Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:45:42.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Legislative Networks? Analyzing Legislative Network Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Stefan Wojcik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are the social networks of legislators affected more by their political parties or their personal traits? How does the party organization influence the tendency of members to work collectively on a day-to-day basis? In this paper, I explore the determinants of the relationships of legislators in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. I use exponential random graph models to evaluate the relative influence of personal traits versus party influence in generating legislator relationships. Despite a focus on personalism in Brazil, the analysis reveals that the effects of political parties on tie formation are roughly equal to the effects of personal traits, suggesting that networks may make political parties much more cohesive than contemporary literature would lead us to believe.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 505 - 522
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Stefan Wojcik, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, 333 UCB, Boulder, CO (stefan.wojcik@colorado.edu). The author would like to thank Shawnna Mullenax, Andy Baker, Carew Boulding, David Brown, and Anand Sokhey for excellent comments and advice received while writing this paper. The author acknowledges the cooperation of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies in allowing him to carry out this research. The author also thanks the replication analyst at PSRM who worked so hard to ensure replicability of the statistical results, as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.37

References

Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (American Politics and Political Economy Series). 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1995. ‘Electoral Strategy Under Open-List Proportional Representation’. American Journal of Political Science 39(2):406–433.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano, and Mair, Peter. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stability of European Electorates, 1885-1985 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Rouse, Stella M.. 2011. ‘Networks in the Legislative Arena: How Group Dynamics Affect Cosponsorship’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(3):423–460.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1987. ‘A Note on Strangers, Friends and Happiness’. Social Networks 9(4):311–331.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, Guarnieri, Fernando, and Limongi, Fernando. 2015. ‘Why Coalitions? Party System Fragmentation, Small Party Bias, and Preferential Vote in Brazil’. Electoral Studies 39:219–229.Google Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew. 1995. ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’. Electoral Studies 14(4):417–439.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. ‘Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 51(1):92–107.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel, Esterling, Kevin, and Lazer, David. 2004. ‘Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?’. Journal of Politics 66(1):224–246.Google Scholar
Cho, Wendy K. Tam, and Fowler, James H.. 2010. ‘Legislative Success in a Small World: Social Network Analysis and the Dynamics of Congressional Legislation’. The Journal of Politics 72(1):124–135.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Alison, Cranmer, Skyler J., Desmarais, Bruce A., Clark, Christopher J., and Moscardelli, Vincent G.. 2015. ‘The Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Congressional Cosponsorship Network’. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.06141. https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.06141.Google Scholar
DeGregorio, Christine. 1988. ‘Professionals in the US Congress: An Analysis of Working Styles’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 13:459–476.Google Scholar
DeGregorio, Christine. 1995. ‘Staff Utilization in the US Congress: Committee Chairs and Senior Aides’. Polity 28:261–275.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott. 2006. ‘Parties for Rent Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies’. American Journal of Political Science 50(1):62–80.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina Cheibub, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. ‘Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil’. Comparative Politics 32:151–170.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. ‘Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks’. Political Analysis 14(4):456–487.Google Scholar
Goodreau, Steven M., Kitts, James A., and Morris, Martina. 2009. ‘Birds of a Feather or Friend of a Friend? Using Exponential Random Graph Models to Investigate Adolescent Social Networks’. Demography 46(1):103–125.Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T. 2014. ‘Multiplex Networks and Interest Group Influence Reputation: An Exponential Random Graph Model’. Social Networks 36:66–81.Google Scholar
Hunter, David R., Handcock, Mark S., Butts, Carter T., Goodreau, Steven M., and Morris, Martina. 2008. ‘ergm: A Package to Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential-Family Models for Networks’. Journal of Statistical Software 24(3):nihpa54860.Google Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1998. ‘From Pulpit to Party: Party Formation and the Christian Democratic Phenomenon’. Comparative Politics 30(3):293–312.Google Scholar
Katz, R., and Mair, P.. 1995. ‘Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party’. Party Politics 1(1):5–28.Google Scholar
Key, Valdimer O. 1958. ‘The State of the Discipline’. American Political Science Review 52(4):961–971.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H., Hawkins, K. A., Luna, J. P., Rosas, G., and Zechmeister, E. J.. 2010. Latin American party systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koger, Gregory, Masket, Seth, and Noel, Hans. 2010. ‘Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks’. British Journal of Political Science 39:633–653.Google Scholar
Kossinets, Gueorgi. 2006. ‘Effects of Missing Data in Social Networks’. Social Networks 28(3):247–268.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2003. Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. ‘Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction’. In Lipset, Seymour Martin and Stein Rokkan (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, 1–64. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2008. ‘Where You Sit is Where You Stand: The Impact of Seating Proximity on Legislative Cue-Taking’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3(3):301–311.Google Scholar
Morse, Anson D. 1896. ‘What is a Party?’. Political Science Quarterly 11(1):68–81.Google Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2014. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pattie, C., Johnson, R. J., and Fieldhouse, E. A.. 1995. ‘Winning the Local Vote: The Effectiveness of Constituency Campaign Spending in Great Britain, 1983-1992’. American Political Science Review 89(4):969–983.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. ‘D-Nominate After 10 years: A Comparative Update to Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26:5–29.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1992. Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, Nils, Victor, Jennifer Nicoll, and Gross, Justin H.. 2013. ‘Keeping Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer? Information Networks in Legislative Politics’. British Journal of Political Science 43(3):601–628.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. 2001. ‘Incumbents and Challengers on a Level Playing Field: Assessing the Impact of Campaign Finance in Brazil’. The Journal of Politics 63(2):569–584.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. 2006. ‘Sources of Mass Partisanship in Brazil’. Latin American Politics and Society 48(2):1–27.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. 2008. ‘Political Ambition, Candidate Recruitment, and Legislative Politics in Brazil’. In Siavelis, Peter and Morgenstern, Scott (eds), Pathways to Power. Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America, 76–91. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, David J. 2000. ‘The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil’. The Journal of Politics 62(1):240–253.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew Sobert. 1993. ‘Predicting the Number of Parties: A Quantitative Model of Duverger’s Mechanical Effects’. The American Political Science Review 87(2):455–464.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 2009. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Wojcik supplementary material

Wojcik supplementary material 1

Download Wojcik supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 977.5 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Wojcik Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UDZZSH
Link