Trustful competitor & distrustful cooperator: Impacts of assessment gaps on trustworthy coopetition in policy network

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research questions at a Glance.

Table 1. Organizations surveyed in this study

Function of organization (in the nuclear science and industry)		Number of organization
Service provision	Electricity exchange	1
	Electricity provision	4
	Material provision	1
Research and technical support	Research	5
Internal communication	Industry coalition	2
External communication	International relations	1
	Public information	1
Safety and environmental advocacy	Safety and environment	2
Total number of organizations		17

Table 2. Variables and measures

Variables in the models	Basic variables utilized in formula***	ᆆ†
Response variables*
Dis-/trust between pair (focal and partner organization)
Trustful competition	Partner organization’s trust in focal organization for the three nuclear policy issues, in competitive relationship (i.e., the degree of competition is over a critical point of [mean – standard deviation]).**	0.94
Distrustful cooperation	Partner organization’s distrust in focal organization for the three nuclear policy issues, in cooperative relationship (i.e., the degree of cooperation is over a critical point of [mean – standard deviation]).**	0.95
Control variables
Relationship between pair
Cooperation b/w pair	Degrees of cooperation with partner organization in the three nuclear policy issues.**	0.86
Competition b/w pair	Degrees of competition with partner organization in the three nuclear policy issues.**	0.87
Explanatory variables†
RQ1. View gap between pair (1): Stance on nuclear policy issues
View gap of nuclear risk management	“Nuclear risk management” includes five items: technological safety, constant innovation, quality management, quality training and environmental safety of nuclear energy	0.86
View gap of nuclear gain	“Nuclear gain” includes four items: economic cost efficiency, social cost efficiency, industrial value and national security value of nuclear energy	0.85
View gap of nuclear national strategy	“Nuclear national strategy” includes two items: future need and the proportion of nuclear energy.	0.73
RQ2. View gap between pair (2): Attribution of nuclear policy issues to inter-organizational communication
View gap of policy communications	“Policy communication” includes four items: diversity, ease to join, transparency and fairness of communications on nuclear policy.	0.81
View gap of rationality of policy decisions	“Rationality of policy decision” includes four items: technological, economic, industrial and energy-mix rationality of nuclear policy decision.	0.88
RQ3. View gap between pair (3): Attribution of nuclear policy issues to inter-organizational power structure
View gap of politics in ministries	“Politics in ministries” includes two items: political influence on nuclear-related ministries, and nuclear-related ministries’ interest-seeking behaviors.	0.75
View gap of political influence on focal org.	“Political influence on focal org.” means political pressure on focal organization.	n/a
View gap of ministry influence on focal org.	“Ministry influence on focal org.” means nuclear-related ministries’ influence on focal organization.	n/a
RQ4. View gap between pair (4): Power assessment between pair
View gap of power b/w focal & partner org.	“Power of focal/partner org.” means the degrees of influence of focal/partner organization in nuclear policy.	n/a
View gap of power b/w focal & focal by partner org.††	Degrees of influence of focal organization in nuclear policy (perceived by focal organization) – degrees of influence of focal organization in nuclear policy (perceived by partner organization)	n/a
RQ5. View gap between pair (5): Contribution to nuclear policy issues
View gap of participation in policy process	“Participation in policy process” includes three items: an organization’s diverse participation, active participation, influential participation in the policy process and communication.	0.92
View gap of cooperation with network org.	“Cooperation with network org.” includes two items: an organization’s active cooperation with other nuclear-related organizations for denuclearization, and also for nuclear industrial development.	0.77

Note: *To use the dyadic relations of fairly high competition and cooperation, the data whose values are over [mean—standard deviation] were used. **Three nuclear policy issues: denuclearization; nuclear waste disposal; overseas nuclear business. *** All the basic variables were measured using the five-point Likert scale. 1 = very unlikely (negative); 5 = very likely (positive). † Most of the explanatory variables are calculated using this formula: [aggregation of focal organization’s responses to the basic variables—aggregation of partner organization’s responses to the basic variables]. The basic variables are specified in the neighboring right cell. ††The only exceptional formula of explanatory variable is for the variable “view gap of power b/w me & partner to me”. †††α signifies the Cronbach’s alpha as the reliability of the variables that aggregated the multiple basic variables.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables

Variables		Obs.	Mean	S.D.	Min	Max	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1	Trustful competition	272	8.89	3.51	3	15	1.00
2	Distrustful cooperation	272	5.36	2.47	3	13	0.14	1.00
3	Cooperation b/w pair	272	6.13	3.28	3	15	0.59	0.12	1.00
4	Competition b/w pair	272	4.12	1.86	3	12	0.13	0.50	0.31	1.00
5	View gap of nuclear risk management	272	0.00	4.33	−10	10	−0.07	0.23	0.04	0.05	1.00
6	View gap of nuclear gain	272	0.00	6.05	−12	12	−0.07	0.24	0.07	0.17	0.86	1.00
7	View gap of nuclear national strategy	272	0.00	1.77	−5	5	−0.01	0.25	0.12	0.26	0.80	0.87	1.00
8	View gap of policy communications	272	0.00	4.00	−9	9	0.12	0.23	−0.06	−0.09	−0.08	−0.11	−0.37	1.00
9	View gap of rationality of policy decisions	272	0.00	6.10	−17	17	0.11	0.13	−0.13	−0.18	−0.11	−0.16	−0.33	0.77	1.00
10	View gap of politics in ministries	272	0.00	1.74	−5	5	−0.15	−0.27	0.03	0.01	−0.04	0.10	0.08	−0.39	−0.40	1.00
11	View gap of political influence on focal org.	272	0.00	1.46	−3	3	−0.23	−0.19	0.02	−0.13	0.12	0.23	0.19	−0.23	−0.02	0.55	1.00
12	View gap of ministry influence on focal org.	272	0.00	0.88	−2	2	−0.07	0.18	−0.01	−0.12	0.27	0.42	0.17	0.16	0.25	0.14	0.28	1.00
13	View gap of power b/w focal & partner org.	272	0.00	1.80	−4	4	0.01	−0.32	−0.10	−0.23	−0.50	−0.48	−0.57	−0.15	0.11	0.19	−0.03	0.01	1.00
14	View gap of power b/w focal & focal by partner org.	272	−0.18	1.68	−4	4	−0.20	−0.31	−0.40	−0.28	−0.36	−0.34	−0.44	−0.11	0.00	0.16	−0.05	−0.02	0.70	1.00
15	View gap of participation in policy process	272	0.00	3.56	−9	9	0.07	0.26	−0.06	−0.01	−0.09	−0.07	−0.28	0.78	0.59	−0.20	−0.41	0.12	0.07	0.06	1.00
16	View gap of cooperation with network org.	272	0.00	2.07	−6	6	−0.10	0.15	−0.07	−0.08	0.20	0.34	−0.03	0.50	0.38	0.03	−0.04	0.48	0.24	0.20	0.73	1.00

Table 4. Models on the explanatory variables of trustful competition and distrustful cooperation

Explanatory and control variables		Response variables
		Trustful competition			Distrustful cooperation
		(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Control variables: relationship between pair	Cooperation between pair	0.57***	0.62***	0.64***
	Competition between pair				0.73***	0.69***	0.59***
Explanatory variables: view gap between pair
RQ1. Stance on nuclear policy issues	View gap of nuclear risk management	0.14**			0.12**
	View gap of nuclear gain		−0.03			−0.01
	View gap of nuclear national strategy			0.13			0.30***
RQ2. Attribution of nuclear policy issues to inter-org. communication	View gap of policy communications	0.67***			0.14**
	View gap of rationality of policy decisions		0.45***	0.45***		−0.12***	−0.13***
RQ3. Attribution of nuclear policy issues to inter-org. power structure	View gap of politics in ministries	0.32**	0.74***	0.66***	−0.62***	−0.97***	−1.01***
	View gap of political influence on focal org.	−1.13***	−1.99***	−1.97***	−0.13	0.40***	0.36**
	View gap of ministry influence on focal org.	0.80***	−0.01	−0.17	1.29***	1.46***	1.24***
RQ4. Power assessment between pair	View gap of power b/w focal & partner org.			−0.02			−0.36***
	View gap of power b/w focal & focal by partner org.	0.71***	−0.27*		−0.18	−0.31***
RQ5. Contribution to nuclear policy issues	View gap of participation in policy process		−0.45***	−0.43***		0.40***	0.45***
	View gap of cooperation with network org.	−1.22***			0.04
Observations		272	272	272	272	272	272
Adjusted R-squared		0.57	0.54	0.54	0.55	0.59	0.62

Note: Ordinary linear regression models are reported with fixed effect considered. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Individual subjects’ dummies are not presented. *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. Highlighted coefficients represent significantly positive correlations between response and explanatory variables. Coefficients with bold and italic font represent significantly negative correlations between response and explanatory variables.

Table 5. Conditions of trustworthy Coopetitor

Explanatory variables (view gap between pair)		Response variables
		Trustful competitor (as a focal organization in the network) has a …	Distrustful cooperator (as a focal organization in the network) has a …
RQ1. Stance on nuclear policy issues	View gap of nuclear risk management	More positive view on nuclear risk management (i.e., trusters’ and distrusters’ ambivalence on risk management)
	View gap of nuclear gain	n/a	n/a
	View gap of nuclear national strategy	n/a	More positive view on nuclear development (i.e., vulnerability under the denuclearization policy orientation)
RQ2. Attribution of nuclear policy issues to inter-organizational communication	View gap of policy communications	More positive view on policy communications (i.e., less external attribution of policy issues)
	View gap of rationality of policy decisions	More positive view on rationality of policy decisions (i.e., less external attribution of policy issues)	More negative view on rationality of policy decisions (i.e., more external attribution of policy issues)
RQ3. Attribution of nuclear policy issues to inter-organizational power structure	View gap of politics in ministries	More critical view on politics in ministries	Less critical view on politics in ministries
	View gap of political influence on focal org.	More negative view on political influence (i.e., less external attribution of policy issues)	More positive view on political influence (i.e., more external attribution of policy issues)
	View gap of ministry influence on focal org.	Mixed	More positive view on ministry influence (i.e., more external attribution of policy issues)
RQ4. Power assessment between pair	View gap of power b/w focal & partner org.	n/a	Less power than partner organization
	View gap of power b/w focal & focal by partner org.	Mixed	Less self-assessment of power than what partner organization thinks the focal organization as (i.e., evasion of responsibility)
RQ5. Contribution to nuclear policy issues	View gap of participation in policy process	More negative self-assessment of participation and cooperation in policy process (i.e., underestimation of focal organization’s contribution to policy issues)	More positive self-assessment of participation in policy process (i.e., overestimation of focal organization’s contribution to policy issues)
	View gap of cooperation with network organizations

Note: Bold font represents ambivalent explanatory variables of both response variables.