Bridging the Information Gap: Legislative Member Organizations in the U.S. & E.U.

Slide 1

Bridging the Information Gap:Legislative Member Organizations in the U.S. & E.U.Nils RingeUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison

Jennifer Nicoll VictorGeorge Mason University11Why do legislators invest time and resources into forming and maintaining voluntary groups that provide few obvious benefits?Legislators have an insatiable need for information.Relationships between legislators may impact legislative decision making.Existing institutions may not satisfy legislators needs.Perhaps legislators need a flexible, information-based institution to satisfy their needs?

Motivating Observations & Questions22LMOs create networks of weak, bridging ties.Information flows readily through the LMO network.LMOs are a point of access for outside groups.

Theory: LMOs Create Networks33InstitutionParticipationNetwork structureSet of participantsIssue scopePartyObligatoryExogenousIdeologically homogeneousOpenCommitteeObligatoryExogenousIdeologically heterogeneousClosedLMOVoluntaryEndogenousIdeologically heterogeneousOpen4

How LMOs Differ from Parties and Committees LMOs are voluntary, self-forming, diverse, and unrestricted.4Weak ties (Granovetter 1973, Burt 2000)Tend to be bridging ties that span structural holes (Feld 1981; Burt 2000)Inexpensive to create and maintain

A voluntary institution that creates weak, inexpensive relationships and access to information in legislatures is highly valuable to lawmakers.

Theory: Weak, Bridging Tie55Network of LMOsWeak, bridging ties between legislators.Leads to improved information flow across party/committee lines.Network of the members of a single LMOHigh density, high closure, high embeddedness.Weak ties.Network of the leaders of a single LMOHigh density, high closure, high embeddedness.Strong ties.6

Three Networks7

Hypothetical LMO NetworkLMOs help relationships develop.Esp. weak ties that are inexpensive to create and maintain.LMOs provide opportunities to bridge institutional cleavages.LMOs provide valuable information to its members, at little cost.

Empirical Expectations88start with relationshipspotential for information exchange (bridging)then show that information flow happens (information)Expert Survey (for international data)Conventional Quantitative DataEP6, EP7--intergroupsCongress 109th, 110th, 111th --caucusesNetwork Data (LMO memberships)Interview DataMarch 2009 June 201086 respondents in Brussels and Washington

Sources of Data99Add Euro data to this slideExpert surveyconventional quatnetwork datainterview data

10

10Descriptive Data

1111

Caucus Proliferation

1212

13MembersAverage number of LMOs joinedDensity of NetworkEP67511.680.14EP77302.510.28109th Congress4338.60.36110th Congress43719.30.77111th Congress43325.20.75LMO Network Descriptives13LMOs help relationships develop.Esp. weak ties that are inexpensive to create and maintain.LMOs provide opportunities to bridge institutional cleavages.LMOs provide valuable information to its members, at little cost.

Empirical Expectations1414start with relationshipspotential for information exchange (bridging)then show that information flow happens (information)61 of 85 respondents mention that LMOs aid in establishing and/or maintaining relationships.[the caucus] becomes an incubator, not only for ideas, but for relationships. Not just any relationships, but relationships across the aisle.The intergroups are a good chance to create friendships between political groups, between different countries.

Building Relationships15READ QUOTES[03] It really helps to link up everyone whos interested in [our issue].[09] its a good way to meet, make contacts in the industry [14] Ive certainly met some good contacts through my work on caucuses, and its really helped me nurture some relationships. [32] it just fosters the connections that are necessary to push legislation not only in that specific area, but in other areas.

15Add Euro to thisFor most Legislators participation in LMOs is insufficient to create strong ties.Events occur sporadically. Attendance is fluid and irregular.Legislators may rarely attend.

Weak & Inexpensive Ties-Lack of Opportunity16Caucus activity is sporadic and conditional. Some groups are very active (3-5 briefings a month [31]), and others are nearly dormant [12]. Depends on whats going on. [77].Attendance varies. Even in large caucuses, most respondents talk about a much smaller group of core members.MCs and staff attend when the schedule allows it [10]. go when I can[11]16maybe removeLMOs help relationships develop.Esp. weak ties that are inexpensive to create and maintain.LMOs provide opportunities to bridge institutional cleavages.LMOs provide valuable information to its members, at little cost.

Empirical Expectations1717start with relationshipspotential for information exchange (bridging)then show that information flow happens (information)Legislator# of LMOs joined# of LMO ties% replicate% not replicate% 2nd into 1st degree tiesVarvitsiotis (EPP, GR)13580201.9Bono (PES, FR) 312344.755.314.3Ferreira(PES, FR) 522456.243.822.9Griesbeck (ALDE, FR)932242.257.838.718

Focal legislators in the EP

Evidence of BridgingConstraint (Burt 1992)the extent to which a person's network is concentrated in redundant contacts .a lower constraint score indicates that an actor connects more people who would not otherwise be tied to one another.H1: Caucus members have lower constraint scores than non-caucus members.H2: MCs constraint scores are made lower by their participation in caucuses.19191. Focal leg data from EP2. constraint data from US

Testing ConstraintData: Count all institutional ties between every pair in our sample for all Congresses in which they served (going back to 89th Congress 1965).Only 5 MCs who join no caucuses, therefore no statistical difference in the constraint score between these 5 and all others. H1: not confirmed.Caucus members do have lower constraint scores than they would if they were not in any caucuses (p=0.01). H2: confirmed

2020LMOs help relationships develop.Esp. weak ties that are inexpensive to create and maintain.LMOs provide opportunities to bridge institutional cleavages.LMOs provide valuable information to its members, at little cost.

Empirical Expectations2121start with relationshipspotential for information exchange (bridging)then show that information flow happens (information)High Quality, Efficient Exchange of InformationAdvocacy and Voiceits just education and awarenessEfficient Dissemination of information[Without the caucus] it would be more work to figure out who are the right people to contact, and probably wouldnt get as big of a return.

22We asked respondents about many potential benefits of caucuses including: relationships, information, bipartisanship, informality, credit claiming, reputation building, etc. By far relationships and information were the most frequently mentioned.33/44 respondents mention the value that information plays in their caucus activity.Advocacy and voice [007] (after emphasizing how caucuses have no real power or purpose.[MCs] may have expertise, but they dont really have a venue or a mechanism for them to get their message out or their information out.its just education and awareness [01] Efficiency: [03] From a staff perspective, its really if I so, were sending this letter to the Transportation Committee. If we didnt have the Bike caucus, its still an issue that my boss obviously really cares about, we would still probably want me to send the letter, and if I wanted me to get other offices to sign on, Id pull out my list, and IdOkay, well, these 20, 30 offices care a lot on this issue, Ill send it out to them. But that would be, it would be more work to figure out who are the right people to contact, and probably wouldnt get as big of a return. With a caucus list of 223 people, I just send out one e-mail that say Look, my boss is sending this with many members of the caucus to sign on if possible. Please talk to me, and let me know.22High Quality, Efficient Exchange of InformationStaff seek knowledgeone of the reasons we joined is to sort of get updates, and get information.Bringing in Experts[joining caucuses] just kind of helps us maximize our resources when you have such a limited number of staff.

23Staff knowledge [04] But, mostly everything is geared towards staff, and increasing staff knowledge, and understanding as to what were doing. [10] one of the reasons we joined is to sort of get updates, and get information.Bringing in experts: [12] We bring outside [experts in], so, this months we did a briefingthe first one was we did along with a group called Mental Health America, and they brought in actually the Director of the Center for Mental Health Services. And in the second one was with the American Psychiatric Association. They brought in experts on, [a] topic. We told them what we wanted to talk about, and they brought in experts on it. The last one we had was with the Army, and we had some people from the Army come in discusssobringing in people.[31] [joining caucuses] just kind of helps us maximize our resources when you have such a limited number of staff. I mean, House members have excruciatingly small staffs.23

Summary of EvidenceLMOs help establish and maintain relationshipsoften those they wouldnt otherwise have.LMOs are cheap.LMOs provide information to members.LMOs allow members to be less constrained.

2424Do LMOs Matter?

2525Do LMOs Matter?LMO impact is indirect.Transmission of information.Getting/keeping items on the agenda.Keeping contacts within and outside legislature.

When are LMOs influential?When theyre active.When theyre supported by outside groups.When the co-chairs take an active interest.

26Armenian Genocide Resolution[25] [caucus] was successful in changing some attitudes and getting that on the agenda that normally wouldnt be on the agenda.Fire program was advocated by a caucus and influenced its passage [04][14] Congo Basin Forest Partnership was really an initiative started by the Conversation caucus, and without the push from the co-chairs [of the caucus], I dont think the legislation would have been passed.We do not (cannot) reject the cheap talk hypothesis. Clearly some caucuses are purely symbolic.BUT, as a part of a larger network of caucuses they provide great benefits to members that aid in policy making by: connecting members and facilitation information spread.When are caucuses influential?When theyre active: Frequent meetings, contact.Supported by outside groups.Co-chairs who take an active interest.

2627

ConclusionsLMOs play an important, but indirect, role in lawmaking.LMOs provide a venue for building relationships and passing along information.These voluntary institutions solve an information-based collective action problem that committees and parties cannot.

2828ConclusionsLMOs are cheap, and therefore flexible. Not as constrained by institutional rules.LMO ties are cross-cutting and allow for social bridges between legislators.[Not shown here] caucuses help connect legislators to outsiders who feed the groups with highly useful information.

2929Extra Slides3030

31Geodesic DistancePercent of nodes that can be reached in one stepPercent of nodes that can be reached in two stepsEP61.750.250.74EP71.690.330.67109th Congress1.560.440.99110th Congress1.180.831.00111th Congress1.230.770.99LMO Network Descriptives31

Most Central ActorsEP 6EP 7NameNormalized Betweenness CentralityToubon(EPP, France)0.74Czarnecki, R.(UEN, Poland)0.61Griesbeck(ALDE, France)0.49Evans, R.(PES, UK)0.46Bauer(EPP, Slovakia)0.43Mann, T.(EPP, Germany)0.42Paleckis(PES, Lithuania)0.41NameNormalized Betweenness CentralityTatarella(EPP, Italy)0.61Striffler(EPP, France)0.5Pittella(S&D, Italy)0.49Busuttil(EPP, Malta)0.47Tabajdi(S&D, Hungary)0.46Tremosa i Balcells(ALDE, Spain)0.46David(EPP, Portugal)0.413232delete this

Most Central Actors110th111thNameNormalized Betweenness CentralityMcIntyre(D-NC, 7)0.10Schiff(D-CA, 29)0.09Moore(D-KS, 3)0.09Davis(D-TN, 4)0.09Kaptur(D-OH, 9)0.08Ross(D-AR, 4)0.08Cooper(D-TN, 5)0.08NameNormalized Betweenness CentralityMcIntyre(D-NC, 7)0.20Davis, S.(D-CA, 53)0.20Giffords(D-AZ, 8)0.19Altmire(D-PA, 4)0.17Sanchez(D-CA, 47)0.15Myrick(R-NC, 9)0.15Berkley(D-NV, 1)0.153333delete this

109th CongressCaucus Membership

Density =0.3634Entire membership of the 109th Congress.Ties are indicated by being members of the same caucuses.Nodes placed closer together indicate more caucus connections.Blue=Dem, Red=Repub.Size of node indicates how many terms the MC has served.Caucus network has a strong partisan split, despite most caucuses indicating their interest in being bi-partisan.Density=proportion of all possible ties that are actually present.34110th CongressCaucus Membership

Density =0.9335Much denser than the previous Congress.Fewer isolates than the 109th, perhaps more partisan division.

35109th CongressCaucus by Caucus Network

Density =6.54Density =0.293636110th CongressCaucus by Caucus Network

Density =0.53737111th CongressCaucus by Caucus Network

Density =0.493838

3939

404041

4142

4243

43