The Leverage of Weak Ties How Linking Groups Affects Inequality ∗

Centrality measures based on eigenvectors are important in models of how networks affect investment decisions, the transmission of information, and the provision of local public goods. We fully characterize how the centrality of each member of a society changes when initially disconnected groups begin interacting with each other via a new bridging link. Arbitrarily weak intergroup connections can have arbitrarily large effects on the distribution of centrality. For instance, if a high-centrality member of one group begins interacting symmetrically with a low-centrality member of another, the latter group has the larger centrality in the combined network in inverse proportion to the centrality of its emissary! We also find that agents who form the intergroup link, the “bridge agents”, become relatively more central within their own groups, while other intragroup centrality ratios remain unchanged.

[1]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[2]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  How Homophily Affects Diffusion and Learning in Networks , 2008 .

[3]  Antoni Calvó-Armengol,et al.  Centre De Referència En Economia Analítica Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series Working Paper Nº 178 Who's Who in Networks. Wanted: the Key Player Who's Who in Networks. Wanted: the Key Player Barcelona Economics Wp Nº 178 , 2022 .

[4]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  Leo Katz,et al.  A new status index derived from sociometric analysis , 1953 .

[6]  J. French A formal theory of social power. , 1956, Psychology Review.

[7]  Amy Nicole Langville,et al.  Google's PageRank and beyond - the science of search engine rankings , 2006 .

[8]  P. DeMarzo,et al.  Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Uni-Dimensional Opinions , 2001 .

[9]  R. Kranton,et al.  Strategic Interaction and Networks , 2010 .

[10]  Frank Harary,et al.  Graph Theory , 2016 .

[11]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[12]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  M. Degroot Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

[14]  P. Bonacich Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  R. Durrett Probability: Theory and Examples , 1993 .

[16]  Asuman E. Ozdaglar,et al.  Spread of (Mis)Information in Social Networks , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[17]  Carl D. Meyer,et al.  Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra , 2000 .

[18]  Phillip Bonacich,et al.  Simultaneous group and individual centralities , 1991 .

[19]  James J. Heckman,et al.  The Dynamics of Educational Attainment for Black, Hispanic, and White Males , 2001, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  J. Conlisk Comparative statics for markov chains , 1985 .

[21]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  Näıve Learning in Social Networks : Convergence , Influence , and the Wisdom of Crowds ∗ , 2007 .

[22]  Yves Zenou,et al.  Peer Effects and Social Networks in Education , 2008 .