]

Modern interlock networks

Interlocks not only occur between corporations, but also between corporations and non-profit institutions such as foundations, think tanks, policy-planning groups, and universities.[15][16] They can also be seen as a subset of connections in a larger upper class social network which includes all of the aforementioned types of institutions as well as elite social clubs, schools, resorts, and gatherings.[3][17] Multiple directors are "roughly twice as likely as single directors to be in the Social Register, to have attended a prestigious private school, or to belong to an elite social club."[18]

Furthermore, multiple directors tend to be more frequently appointed to government positions, and sit on more non-profit/foundation boards than other directors. Thus, these individuals (known as the "inner circle" of the corporate class) tend to contribute disproportionately to the policy-planning and government groups that represent the interests of the corporate class,[11][12] and are the ones that are most likely to deal with general policy issues and handle political problems for the business class as a whole.[13] These individuals and the people around them are often considered to be the "ruling class" in modern politics.[3] However, they do not wield absolute power, and they are not monolithic, often differing on which policies will best serve the interests of the upper classes.[14]

Some theorists believe that because multiple directors often have interests in firms in different industries, they are more likely to think in terms of general corporate class interests, rather than simply the narrow interests of individual corporations.[6][9][10] Also, these individuals tend to come from wealthy backgrounds, socialize with the upper classes, and tend to have worked their way up the corporate hierarchy, making it more likely that they have internalized values that will cause them to personally support policies that are beneficial to business in general.[6]

[8][2] They also benefit the involved companies, due to reduced competition, increased information availability for directors, and increased prestige.[4]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.