Network approach in legislative studies: methodological prospects for qualitative and quantitative analysis of parliamentary activity

The paper provides extensive methodological discussion of the network approach to legislative studies and gives an overview to different methods and techniques that show great promise to the research of parliamentary politics. The key points of the proposed network theoretical framework are the informal interactions and collaborations of actors and their respective groups, that are tied by linkages of trust and mutual interests. We also keep the focus on the influence of the nodes (MPs) which is being accumulated due to the access to various resources, performance, and individual interests. This article also suggests description of the public data used to reveal the networks of legislative co-sponsorship, which is the well-developed method of legislative studies. In this context we also review some other approaches to obtain information about the ties between the MPs, that have been suggested in the academic literature: the voting data, personal interactions revealed by the interviews, range of connections in the online social networks, official mail, public speech, and others. We show that the network analysis appears to be very insightful for the legislative studies because it allows to perceive parliaments as the “small worlds” each with its own highly institutionalized composition of nodes and ties. We also argue that it is critical to take into consideration the influence of several exogenic forces - voters, the public, and other authorities on the MPs persistent interactions and the respective network structure of the parliament. Finally, we propose two methodological solutions to the research of complex network structures. We debate on the potential implications of the discourse-network analysis in legislative studies. It provides the opportunity to map the advocacy coalitions and model the relations between the nodes, which are based on the similarities and differences of their ideas in the public speeches. We also discuss the potential of the inferential network analysis in regard to the quantitative research in legislative studies. Specifically, we provide a critical review of the modern studies of the inner-parliamentary networks, that are based on ERGMs and their variations (SAOM and TERGM). We show that dyadic interactions between the MPs and political parties can be modeled taking into account both individual covariates (exogenous and endogenous) and network parameters of the current structure of parliament as a whole.

1. Aleman E. Coauthorship ties in the Colombian congress, 2002-2006. Colombia Internacional. 2015, N 83, P. 23-42. DOI: 10.7440/colombiaint83.2015.02

2. Aleman E., Calvo E. Explaining policy ties in presidential congresses: A network analysis of bill initiation data. Political Studies. 2013, Vol. 61, N 2, P. 356-377. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00964.x

3. Aronow P.M., Samii C., Assenova V.A. Cluster-robust variance estimation for dyadic data. Political analysis. 2015, Vol. 23, N 4, P. 564-577. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpv018

4. Ausderan J. Reassessing the democratic advantage in interstate wars using k-adic datasets. Conflict management and peace science. 2018, Vol. 35, N 5, P. 451-473. DOI: 10.1177/0738894216653601

5. Borgatti S.P., Foster P.C. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of management. 2003, Vol. 29, N 6, P. 991-1013. DOI: 10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00087-4 EDN: JNSTJB

6. Brandenberger L., Schlapfer I., Leifeld P., Fischer M. Interrelated issues and overlapping policy sectors: Swiss water politics. In: International conference on public policy. Milan, Italy, 2015, 22 p.

7. Bratton K.A., Rouse S.M. Networks in the legislative arena: how group dynamics affect cosponsorship. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2011, Vol. 36, N 3, P. 423-460. DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00021.x

8. Cherepnalkoski D, Karpf A, Mozetič I, Grčar M. Cohesion and coalition formation in the European parliament: roll-call votes and Twitter activities. PLoS One. 2016, Vol. 11, N 11, P. e0166586. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166586

9. Community of young political scientists: network analysis: collective monograph. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2021, 324 p. (In Russ.).

10. Cranmer S.J., Desmarais B.A. A critique of dyadic design. International studies quarterly. 2016, Vol. 60, N 2, P. 355-362. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqw007

11. Cranmer S.J., Desmarais B.A., Menninga E.J. Complex dependencies in the alliance network. Conflict management and peace science. 2012, Vol. 29, N 3, P. 279-313. DOI: 10.1177/0738894212443446

12. Del Valle M.E., Broersma M., Ponsioen A. political interaction beyond party lines: communication ties and party polarization in parliamentary Twitter networks. Social science computer review. 2021, Vol. 1, P. 20. DOI: 10.1177/0894439320987569 EDN: LUQFLT

13. Desmarais B.A., Cranmer S.J. Statistical mechanics of networks: estimation and uncertainty. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications. 2012, Vol. 391, N 4, P. 1865-1876. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2011.10.018

14. Downs A. Up and down with ecology: the issue-attention cycle. The public interest. 1972, Vol. 28, N 1, P. 462-473.

15. Elgie R. From Linz to Tsebelis: three waves of presidential/parliamentary studies? Democratization. 2005, Vol. 12, N 1, P. 106-122. DOI: 10.1080/1351034042000317989

16. Erikson R.S., Pinto P.M., Rader K.T. Dyadic analysis in international relations: a cautionary tale. Political analysis. 2014, Vol. 22, N 4, P. 457-463. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpt051

17. Fischer M., Sciarini P. Europeanization and the inclusive strategies of executive actors. Journal of European public policy. 2013, Vol. 20, N 10, P. 1482-1498. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.781800

18. Fischer M., Varone F., Gava R., Sciarini P. How MPs ties to interest groups matter for legislative co-sponsorship. Social networks. 2019, Vol. 57, P. 34-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.001

19. Fisher D.R., Leifeld P., Iwaki Y. Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic change. 2013, Vol. 116, N 3, P. 523-545. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7

20. Fowler J.H. Connecting the Congress: a study of cosponsorship networks. Political analysis. 2006 a, Vol. 14, N 4, P. 456-487. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpl002 EDN: IVXDUT

21. Fowler J.H. Legislative cosponsorship networks in the U.S. House and Senate. Social networks. 2006 b, Vol. 28, N 4, P. 454-465. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.11.003

22. Gandhi J., Reuter O.J. The incentives for pre-electoral coalitions in non-democratic elections. Democratization. 2013, Vol. 20, N 1, P. 137-159. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2013.738865

23. Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986, 586 p.

24. Golder S.N. Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British journal of political science. 2006, Vol. 36, N 2, P. 193-212. DOI: 10.1017/s0007123406000123 EDN: HWALRH

25. Golder S.N. Pre-electoral coalitions in comparative perspective: a test of existing hypotheses. Electoral studies. 2005, Vol. 24, N 4, P. 643-663. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2005.01.007

26. Haas P.M. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International organization. 1992, Vol. 46, N 1, P. 1-35. DOI: 10.1017/s0020818300001442 EDN: BLHJZB

27. Hajer M.A. Discourse Coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Great Britain. In: Argument turn policy anal plan. London: Routledge, 1993. P. 43-76.

28. Hall P.A. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics. 1993, Vol. 25, N 3, P. 275-296. DOI: 10.2307/422246 EDN: HFQGEL

29. Hanneke S., Fu W., Xing E.P. Discrete temporal models of social networks. Electronic journal of statistics. 2010, Vol. 4, P. 585-605. DOI: 10.1214/09-ejs548

30. Hoff P.D. Bilinear mixed-effects models for dyadic data. Journal of the American statistical association. 2005, Vol. 100, N 469, P. 286-295. DOI: 10.1198/016214504000001015

31. Hoff P.D., Ward M.D. Modeling dependencies in international relations networks. Political analysis. 2004, Vol. 12, N 2, P. 160-175. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mph012 EDN: IVXDIB

32. Hogan J., Howlett M. (eds). Policy paradigms in theory and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015, 325 p.

33. Ibenskas R. Understanding pre-electoral coalitions in Central and Eastern Europe. British journal of political science. 2016, Vol. 46, N 4, P. 743-761. DOI: 10.1017/s0007123414000544 EDN: XTAHGJ

34. Ingold K., Fischer M. Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: an illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years. Global environmental change. 2014, Vol. 24, P. 88-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.021

35. Ingold K., Fischer M., Christopoulos D. The roles actors play in policy networks: central positions in strongly institutionalized fields. Network science. 2021, Vol. 9, N 2, P. 213-235. DOI: 10.1017/nws.2021.1

36. Ingold K., Leifeld P. Structural and institutional determinants of influence reputation:A comparison of collaborative and adversarial policy networks in decision making and implementation. Journal of public administration research and theory. 2016, Vol. 26, N 1, P. 1-18. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muu043

37. Kirkland J.H., Gross J.H. Measurement and theory in legislative networks: the evolving topology of congressional cooperation. Social networks. 2014, Vol. 36, P. 97-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2012.11.001

38. Kirkland J.H., Kroeger M.A. Companion Bills and Cross-Chamber Collaboration in the U.S. Congress. American politics research. 2018, Vol. 46, N 4, P. 629-670. DOI: 10.1177/1532673x17727094

39. Koger G. Position taking and cosponsorship in the U.S. House. Legislative studies quarterly. 2003, Vol. 28, N 2, P. 225-246. DOI: 10.3162/036298003x200872

40. Krivitsky P.N., Handcock M.S. A Separable Model for Dynamic Networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology). 2014, Vol. 76, N 1, P. 29-46. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Frssb.12014.

41. Leifeld P. Discourse network analysis: policy debates as dynamic networks. In.

42. Victor J.N, Montgomery A.H., Lubell M. (eds). The Oxford handbook of political networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, P. 1-29.

43. Leifeld P. Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: a discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy studies journal. 2013, Vol. 41, N 1, P. 169-198. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12007

44. Leifeld P., Cranmer S.J. A theoretical and empirical comparison of the temporal exponential random graph model and the stochastic actor-oriented model. Network science. 2019, Vol. 7, N 1, P. 20-51. DOI: 10.1017/nws.2018.26

45. Lin N. Social networks and status attainment. Annual review of sociology. 1999, Vol. 25, N 1, P. 467-487. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467 EDN: HEYZCR

46. Lupu Y., Traag V.A. Trading communities, the networked structure of international relations, and the Kantian peace. Journal of conflict resolution. 2013, Vol. 57, N 6, P. 1011-1042. DOI: 10.1177/0022002712453708

47. Lyons K.S., Sayer A.G. Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal of marriage and family. 2005, Vol. 67, N 4, P. 1048-1060. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00193.x

48. Maguire M.C. Treating the dyad as the unit of analysis: A primer on three analytic approaches. Journal of marriage and the family. 1999, Vol. 61, N 1, P. 213-223. DOI: 10.2307/353895 EDN: CYPGHP

49. Neumayer E., Plümper T. Spatial effects in dyadic data. International organization. 2010, Vol. 64, N 1, P. 145-166. DOI: 10.1017/s0020818309990191

50. Poast P. (Mis)using dyadic data to analyze multilateral events. Political analysis. 2010, Vol. 18, N 4, P. 403-425. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpq024

51. Poast P. Dyads are dead, long live dyads! The limits of dyadic designs in international relations research. International studies quarterly. 2016, Vol. 60, N 2, P. 369-374. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqw004

52. Pomiguev I.A. Youth political scientists community study: network approach. Vlast' (The Authority). 2019, Vol. 27, N 4, P. 94-100. 10.31171/vlast.v27i4.6592 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i4.6592(InRuss.) EDN: EDZNLW

53. Pomiguev I.A., Alekseev D.V. Resetting bills: discontinuity as a political technology for blocking policy decision. Polis. Political studies. 2021, N 4, P. 176-191. 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13(InRuss.) EDN: ASPQNF

54. Ringe N., Victor J.N., Cho W.T. Legislative networks. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, P. 1-22.

55. Ringe N., Victor J.N., Gross J.H. Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer? Information networks in legislative politics. British journal of political science. 2013, Vol. 43, N 3. P. 601-628. DOI: 10.1017/s0007123412000518

56. Robins G., Pattison P., Kalish Y., Lusher D. An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for Social networks. Social networks. 2007, Vol. 29, N 2, P. 173-191.

57. Sabatier P.A. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences. 1988, Vol. 21, N 2/3, P. 129-168. DOI: 10.1007/bf00136406

58. Sciarini P., Fischer M., Gava R., Varone F. The influence of co-sponsorship on MPs' agenda-setting success. West European politics. 2021, Vol. 44, N 2, P. 327-353. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2019.1697097

59. Scott J. Social network analysis: a handbook. London: SAGE, 2013, 224 p.

60. Shane M., Saalfeld T., Strøm K.W. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2014, 800 p. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199653010.001.0001

61. Smorgunov L.V., Sherstobitov A.S. Political networks: theory and methods of analysis: textbook. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2018, 320 p. (In Russ.).

62. Snijders T.A.B., Lomi A., Torló V.J. A model for the multiplex dynamics of two-mode and one-mode networks, with an application to employment preference, friendship, and advice. Social networks. 2013, Vol. 35, N 2, P. 265-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2012.05.005

63. Snijders T.A.B., Van de Bunt G.G., Steglich C.E.G. Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social networks. 2010, Vol. 32, N 1, P. 44-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004

64. Stokman F.N., Doreian P. Evolution of social networks: processes and principles.In: Doreian P., Stokman F.N. (eds). Evolution of social networks, Vol. 1. London: Routledge, 1997, P. 233-250.

65. Sulkin T., Swigger N. Is there truth in advertising? Campaign ad images as signals about legislative behavior. Journal of politics. 2008, Vol. 70, N 1, P. 232-244. DOI: 10.1017/s0022381607080164

66. Taraktaş B. Tolerable disagreements: collective action capacity & shape of coalitions. Social networks. 2022, Vol. 68, P. 15-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.04.002

67. Wahman M. Offices and policies why do oppositional parties form pre-electoral coalitions in competitive authoritarian regimes? Electoral studies. 2011, Vol. 30, N 4, P. 642-657. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2011.05.009

68. Ward M.D., Siverson R.M., Cao X. Disputes, democracies, and dependencies: a reexamination of the Kantian peace. American journal of political science. 2007, Vol. 51, N 3, P. 583-601. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00269.x

69. Wasserman S., Faust K.L.M. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 857 p.

70. Watts D.J., Strogatz S.H. Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. Nature. 1998, Vol. 393, N 6684, P. 440-42. DOI: 10.1038/30918

71. Wolfsfeld G. Competing actors and the construction of political news: the contest over waves in Israel. Political communication. 2006, Vol. 23, N 3, P. 333-354. DOI: 10.1080/10584600600808927

72. Wonka A., Haunss S. Cooperation in networks: political parties and interest groups in EU policy-making in Germany. European Union Politics. 2020, Vol. 21, N 1, P. 130-151. DOI: 10.1177/1465116519873431

73. Михайлова О.В. Сети в политике и государственном управлении. М.: ИД КДУ, 2013. 332 с.

74. Помигуев И.А. Особенности сетевого подхода к изучению сообщества молодых политологов // Власть. 2019. Т. 27, № 4. С. 94-100. -. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i4.6592 EDN: EDZNLW

75. Помигуев И.А., Алексеев Д.В. Обнуление законопроектов: дисконтинуитет как технология блокирования политических решений // Полис. Политические исследования. 2021. № 4. С. 176-191. -. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13 EDN: ASPQNF

76. Сетевой анализ публичной политики: учебник / под. ред. Л.В. Сморгунова. М.: РГ-Пресс, 2013. 320 с.

77. Сморгунов Л.В., Шерстобитов А.С. Политические сети: теория и методы анализа: учебник. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2018. 320 с.

78. Сообщество молодых политологов: сетевой анализ: коллективная монография / И.А. Помигуев, Д.В. Алексеев, П.С. Копылова и др.; отв. ред. И.А. Помигуев. М.: Издательство "Аспект Пресс", 2021. 324 с. EDN: HCEEOI

79. Block P., Hollwayb J., Stadtfelda C., Koskinenc J., Snijders T. "Predicting" after peeking into the future: Correcting a fundamental flaw in the SAOM-TERGM comparison of Leifeld and Cranmer. 2019. Mode of access: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01385 (accessed: 29.09.2021).

80. Chiru M., Neamtu S. Parliamentary representation under changing electoral rules: co-sponsorship in the Romanian parliament. In: Inaugural General Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments: Parliaments in Changing Times. 2012, P. 1-22.

81. Hajer M.A. The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1995, 332 p.