Harnessing social interaction and intellectual capital in intergovernmental networks
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-09-2019-0226 |
| Published date | 21 January 2021 |
| Date | 21 January 2021 |
| Pages | 639-665 |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
| Author | Jose M. Barrutia,Carmen Echebarria |
Harnessing social interaction and
intellectual capital in
intergovernmental networks
Jose M. Barrutia and Carmen Echebarria
University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain
Abstract
Purpose –Intellectual capital creation (ICC) in networks has been considered as central to the processes for
responding to wicked problems. However, knowledgeon the factors that explain ICC in networks is limited. We
take a step toward filling this research gap by drawing on an extended view of social capital to identify specific
network features that should explain ICC heterogeneity in engineered intergovernmental networks.
Design/methodology/approach –A sample of 655 local authorities participating in 8 networks was used to
test the framework proposed. Data analysis followed a three-step approach. Firstly, confirmatory factor
analysis was applied to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the measures. Secondly, a non-
parametric median test was conducted to determine whether the variables under study were statistically
different for the eight networks. Lastly, the structural model underlying the conceptual framework was tested.
Findings –The authors found that the eight intergovernmental networks studied differed significantly in
their levels of social interaction and ICC.At a structural level, three variables usually considered representative
of social capital (social interaction, trust and shared vision) and two supplementary variables (shared resources
and shared decisions) were proven to have significant direct and/or indirect effects on ICC.
Originality/value –No previous cross-sectional research has studied the link between the creation of social
capital and intellectual capital in engineered intergovernmental networks. As this research focuses on
networks and climate change, it contributes to the fourth and fifth stages of intellectual capital research.
Keywords Social capital, Social interaction, Intellectual capital creation, Climate change, Intergovernmental
networks, Municipalities
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
This research looks at the underexplored crossroads of intellectual capital (IC) and
intergovernmental networking research streams.
On the one hand, IC researchers claim that IC studies should extend from organizations to
networks, particularly those aimed at solving wicked problems that affect people’s well-being
(Dumay and Guthrie, 2019). Dumay and Guthrie (2019) use climate change (which is our
research context) as an example. Climate change refers to the long-term alteration of
temperature and typical weather patterns that has had an effect on both particular locations
and the planet as a whole, and is largely influenced by human activity, particularly the
burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas (Adger et al., 2003). Harmful
manifestations of climate change include warmer temperatures, extreme changes in weather,
rising sea levels and drier soils, which are expected to negatively affect people’s well-being.
All societies need to learn how to mitigate climate change (i.e. tackle the causes) and adapt to it
(i.e. minimize possible impacts) (Armitage et al., 2008). IC studies have mostly addressed
climate change responses within the boundaries of companies. Dumay and Guthrie (2019)
find this problematic as it may result in sustainability initiatives that provide benefits at an
organizational level but have little or no impact on ecosystems.
Social
interaction and
intellectual
capital
639
Financial support from the Spanish Government (Grant number ECO2016-76348-R), the Basque
Government (Grant Number GIC12/57-IT 60-13) and the University of the Basque Country (Grant
Number UFI11/51; Grant Number GIU11/17) is gratefully acknowledged.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm
Received 23 September 2019
Revised 4 February 2020
17 April 2020
4 August 2020
27 September 2020
25 November 2020
Accepted 6 January 2021
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2022
pp. 639-665
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-09-2019-0226
IC researchers also claim that IC studies should extend from businesses to public
organizations, which is consistent with the finding that the public sector is one of the least
addressed areas in IC research (Guthrie et al., 2012;Manes Rossi et al., 2016). In their
structured literature review on IC in the public sector, Dumay et al. (2015) found that only 3
out of 53 studies focused on local government (which is our specific research object). They
highlighted that local governments have distinctive characteristics that may lead to different
findings and could yield more accurate knowledge to properly guide public sector managers.
Meanwhile, intergovernmental networking researchers suggest that networks are an
appropriate setting for tackling wicked problems. They view networks as key structures for
fostering the intellectual capital creation (ICC) needed to tackle wicked problems, although
usually using related terms, such as learning or improved knowledge (Alter and Hage, 1993;
Keast et al., 2004;Armitage et al., 2008;Agranoff, 2012). A great deal of this literature focuses
on climate change, as we do. Climate change is a “wicked problem”: appropriate responses are
far from clear and involve multiple parties, including governments, public agencies, firms,
NGOs and individuals (Ostrom, 2010). Although there is no consensus on how climate change
could be better addressed, academics (e.g. Armitage et al., 2008;Bodin and Crona, 2009) and
practitioners (e.g. recommendations from United Nations summits) have focused on
promoting networks as a vehicle for co-creating new knowledge, bringing together
complementary resources and coordinating efforts.
A core argument underlying the emphasis on networking is that networks are a suitable
context for fostering social interaction and ICC (Galunic and Rodan, 1998;Armitage et al.,
2008;V
at
am
anescu et al., 2016). However, in most studies, social interaction and ICC in
networks have been taken for granted instead of being measured and explained. The fact that
social interaction is costly, energy- and time-consuming, involves opportunity costs and is not
necessarily productive in terms of ICC (e.g. members distrust each other) seems to have been
neglected (Augier and Vendelø, 1999;Armitage et al., 2008). This leads to a paradox: while the
idea of intergovernmental networks seems to be perceived as a mantra for solving the most
important challenges facing governments and modern societies, our systematic knowledge of
how intergovernmental networks work and achieve their learning goals is very limited
(Armitage et al., 2008;Bessant and Tsekouras, 2001). Specifically, we do not have a systematic
knowledge of how networks lead to social interaction and ICC (Bessant and Tsekouras, 2001).
Many studies seem to assume that simply using the network label is enough to achieve ICC,
instead of contributing evidence of ICC in networks, and systematically investigating the
network features that explain ICC heterogeneity.
We have taken a step toward filling this research gap by trying to respond to three
research questions (RQ) that are interrelated.
RQ1. Are intergovernmental networks heterogeneous in terms of ICC?
RQ2. Can an extended view of social capital theory explain ICC in intergovernmental
networks?
RQ3. What is the role and relative strength of the factors involved?
To identify the factors that should affect ICC heterogeneity in networks, we drew on an
extended view of social capital theory that includes insights from collective intelligence
systems and literature on intergovernmental networks. Social capital theory led us to view
networks as relationships and resources that facilitate exchanges and combinations of
knowledge and, in turn, ICC, and to identify three dimensions of social capital (i.e. trust, social
interaction and shared vision) (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;Adler and Kwon, 2002;Lin, 2017).
The collective intelligence framework supplemented social capital theory by focusing on the
“why”and “how”of collaboration (Robert et al., 2008;Malone et al., 2010). Literature on
intergovernmental networking provided specific dimensions on the “why”(i.e. shared
JIC
23,3
640
To continue reading
Request your trial