Introduction - Methods for Multilevel Analysis and Visualisation of Geographical Networks - page 8

Fig. 1.3 Structural holes opposing social capital reproduction

the network positions of cities that share similar attributes of “dependency” with
regard to “relay” cities display “equivalent” characteristics. Each “subgroup”
maintains the hierarchy of cities' levels of centrality in the network, while other
cities remain peripheral and are attached only indirectly to the network through
their connection to participating cities. The recent reinforcement of the centrality of
European national capitals reflects this process ( Rozenblat, Bohan, & Benet , 2008 ;
Rozenblat & Cicille , 2003 ).
Adopting sociologists' argument, we can claim that this cumulative process of
concentration reinforces the social capital of large cities at the micro level ( Wa l ke r,
Kogut, & Shan , 1997 ;seeFig. 1.3 ).
Following Walker et al. ( 1997 ), we claim that Burt's “bridges” ( 1992 , 2005 )
could be distinguished from places that “reproduce social capital” ( Bourdieu , 1980 )
because they are places where nobody is located; this distinction focuses on the
“structural holes” that individual actors might exploit to obtain a competitive
advantage over other cities located in the same places. These places might generate
network innovation by developing new kinds of spatial or social organisations that
are disconnected, at least initially, from the dominant networks ( Burt , 2005 ).

1.5 Multidimensional Networks

Innovative networks also appear at the crossing of different networks, which creates
shared synergies. Differences between networks can be found in the endogenous
network structure, as well as in the exogenous variables characterising the network.
For example, the economic dimension of the network is composed of three levels,