Network analysis of local territorial systems in the Salento region, Italy

Titolo Rivista RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'
Autori/Curatori Gianluigi Guido, Christian Rizzo, M. Irene Prete, Annamaria Cazzarò, Giovanni Pino
Anno di pubblicazione 2016 Fascicolo 2016/1 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 19 P. 83-101 Dimensione file 347 KB
DOI 10.3280/RISS2016-001008
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

In the past few decades, the development of organizational theories has been followed by a growing interest in the concept of network. This study examines the level of interconnectedness and relational power of stakeholders of four Local Territorial Systems (LTSs) localized in the province of Lecce, the so-called Salento region (South Italy), as well as the dominant rationality of each LTS, in order to get significant information about the distribution of decision-making power among stakeholders. Results revealed that the observed LTSs are characterized by a systemic rationality, and hence the decision-making power is homogeneously distributed among network members. Policy implications for sustainable development are discussed, as well as limitations and avenues for future research.

Negli ultimi decenni, lo sviluppo delle teorie organizzative si è accompagnato a un crescente interesse per il concetto di rete. Il presente studio si propone di individuare le relazioni tra gli attori strategici dei sistemi territoriali locali (STL) salentini, nella Provincia di Lecce, esaminando il livello d’interconnessione e la distribuzione del potere che determina la razionalità delle scelte di sviluppo sostenibile nei sistemi territoriali locali. I risultati dimostrano come i quattro STL esaminati siano caratterizzati da una "razionalità sistemica", in cui il potere decisionale appare equamente suddiviso tra i diversi attori del network.

Keywords:Razionalità dominante, sistemi territoriali locali, social network analysis, soggetto strategico.

  1. Wasserman S., Faust K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Albertini S., Pilotti L. (1996). Reti di reti. Padova: Cedam.
  3. Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
  4. Capestro M., Guido G. (2014). Il ruolo strategico della media impresa nei distretti industriali manifatturieri. Atti del XXVI Convegno annuale di Sinergie. Università di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale, November 13-14.
  5. Caroli M., Boccardelli P., Guido G., Paniccia I. (1999). Il marketing territoriale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  6. Chiesi A.M. (1999). L’analisi dei reticoli. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Cooper C., Scott N., Baggio R. (2009). Network position and perceptions of destination stakeholders importance. Anatolia, 20, 1: 33-45.
  8. Coulson A., Ferrario C. (2007). Institutional thickness: Local governance and economic development in Birmingham, England. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31 (3): 591-615.
  9. Dredge D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organization of tourism. Tourism Management, 27 (2): 269-280.
  10. Eversole R. (2011). Community agency and community engagement: Re-theorising participation in governance. Journal of Public Policy, 31 (1): 51-71.
  11. Feld S.C., Carter W.C. (2002). Detecting measurement bias in respondent reports of personal networks. Social Networks, 24 (4): 365-383.
  12. Freeman L. (1979). Centrality in social networks. Social Networks, 1 (3): 215-239.
  13. Gedikli B. (2009). The role of leadership in the success of participatory planning processes experience from Turkey. European Urban and Regional Studies, 16 (2): 115-130.
  14. Getzner M. (2002). Ecotourism, stakeholders and regional sustainable development. In: Hagedorn K. (Eds.). Environmental Cooperation and Institutional Change. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  15. Guido G. (2000). Un approccio strategico al marketing dei sistemi territoriali locali. Economia e Diritto del Terziario, 2 (2): 605-629.
  16. Guido G. (2007). The development of tourist and industrial districts in South Italy: A strategic marketing perspective. Sinergie, 26: 191-200.
  17. Guido G., Prete M.I., Giannuzzi M. (2012). Network analysis of local territorial systems in Salento: A strategic marketing study. 28th Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) Conference, Rome, 11-15 September.
  18. Guido G., Peluso A.M., Prete M.I., Amatulli C., Pino G., Pace C. (2013). Customer-centric strategies in place marketing: An analysis of places’ identities and perceived images. In: Kaufmann H.R., Panni M.F. (Eds.). Customer-Centric Marketing Strategies: Tools for Building Organizational Performance. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  19. Hadjimichalis C., Hudson R. (2006). Networks, regional development and democratic control. International Journal of Urban and Regional Development, 30 (4): 858-872.
  20. Holman N. (2008). Community participation: Using social network analysis to improve developmental benefits. Environment and Planning C - Government & Policy, 26 (3): 525-543.
  21. Lomi A. (1991). Reti organizzative. Bologna: il Mulino.
  22. Løvseth T. (2009). The state and social networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32 (3): 272-295.
  23. Marzano G., Scott N. (2009). Power in destination branding. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (2): 247-267.
  24. Ndou V., Passiante G. (2005). Value creation in tourism network systems. In: Frew A.J. (Ed.). Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism. New York: Springer.
  25. Nieminem J. (1974). On the centrality in a graph. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15 (1): 322-336.
  26. Pino G., Prete M.I., Guido G. (2014). The dominant rationality of local stakeholder networks: The case of a Southern Italian province. Local Economy, 29 (6-7): 687-707.
  27. Provan K.G., Kenis P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research, 18 (2): 229-252.
  28. Rullani E. (1989). La teoria dell’impresa: Soggetti, sistemi, evoluzione. In: Rispoli M. (Ed.). L’impresa Industriale. Bologna: il Mulino.
  29. Rullani E. (1993). Networks and internationalization: Managing complexity through knowledge. In: Zan L., Zambon S., Pettigrew A.M. (Eds.). Perspective on Strategic Change. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  30. Sabidussi G. (1966). The centrality index of a graph. Psichometrika, 31 (1): 581-603.
  31. Scott J. (2012). Social network analysis. London: Sage.
  32. Soda G. (1998). Reti tra imprese. Rome: Carocci.
  33. Soda G. (1999). La prospettiva relazionale: Concetti di base e principali implicazioni metodologiche. Annali di Storia dell’Impresa, 10: 383-418.
  34. Sørensen E., Torfing J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28 (3): 195-218.
  35. Ter Wal A.L., Boshma R.A. (2009). Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. The Annals of Regional Science, 43 (3): 739-756.
  36. Timur S., Getz D. (2008). A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (4): 445-461.

Gianluigi Guido, Christian Rizzo, M. Irene Prete, Annamaria Cazzarò, Giovanni Pino, Network analysis of local territorial systems in the Salento region, Italy in "RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'" 1/2016, pp 83-101, DOI: 10.3280/RISS2016-001008