² Jeidels, O., Das Verhältnis der deutschen Groβbanken zur Industrie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Eisenindustrie (Leipzig, 1905)Google Scholar; Fegiz, P. Luzzatto, ‘Il consiglio d'amministrazione e l'interdipendenza delle imprese’, Giornale degli economisti, 43 (1928)Google Scholar; and Zorzini, M., ‘L'organizzazione dell'industria idro-elettrica in Italia’, Economia (1925).Google Scholar

³ Lundström, R. and Ottoson, J., ‘Bank-industry relation in Sweden: ownership and interlocking directorates’, Uppsala Papers in Economic History, 5 (1989)Google Scholar; Ottoson, J., ‘Network analysis and interlocking directorships: inter-war Sweden’, in Cottrell, P. L., Lindgren, H. and Teichova, A. (eds), European Industry and Banking Between the Wars: A Review of Bank Industry Relations (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; and Scott, J., Social Network Analysis. A Handbook (London, 1991).Google Scholar

⁴ Mizruchi, M. S. and Schwartz, M. (eds), Intercorporate Relations. The Structural Analysis of Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1992 ed.).Google Scholar

⁵ Aldrich, H., Organizations and Environments (Englewood Cliffs, 1979)Google Scholar; and Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J., ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 82 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Williamson, O. E., Markets and Hierarchies (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Transaction cost economics and organization theory’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2 (1993).Google Scholar

⁷ Mills, W. C., The Power Elite (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Domhoff, G. W. (ed.), ‘The American Corporate Network, 1815–1974’, special issue of Social Science History, 7 (1983)Google Scholar; and idem, Who Rules America (Englewood Cliffs, 1967).Google Scholar

⁸ For a similar perspective see: Baron, J. N. and Hannan, M. T., ‘The impact of economics on contemporary sociology’, Journal of Economic Literature, 3 (1994).Google Scholar

⁹ Mizruchi, and Schwartz, , Intercorporate Relations.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Granovetter, M., Coase Revisited: Business Groups in the Modern Economy, paper presented to the ASSI Conference on Hierarchies, Markets, Power in the Economy: Theory and Lessons from History (Milan, 15–1712 1993).Google Scholar

¹¹ ibid., p. 2.

¹² Baron, and Hannan, , ‘Impact of economies’.Google Scholar

¹³ Powell, W. W. and Maggio, P. J. Di (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago/London, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁴ ibid., p. 8.

¹⁵ Scott, J., ‘Theoretical framework and research design’, in Stockman, F. N., Ziegler, R. and Scott, J. (eds), Networks of Corporate Power (Cambridge, 1985).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Caswell, J. A., ‘An institutional perspective on corporate control and the networks of interlocking directorates’, Journal of Economic Issues, 17 (1984).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Burris, V., ‘Director interlocks and the political behavior of corporations and corporate elites’, Social Science Quarterly, 72 (1991).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Koenig, T., Gogel, R. and Sonquist, J., ‘Models of the significance of interlocking corporate directorates’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 38 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ ibid.

²⁰ Hilferding, R., Das Finanzkapital (1910).Google Scholar

²¹ Soref, M. and Zeitlin, M., ‘Finance capital and the internal structure of the capitalist class in the United States’, in Mizruchi and Schwartz, Intercorporate Relations.Google Scholar

²² Mills, , The Power Elite.Google Scholar

²³ P. M. Sweezy, ‘Interest groups in the American economy’, in idem, The Present as History (New York, 1939).Google Scholar

²⁴ Allen, M. P., ‘Economic interests groups and the corporate elite structure’, Social Science Quarterly, 58 (1978)Google Scholar; idem, ‘The structure of interorganizational elite cooptation’, American Sociological Review, 39 (1974)Google Scholar; and Knowles, J. C., The Rockefeller Financial Group (New York, 1974).Google Scholar

²⁵ Mintz, B. and Schwartz, M., The Power Structure of American Business (Chicago, 1985).Google Scholar

²⁶ Mizruchi, M. S., The American Corporate Network, 1904–1974 (Beverly Hills, 1982).Google Scholar

²⁷ Aldrich, H. and Pfeffer, J., ‘Environments of organizations’, in Inkeles, A., Coleman, J. and Smelser, N. (eds), Annual Review of Sociology, 2 (1976)Google Scholar; Pfeffer, J., ‘A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate relations’, in Mizruchi and Schwartz, Intercorporate RelationsGoogle Scholar; and Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R., The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (New York, 1978).Google Scholar

²⁸ Selznick, P., TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkeley, 1949).Google Scholar

²⁹ Burt, R. S., ‘Cooptive corporate actor networks: a reconsideration of interlocking directorates involving American manufacturing’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Kreps, D. and Wilson, R., ‘Reputation and imperfect information’, Journal of Economic Theory, 27 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and David, P. A., Path dependence: putting the past into the future of economics, mimeo (Stanford, 1988).Google Scholar

³¹ Dooley, P. C., ‘The interlocking directorate’, American Economic Review, 59 (1969).Google Scholar

³² Granovetter, M., ‘The nature of economic relationship’, in Swedberg, R. (ed.), Explorations in Economic Sociology (New York, 1993).Google Scholar

³³ Hempel, C. G., Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁴ The Collegi Sindacali are special committees of auditors of the firms similar to supervisory boards. See, for instance, Scott, J., ‘Theoretical framework and research design’, in Stockman et al., Networks of Corporate Power.Google Scholar

³⁵ Mintz, and Schwartz, , The Power Structure of American Business.Google Scholar

³⁶ Pennings, J. M., Interlocking Directorates (San Francisco/London, 1980)Google Scholar; and Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (eds), Social Network Analysis. Methods and Applications (Cambridge, Mass., 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Scott, , Social Network Analysis.Google Scholar

³⁸ An alternative method to calculate density measures, used in a similar way by Chiesi: Chiesi, A., ‘Property, capital and network structure in Italy’, in Stockman et al., Networks of Corporate Power, p. 198Google Scholar, consists of the whole number of interlocks as a proxy of intra-companies links, also considering their multiplicity. Using this method, for example, one link between two companies generated by two different directors is considered as two different interlocks. This method has been adopted in the counterfactual exercise concerning banks' role below. Indeed, we have also calculated the density for the same benchmark years: these are 0.0426 (1911), 0.0093 (1927) and 0.0065 (1936).

³⁹ Chiesi, A., ‘L'elite fmanziaria italiana’, Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 23 (1982)Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Property, capital and network’.

⁴⁰ Giannetti, R., Vasta, M. and Baccini, A., Le tendenze della struttura dimensionale dell'impresa italiana (1895–1936), paper presented to the workshop L'impresa italiana (Milan, Fondazione ASSI, 7 06 1991)Google Scholar; and Giannetti, R., Federico, G. and Toninelli, P. A., ‘Size and strategy of Italian industrial enterprises (1907–1940): empirical evidence and some conjectures’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Pennings, Interlocking Directorates.Google Scholar

⁴² Only in the case of density is it possible to calculate the total number of ID possible without the banks. In the other cases, one should consider as non-existent each seat in any company occupied by a person also sitting on a bank's board of directors, thus reducing the reference counterfactual universe not only by the seats of the banks, but also by the seats of other companies occupied by ‘bank employees’.

⁴³ Pennings, Interlocking Directorates.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The use of share capital as a proxy for the size of industrial enterprises has been cogently argued for, among several others, by Giannetti, et al. , ‘Size and strategy’.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The result is relevant also from another viewpoint, i. e. it can be interpreted as reinforcing the plausibility of the use of share capital as proxy for the size of the enterprise. That is, if the number of ID are related to assets, as other studies have shown, and if capital is in its turn related to the number of ID, as we have just attempted to show, then it is reasonable to suppose that also capital and assets are related in some way.

⁴⁶ Ginzburg, C., ‘Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario’, in Gargani, A. (ed.), Crisi della Ragione (Turin, 1979).Google Scholar