The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Strength of Strong Ties: A Model of Contact-Making in Policy Networks with Evidence from U.S. Health Politics
Abstract
Interest groups establish contacts with each other as a way of gaining useful policy information, and in this article we develop and test a model to explain this political phenomenon. Our simulation model suggests that when few need information, groups will pursue an acquaintance strategy by investing time and resources in gaining `weak tie' political acquaintances rather than in gaining `strong tie' political friends, but that as the collective demand for information rises, groups increasingly follow a chum strategy , placing greater emphasis on establishing strong ties. We test these hypotheses in an analysis of inter-organizational contact-making in U.S. health politics, using the data of Laumann and Knoke (1987), with OLS regressions of average group contacts over lobbying events over time and maximum likelihood count models of contacts across interest groups. Both analyses show that as collective demand for information increases, interest groups place greater priority on establishing strong ties, even while controlling for organizational attributes such as budget, mobilization capacity and organization age. The results suggest some conditions where policy networks in the aggregate are less likely to distribute information efficiently, and, in particular, that policy networks are less efficient at distributing information when information is most in demand.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital
Putnam, R. D. (1995) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002 · Cited by 14,037
An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms
Mitchell, M. (1996) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3927.001.0001 · Cited by 11,340
The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration
Axelrod, R. (1997) · doi:10.1515/9781400822300 · Cited by 1,759
Cited by
Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281445 · Cited by 3,864
COLLINS, C. J., & CLARK, K. D. (2003) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/30040665 · Cited by 1,358
Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23464060 · Cited by 802
Industrial dynamics and managerial networking in an emerging market: the case of China
Luo, Y. (2003) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.363 · Cited by 561
NETWORK MEMORY: THE INFLUENCE OF PAST AND CURRENT NETWORKS ON PERFORMANCE.
Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159629 · Cited by 437
Metadata
- Authors
- Carpenter, D., Esterling, K., & Lazer, D.
- Venue
- Rationality and Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 411-440
- ISSN
- 1043-4631 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7358
- OpenAlex
- W2110082158
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 33.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Strength of Strong Ties: A Model of Contact-Making in Policy Networks with Evidence from U.S. Health Politics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1043463103154001
- The paper
- Carpenter, D., Esterling, K., & Lazer, D. (2003). The Strength of Strong Ties: A Model of Contact-Making in Policy Networks with Evidence from U.S. Health Politics. Rationality and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463103154001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.