The Model 1 does not report significant degrees of homophily and/or popularity of globally integrated NGOs, while a “local integration” term has a positive and significant effect. However as soon as we divide into two parts a term that captures homophily among global integrated NGOs (one part associates with the presence of international aid, and another associates with dependence on it), both of them become substantive and significant. Thus, homophilous tie formation processes take place both among fully globally integrated organizations and their partially integrated counterparts, but homophily vanishes as soon as we aggregate these two groups into one. The homophily among fully integrated NGOs remains significance in all models, while homophily among partially integrated organizations is not robust and vanishes as soon as some additional terms are introduced.