CEU eTD Collection

THE EFFECT THE ROMANIAN PARLIAMENT In requirements for fulfillmentof the thedegre partial S

OF S ubmitted toCentralubmitted European University THE SecondBalá supervisor: Principal supervisor: Tó Gábor Department ofPoliticalScience ELECTORAL REFORM ON MEMBERS OF Silvia Budapest, Hungary - Ioana Neamţ 2011 b

y

: ANETWORK ANALYSIS zs Vedreszs u

ka

e of MastersArtse of of

CEU eTD Collection electoralreform. words: Key by theory, principals‟ competing the to positions rethinki network links research This weak. is i on collaborations by broken 2010. cross more with relations observed the system.However, electoral previous the mixed in than collaborationties form to system proportional the in easier is It systems. electoral different two in legislators of behavior sub that show Findings hypothesis. my test to conducted analysis Tables Contingency measures, centrality employed I 2008. the dif spotting at aims undertake to I that respect analysis with network social principals the competing accountability, legislative and purposiveness of theories the on Based 2010). (2006 lists closed systems electoral two between and years four of period a for legislature Romanian the of collaboration of networks the out Imap them. between links of Members the treating by Parliament, thesis this In ferences in the structural positions of the legislators before and after the electoral reform in reform electoral the after and before legislators the of positions structural the in ferences The expected party discipline in the proportional representation system ( system representation proportional the in discipline party expected The ngand practical its agency party for politics. implications

eiltr wt a with legislators

Legislative behavior, social network analysis, collaboration networks, Romania networks, collaboration analysis, network social behavior, Legislative I nlz te hrceitc o te eiltv ntok isd te Romanian the inside networks legislative the of characteristics the analyze I , -

party collaborations in 2006 and highly dense with strong party clusters in clusters party strong with dense highly and 2006 in collaborations party - 2007) and mixed and 2007) nitiating legislative proposals legislative nitiating hips have the opposite effec opposite the have hips

taei psto i te networks the in position strategic - member proportional with single member districts (2009 districts member single with proportional member ABSTRACT

Parliament as nodes and their initiated proposals as proposals initiated their and nodes as Parliament i

.

Generally, the effect of the electoral reform electoral the of effect the Generally, t than expected, with a less a with expected, than t

- – ru aayi ad Relational a and analysis group

rprinl ersnain with representation proportional who ,

norg cross encourage there

is change in the in change is

dense network network dense 2006 - - 2007) member - party party

is - , CEU eTD Collection unconditional support. and continuous his for Pisarev Ivan to grateful am I least, not but Last University. Tilburg at and Methodology Oxford, Spring Association Sociological of American 2011 the University at participants at Research Social for Methods Quantitative in School Spring Oxford 2011 the at participants University, European Central at members Group Research Pop, Oana Beha Political Artimof, Chiru, Andrei Cosmin Lup, Oana Mihail Popa, Sebastian Buzărnescu, Bogdana peers, my to drafts earlier on comments constructive for thanks for W my thank to like also would Fello Doctoral Popescu,Marina and College,Nuffield Oxford, University ofSnijders, the continuously for László Barabási,Professor Albert grateful to Iproject.am and this believing me in and support unconditional his for University, European Lit Central Levente Science, Professor Assistant to thanks Special Social support. and and encouragements, guidance, Sociology vital their of for University, Department European Central Vedres, Anthropology, Balázs Professor Associate and Science, Tóka Gábor Professor supervisors, thesis my thank to like would I Center for Complex Network Research Network Complex for Center Academic Writing, Central European University, for their extremely useful help. Many Many help. useful extremely their for University, European Central Writing, Academic a te nvriy f Essex, of University the at w

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS riting Instructors, Thomas Rooney and Eszter Timár, Center Timár, Eszter and Rooney Thomas Instructors, riting (CCNR) ii o ter sfl omns n sgetos I suggestions. and comments useful their for

, Northeastern University, Professor Tom Professor University, Northeastern , tvay, Department of Political Political of Department tvay,

, Department of Political of Department , British Academy British Post

Conference Director of Director of vior vior - CEU eTD Collection OFLIST REFERENCES APPENDICES CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER A 5.RESULTS CHAPTER AND 4.DATA CHAPTER 3.RESEARCH CHAP CHAPTER CONTE 1. THE INTRODUCTION OFLIST ABBREVIATION OFLIST FIGURES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT A A 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.2 4.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX 5.2.2 Betweennesscentrality 5.2.1 Degree Centrality 5.1.3 Clustering Coefficient 5.1.2 Geodesic Distances 5.1.1 Density 4.1.1 Why sponsorships?

T C C I MPLICATIONS TER 2. PREVIOUS STUD 2. TER M D D T R HE ENTRALITYMEASURES CLUST ONNECTIONSAND HESYSTEMS ELECTORAL OMANIA ATA OF EFINITIONS CONCEP ETHODOLOGY D ENSITY ENSITY 1. 2.

......

G R

...... ELATIONAL ‟ LOSSARY S POLITICALDEVELOPM S ......

......

T ......

...... EST ......

......

......

...... TABLES

C ...... METHODOLOGY ND IMPLICATIONS

...... QUESTION AND HYPOTHEQUESTION

S XT ......

ONTINGENCY ONTINGENCY ......

...... TS AND INDICATORS TSAND TABLEOF ERS

......

...... IES

......

...... ENT ENT ...... T ...... (1990 ABLES iii ...... CONTENTS ......

......

......

- ......

...... 2010)

......

...... SES

......

......

IV 71 68 66 66 63 59 52 51 49 49 48 48 46 46 46 42 39 31 30 24 14 11

II V

9 7 6 1

I

CEU eTD Collection T T T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F IGURE IGURE IGURE IGURE IGURE IGURE IGURE IGURE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ( RIGHT TOPRIGHT 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

...... R R R D T C A E E

C C C C G G S ), R HEAVERAGE DISTANCE XAMPLECO OF XAMPLEAFFILIATIO OF ELATIONAL ELATIONAL ELATIONAL O EGREE FFILIATION IEGEL

O O O O RAPHIC REPRESENTATIO RAPHIC REPRESENTATIO RAPHIC ELATIONAL 2009 - AFFILIATION - - - - AFFILIATION NETWORK NETWORK AFFILIATION NETWORK AFFILIATION NETWORK AFFILIATION NETWORK AFFILIATION ),

‟ 2009 ( C S BOTTOM LEFT BOTTOM ENTRALITY YEAR BY N ETWORK ETWORK

D C C C ( BOTTOM LEFT BOTTOM C ATA LISTOFFIGURES AND TABLES ONTI ONTI ONTI - ONTI D AFFILIATION DATA AFFILIATION ATA - NGENCY NGENCY NGENCY NGENCY

D NGENCY NGENCY T ENSITY ENSITY YPOLOGY YPOLOGY ), – N

D ( 2010

AMONG REACHABLE PAIR REACHABLE AMONG DATA N OF THEN OFCO THEN OFAFFILIATION ENSITY ENSITY ), WITH PARTY MEMBERSHI WITH PARTY MEMBERSHI WITH PARTY MEMBERSHI WITH PARTY MEMBERSHI WITH PARTY T T T

T

2010 ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE S (

...... BOTTOM RIGHT BOTTOM ABLE

...... CORES (N S

...... ETWORK ( CORES A A A BOTTOM RIGHT BOTTOM iv A NALYSIS FOR NALYSIS FOR NALYSIS FOR NALYSIS

- ...... NALYSIS NALYSIS AFFILIATION DATA DATA AFFILIATION

...... V ISUALIZATIONS )

...... FOR

DATA DATA S 2009 2007 2006 ...... ) ...... ) 2010

......

P AT P CUTPOINT AT P CUTPOINT AT P CUTPOINT AT P CUTPOINT BY YEAR BY 2006 ......

......

...... 2006 ......

( TOPLEFT )

...... (S

( TO IEGEL P LEFTP ...... 10 9 7 4

), - – -

2009) ...... - 2009 2006

2007 ...... 2007

...... 2010 ),

2007 ......

......

( ......

..... TOP ....

48 47 47 37 32 57 56 55 53 36 35 33 70 70 69 68 50

CEU eTD Collection UDMR SMDs SNA RCT PUR PUNR PSD PRM PR PNL PDSR PD/PD PC MP MMP MIN LP INDEP FSN

–

– – –

-

– - – –

Legislative Proposal

– proportional representation proportional Conservative Party – SL

– Membe

National Salvation Front Salvation National –

- – Social Democrat Party Social Democrat - National LiberalParty National social network analysis - Minority Representative

Relational Contingency Table

Greater Romania Party Greater Romania L – –

Romanian Social Democratic Social Romanian Party mixed Party of Romanian NationalParty ofRomanian Unity single member districts single member

–

Democratic MagyarDemocratic Union ofRomania Independent Representative –

Social LiberalSocial Romanian Humanist Party

Democratic Party/DemocratDemocratic r of Parliament r of - member proportionalmember

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSLISTOF

- LiberalParty

v

CEU eTD Collection oiia ntok s fr ee tog icesn, ae en any elcig legislators‟ neglecting mainly been have increasing, on though even Studies far, so 2011). networks political Young and (McClurg behavior political and politics of characteristic political with deals that t centers networks, science political in literature growing been has there Recently, the inside collaborate they how at looking Parliament. by legislators, of behavior the in changes I far, so tackled have studies other what from though mixed Departing (SMDs). districts member single awith (MMP) system proportional member to lists closed with (PR) representation proportional from changed was system experiment, natural a of case unique the using behavior legislative affects system electoral the which to extent the test I thesis, this in ideas, these process” policy public the through achieved be can engineering political and social for consequences desirable certain that assumption the on based matters 1997 Norris 2010 Stramski and Golder 2009 accomplished be can aims these degrees what to judging when matters system electoral the that fact the to popular point far so evidence empirical and increased Theoretical regimes. and processes, making policy participation, over citizens of control tightened a representation, more accountability, more legitimacy, More decades. past the in reformers electoral Reforming ; Calvo and Hellwig 2011 Hellwig and Calvo

) . “Electoral reform is founded upon the pri the upon founded is reform “Electoral .

ae osiue te aet ol wti dmcai ad el democratized newly and democratic within goals latest the constituted have hat collect such type of data, and more attention focused on the “relational” the focusedon attention more and data,type ofsuch collect hat ytm hs en cnrl ocr fr oh cdmc ad political and academics both for concern central a been has systems ; i, ontn and Johnston, Hix, ; Carey and Shugart 1995 Shugart and Carey INTRODUCTION 1

aim at taking a new perspective in measuring in perspective new a taking at aim

an 2010 Iain Romania, where in 2008 the electoral the 2008 in where Romania, nciple that altering the formal rules formal the altering that nciple ; Cox, Rosenbluth, and Thies 1999 Thies and Rosenbluth, Cox, ;

acse 1986 Lancaster ( Norris 2004 Norris ( Birch 2000 Birch ; ipat 1990 Lijphart ) . Building on on Building . ; Calvo - ; ;

CEU eTD Collection that I apply discloses valid findings about what drives legislators to behave the way they do. they way the behave to legislators drives what about findings valid discloses apply I that analysis network The accountability. political studying to approach methodological another princ their to respondlegislators that model theoretical the on Based can better one it make models empirical and theoretical both to attention constant by only but perfect, not is SNA visual to patterns hidden capturing from benefits: great with but literature science political the in new is behavior legislative to approach methodological a as (SNA), analysis network Social SMDs). with MMP and lists closed with (PR systems electoral two between and 2010), and 2009 2007, (2006, years four along legislature Romanian the inside collaborations of dynamics the examine I behavior. political their and legislators of network 2010 Fowler and influen the about also relations collaboration specific to constraints institutional about only not Patterns makers. only not decision policy public and parties political also but are scientists, network and scientists political studies such of beneficiaries The known. already are implications practical institutional certain arestructu more behavior there make which constraints sized), medium (or small rather is population the collect, to easy is advantages: data some has Studyingnetworks legislative academics. greatjoyof the public letting websites, institutional on information updating started world the around legislatures though, institution” transparent and “open an of importance the in increase the With data. of availability the with problems of because perhaps networks,

of collaboration, measured as the legislators‟ initiated proposals, reveal information reveal proposals, initiated legislators‟ the as measured collaboration, of ) In . ce of their structural positions inside the legislative network legislative the inside positions structural their of ce

( other words, I explain the relation between specific structures of the the of structures specific between relation the explain I words, other McClurgand Young 2011 2 red, findings bring a lot of insights, and their and insights, of lot a bring findings red,

) .

ipals‟ demands, I propose demands, ipals‟ information be public, at public, be information ( Carey 2009 Carey zn structures, izing ( Tam Cho Cho Tam ) , but , - CEU eTD Collection ik ewe te w eetrl ytm cris h tp o rpeetto te enable: they representation of type PR a in collective representation, the carries systems electoral two the between link constituent mixed and leadership; party central the to accountable more are legislators where lists, closed with representation proportional accountable. hold being of terms in principals, their to respond legislators how to refers study, this in behavior, Legislative Iconsider be the to a proposals initiated validthe proxy of behavior for legislators. gatheringof info methods subjective other orreporting, thesis the in studied are aspects These collaboration. aspect structural hidden sometimes the about information retain They entities.quantifiable upgrade to now able are that scientists network by developed tools the of because important more appro The information can abouthowone legislative study and behavior discipline. party meaningful providing for potential their emphasizing by overlooked, previously research, by ca the Parliament, scrutinizing the inside relationships collaboration the of dynamics links the it to second, system electoral behavior; legislative determining in importance their and analysis, first, respects: three in research previous to up adds This dynamics. and politics party and behavior, and politics legislative macro of effects measuring recon a for floor the opens analysis Network the concept of concept the ach in political science towards studying political networks is becoming more and more becoming is networks political studying towards science political in ach - legislator bond should be tighter be should bond legislator usal mechanism between the two; finally, it delves into new possibilities of possibilities new into delves it finally, two; the between mechanism usal networks from the level of simple metaphorical constructions t constructions metaphorical simple of level the from networks - oiia peoea n micro on phenomena political

system, and individualistic representation in a SMDs system. SMDs a in representation individualistic and system,

it explores hidden relationships revealed by the network network the by revealed relationships hidden explores it rdtoal, hs ees o h tp o eetrl system electoral of type the to refers this Traditionally, - member system with single with system member ( Carey 2009 Carey sideration of the methodological tools used for for used tools methodological the of sideration 3

through rmation about the units of observation.of units the about rmation ) . John Carey (2009) claims that the that claims (2009) Carey John .

objective data, un data, objective - - level phenomena, such as as such phenomena, level member districts, where the where districts, member

biased by self by biased

o fully o s of of s - -

CEU eTD Collection process, where data might not be available, or where there is a language barrier. Presenting Presenting barrier. language a is there where or available, be not might data long where process, very a is countries these all for data collecting Also, study. this in use meaningfully t access have and context, political the know language, the understand I that fact the to refers and one, pragmatic more a is Romania choosing for reason second The after 2008. offers which party from change a was there where case only the is Romania Guatemala,Venezuela, and Bolivia, Panama, Mexico the Philippines, voters to closer legislators bringing of purpose mixed a to system electoral the in vo to accountable more politicians make to was regime, communist the of fall the after 1990, from place in was round) with m single mixed a brought reform the system, party a From system. electoral new the under representatives e are Chambers Upper and Lower the of members way the changed that law electoral new a passed Parliament Romanian the i first, reasons: main two for studied being for case good a presents Romania looking at sensitive indi the most 2009 sy electoral the changing of support in evidence clear show not did purpose intended the had latter the to system first the from reforms if out find to endeavors academic that though concludes He ) . This study aims at exploring this question, and delivering a tentative answer by by answer tentative a delivering and question, this exploring at aims study This .

tm o civ getr conaiiy f eiltr t ter constituents their to legislators of accountability greater achieve to stem a unique opportunity of a research design of a natural experiment: before and before experiment: natural a of design research a of opportunity unique a ters ember districts (SMDs). The purpose of changing the electoral which purposechanging The of law the districtsember (SMDs). .

There are several other countries in the world where there was a cha whereatherewas world the in countries other severalThere are cator behavior of legislative - member proportional one (first one proportional member - etd I Nvme 20, oain eetd their elected Romanians 2008, November In lected. ebr rprinl ih Ms wt te intended the with SMDs, with proportional member 4

–

Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, New Zealand, New Japan, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, – -

list proportional representation proportional list collaboration. - list PR to MMP with SMDs, with MMP to PR list - past ( o information that I can I that information o Norris 2004 Norris - the -

post in only one only in post n March 2008, March n ) . However, . However, ( Carey nge nge CEU eTD Collection that legislators coming from a certain party are not as accountable anymore to the party in party the to anymore accountable as not are party certain a from coming legislators that legislators of attachments ideological the loosening by party, the of power centralized the weaken to expected was system new The patterns. collaboration mainly am I research, for path fruitful a possibly and important re same the from coming legislators between collaboration of patterns for looking candidates.While waypropose the theyand financialindependence,their party the politics, in constitue their with is behavior political general the words, other In it. outside behavior subsequent determines Parliament the in behavior particular Conversely, the when chapters, subsequent in detail in opinion The network. hierarchical and network, leader small study: this of purpose the for useful pa political for individuals of networks the of implications the and action collective on focuses study Siegel‟s though Even elites. of presence the ties, weak outcome the of impact an have networks the of characteristics struct some participate, to motivations heterogeneous have individuals where making, legislation. among interact legislators way creat they how the themselves, affects further that characteristics, particular with process, communication of kind one enables networks the of structure the of layout certain A used for theanalyses be then can here constructed model empirical The thesis. this in for argued perspective new the of try first a for appropriate seems itself, finds country the which in context particular the m new the where country, one only of case the ( igl 2009 Siegel ncies, the role they play at the local level, their importance and implication implication and importance their level,local the at play they role the ncies,

of cross of ) , for example, finds that in the context of interdependent decision decision interdependent of context the in that finds example, for , e alliances, how they support the leader, and how they oppose oppose they how and leader, the support they how alliances, e - national casesinlater researches.

Romanian legislators‟ networks will be mapped out.mapped be will networks legislators‟ Romanian - world network, village (clique) network, opinion network, (clique) village network, world 5

ethodology is complemented by the depths of of depths the by complemented is ethodology affected by affected - leader network will be discussed more more discussed be will network leader

. On the one hand, this implies this hand, one the On . the way MPs maintain contact maintain MPs way the

–

interested in the cross the in interested

tcpto, i tplg is typology his rticipation, the size, the prevalence of prevalence the size, the gion - party party ural

is - CEU eTD Collection the summarize I argumentsground further and thefindings, and research. for set section, Conclusions the In systems. electoral and behavior legislative stu the for generally more the and politics, of Romanian for results implications their the and analyses discusses and presents 5 Chapter question. research the and collected buildin works, scholarly previous to them comparing by design research and methodology my state I Further, analysis. the to meaning their and with work I matrices of types the on emphasis in Then, hypotheses. the frame I 3, Chapter in topic, my to approach methodological the on done studies previous and theory principals‟ competing the on Based argument. first my construct I which in framework the on literature scholarly assess critically I Inthesis.present2, Chapterthe in used indicatorsconceptsand main the of descriptionbrief a with 1finishes themain them.Chapter systems emphasizing differences between discussed, is of description brief a Then, present. the to 1990s early the from Romania of context political the describes 1 Chapter approaches. other from unavailable are that tools argue I perspective, methodological a From legislators. of structure accountability the influences system electoral the that Iargue level,theoretical the atarguments: two I pursue thesis, this In electoral change system the to priorthey elsewhere)wereas support theyfind as longlegislation(as initiating of terms that social network analysis provides useful tools for measuring legislative behavior, behavior, legislative measuring for tools useful provides analysis network social that g my second argument and justifying my choices based on the nature of the dataset the of nature the on based choices my justifying and argument second my g

(

Carey 2009 Chapter 4, I provide a description of the data I collected, with an an with collected, I data the of description a provide I 4, Chapter CHAPTER1 ) .

. THE . CONTEXT

6 oi o m tei ad rsn te theoretical the present and thesis my of topic

the two electoral two the y of dy CEU eTD Collection reform agenda, under President Constantinescu. The government failed to chan to failed government The Constantinescu. President under agenda, reform ( dis general a to people bringing process, failed a were reform Party some Unity with National Romanian of Party (the parties nationalist coalition a formed Iliescu power. to came leader, the as Iliescu Ion with rule, communist the of reminiscence a (FSN), Front Salvation National the 1992, In ofgovernments. themwere coalition co significant with them of each power, to 2000 Craiutu “challenging”stage thiswas to transition its countries, EasternEuropean and the “difficult” of period a followed which democratization after 1989, in regime of overthrow violent a experienced yearso After45 theoretical theelectoral of reform. implication the to analysis my restrict when I that, For mind them. challenge empirically in not results, the them interpreting keep to solely is section this of purpose the thesis, this in However, behave legislators way the on effect an have might variables these of all struggles, economic the opinion, public the government, of type The behavior. legislative of context the shape Ro of account brief A 1.1 Crowther 2010 Crowther

country can be considered a consolidated democracy, but in comparison to other Central other to comparison in but democracy, consolidated a considered be can country -

Romania’s politicaldevelopmentRomania’s (1990 R) I a olto o left of coalition a In PRM). ; Ciobanu 2007 Ciobanu ) f communism, out of which 24 under the rule of NicolaeCeau of rule the under 24 which of out communism, f . In 1996, an alternative liberal coalition government was formed, with a new a with formed, wasgovernment coalition liberalalternative an 1996, In . mania‟s political development since the 1990s is necessary, in order to order in necessary, is 1990s the since development political mania‟s ( alge 2001 Gallagher ) . Since the fall of the communist regime, five governments came came governments regime,five communist the of fall the Since .

- ig n right and wing nsequences for the development of the country. All country. the of development the for nsequences ) Shlr o post of Scholars . 7

- - 2010) wing ideologies, policy formation and and formation policy ideologies, wing -

PUNR, and the Greater Romanian Greater the and PUNR,

satisfaction and disappointment disappointment and satisfaction - omns age ht today, that argue communism ( Crowther 2010 Crowther şescu ge Romania‟s Romania‟s ge f h ultra the of , Romania , - ; . CEU eTD Collection and for theinterest holding ofpoliticians Prime betwe conflict a about brought this and different, ideologically too be to proved (PNL), Party National Liberal the and (PD) Party Democratic the of consisting government, coalition fourth The country. the in persisting still problems ongoing other were EU of consequence the However, a 2007). in community as European the joined also (Romania requirements accession materialized Băsescu by proposed reforms the of Some anti on campaign the throughout focusing b support people‟s the of much gained (PD) the Party Democratic the party, among his and He people. popular been have to proved Băsescu Bucharest, of mayor former and leader 200 In country,transparencyasaaccountability welllow asand ofpoliticians. corr However, accession. EU the 2010 fi of discourse extreme rising the countering center the with government coalition a formed (PDSR), resurrected his and 2000, in Romania of President the elected again was Iliescu disillusionment, this of light In condition. country‟s the improve to coalition liberal the of failure the after grew disappointment Popular and accountability” transparency authentic in interest no or “little was there and evident, and acute more became cases Corruption development. political and performance economic better a towards direction ) , gained 19.5% in the Parliament. The leftist government of 2000 proved interested in interested proved 2000 of government leftist The Parliament. the in 19.5% gained , - Minister, Călin Popescu Călin Minister, , rin ăec ws lce Peiet fo te eortc at. center A Party. Democratic the from President, elected was Băsescu Traian 4, ghting corruption and auto and corruption ghting ( Crowther 2010 Crowther

leftist party, now called the Romanian Social Democratic Party Democratic Social Romanian the called now party, leftist - - right party, the Great Romania Party (PRM), which with a a with which (PRM), Party Romania Great the party, right Tăriceanu. This conflict brought to light corruption scandals corruption light to brought conflict This Tăriceanu. uption still remained one of the biggest problems in the the in problems biggest the of one remained still uption ) .

- - office benefits portrayal as “the marginalized outsiders” marginalized “the as portrayal - orpin icus ad feh eom agenda. reform fresh a and discourse corruption 8

- ( right UDMR. This coalition aimed at aimed coalition This UDMR. right Crowther 2010 en the President and the and President the en

) .

( Crowther - right re re y CEU eTD Collection a minimum minimum a meant This counties. into division administrative and territorial the resembling constituencies, 42 Romania‟s of each within proportionally allocated were seats Senate, and Deputies of the of 3 Article to According party represent,other. their onthe candidates the how on and developed, are campaigns political how on votes), get to able be would who level local the at persons popular cases many (in lists party the on gets who on implications have to supposed was shift This part the for voting of Instead list. the than rather person, the for electorate the voted parliamentary election 2008 the at that is one old the and system new the between difference main The systems. proportional differen major no are there Theoretically, 1.2 of democracy level satisfying a achieved been have to seem yet not does that country a towards point unrest impeachment where incre an and legislation, affairs, of pieces erroneous confidence, domestic no of votes proposals, the mark scandals political the Currently, hit harshly country. that crisis financial the by augmented fiasco, political a into transformed Party Liberal National (PD 2008 In

- L) The electoral electoral The systems , a new coalition was formed. It was made up of the new Democratic Liberal Party Liberal Democratic new the of up made was It formed. was coalition new a , -

which merged in 2007 from Democratic Party, and a branch that defected from the from defected that branch a and Party, Democratic from 2007 in merged which - elected maintained their contacts with the constituency, on the one hand, and the and hand, one the on constituency, the with contacts their maintained elected of four Deputies and two Senators per constituency. Additionally, seats were were seats Additionally, constituency. per Senators two and Deputies four of ( Marian and King and Marian 2010 y, citizens voted for candidates within their assigned electoral colleges. electoral assigned their within candidates for voted citizens y, -

n te oil eort (S) Sc a oaie combination polarized a Such (PSD). Democrats Social the and electoral law number 373/2004 on the election of the Chamber the of election the on 373/2004 number law electoral

-

some of them without a clear political affinity political clear a without them of some ) .

ces between the two systems, they are both both are they systems, two the between ces 9

ased popular popular ased –

peo ple CEU eTD Collection Deputies, under the same electoral rules. The third improvement acclaimed by the law refers law the by acclaimed improvement third The rules. electoral same the under Deputies, them providing by abroad, living Romanians of representation the proposes law this Romania, of history the in time first the for districts; member single in vote the introducing by legislators, and citizens between law the that improvements new three articulate the initiators The Romania. Romania, in Armenians of Union in the and Romania, Macedonians in Italians of Association of Association the minorities: ethnic of representatives an (PC), Party Conservative the (UDMR), Romania Greater the (PNL), Party Democrat the (PRM), Liberal Party Romania National the (PSD), Party Democrat Social the time: therepresentall fromSenators, and byDeputies initiated 17 mixed a to lists, closed with PR a from system electoral the switches which Senate, the for and Deputies of Chamber the on project law revisited the adopts Deputies of Chamber the 2008, March In eligiblecountry. voters inthe overall the of percent five least at of support the get to had parties meaning, passed, be to Pa the into get to able be to party political a For run. they where constituency the in voters registered of number total the from support cent per five of threshold the passed they if only election for run to allowed con were candidates per list one only provide to restricted were alliances electoral or political Parties, genders. both of representation the for attention with lists, on alliances, of Chamber the for vote De one cast could voter eligible Each votes. of the amount gathering necessary them of condition the on minorities, ethnic of representatives for allocated puties and one for the Senate. Candidacies could be proposed only by parties or political political or parties by only proposed be could Candidacies Senate. the for one and puties with two mandates for Senate and four for the Chamber of of Chamber the for four and Senate for mandates two with -

member proportional with SMDs. The new electoral law was was law electoral new The SMDs. with proportional member - Liberal Party (PD Party Liberal rliament, an electoral threshold of five per cent had cent per five of threshold electoral an rliament, 10

sol” rn aot sotnn te gap the shortening about: bring “should” wt te upr o sm o the of some of support the with d - L), the Democratic Magyar Union of of Union Magyar Democratic the L), ed parties in the Parliament at thatat Parliament the in parties ed ttec. Independent stituency.

the election for for election the CEU eTD Collection legislators. of networks the for attributes as density) betweenness, (degree, measures centrality us also I (nodes). legislators the constituencyfor attributes categorical the as membership and membership committee the membership, party the use I study, this discussed data leg a or legislator, a either be can It analysis. the of focus a ties. the and nodes the network: a of as SNA using for reasons the I on Chapter see methodology, discussion elaborate more a (for methodology a as primarily analysis network social Iuse thesis, this In people. between relations dependency analysis network Social analysis.this for terms the of use particular the to customized are definitions The flawless. be would use I procedures the following that so beginning, very the in necessary seems thesis this in used quite con main the of is list glossary a Therefore, public. general fieldthe to unfamiliar this in uses one vocabulary the own, its in field a is analysis network Since 1.3 parties andindividual candidates. for polit for stake at and permissible is versus was what to approach to comparative a meant provide are rules formal the about details technical noted above The 35/2008). no. Law the in just possible be would voting since tourism, electoral through fraud electoral of prevention the to

Definitions of concepts and indicators ofconceptsDefinitions and single

–

- 1 member district where a voter had been registered (Exposition of Motives, Motives, of (Exposition registered been had voter a where district member -

or 2 or - mode data). The data). mode

s both is V, section 4.2 Methodology). There are two most important parts important most two are There Methodology). 4.2 section V,

ter ad mtoooy o te td o complex of study the for methodology a and theory a In this study the the study this In

n ode attributes ode 11

node islative proposal (depending on the on (depending proposal islative

are characteristics of the nodes. In nodes. the of characteristics are takes two forms, depending on the on depending forms, two takes cepts and indicators indicators and cepts e attributes such as such attributes e ical

CEU eTD Collection different thanpartygrounds membership. collaborating ondifferent parties, from members mixed be might there or together, initiating party same the from members of parliament, the clus inside collaborations of developments timely seeing in useful is analysis than another one to connected closely more are speci with partitions, sub the describe and observe closely can one network, a Inside who collaboratedin the Parliament. with whom on information contains it Mainly, others. the all with MP each of ties collaboration therefo It columns. as legislators same the and rows, as legislators, of consists The proposal. what initiated who reveals essentially legislators An matrices. co and affiliation with: deal I that types two are there use, I data the Concerning parties i other of members or alignment), party strong a is there (when party same the of members of system Romanian Parlia the of Members between links as proposals legislative initiated choosing for reasons the on account detailed of pairs between ties/links together. by represented is network the of component second The ters of cohesive groups. This is interesting because there might be homogeneous groups homogeneous be might there because interesting is This groups. cohesive of ters f there isanissue

For the purpose of the analyses the of purpose the For in the rows, and the names of legislative proposals they initiated in the columns. It columns. the in initiated they proposals legislative of names the and rows, the in a flain arx (2 matrix ffiliation ,

MPs initiate/sponsor legislative proposals, usually backed up by signatures signatures by up backed usually proposals,legislative initiate/sponsor MPs fic characteristics). A characteristics). fic et se hpe I, eto 411 h Sponsorships?) Why 4.1.1 section IV, Chapter see ment, - based one. ora interests, personal

actors, because they are quantifiable objective observations objective quantifiable are they because actors, - oe data) mode ,

I have I c lique 12

is a table that consists of the names of the the of names the of consists that table a is

to other members in the network the in members other to

chosen to consider legislati consider to chosen is a is

network network c o - fiito mti (1 matrix affiliation

t ies subset,

ht ik h nodes/actors the link that - group networks (smaller (smaller networks group in which some actors actors some which in

ve proposals as proposals ve - re shows the the shows re oe data) mode - . affiliation affiliation

A clique A I the In .

(for a a (for

CEU eTD Collection lsay f h cnet, niaos ad h tcnqe ue i te analysis. the in used techniques the and indicators, concepts, the of Glossary they because positions, number interruption. information of suffer will network the actors key s information way the in role important an play nodes which out find can one centrality, betweenness computing by words, other In network. the in have they position geographical the of terms in nodes “best” the identify helps measure This s network. the in nodes two A hows how many of the shortest paths between second and third actors go actors third and second between paths shortest the of many how hows mong network, ofa themeasures of direct connections of a node. a of connections direct of

are less are

This is relevant for measuring its density. its measuring for relevant is This dependent o dependent

g eodesic distance eodesic Actors wh Actors n other individuals. individuals. other n 13

o have more ties more have o preads in the network. Without these Without network. the in preads s

represent Appendix 1 accommodates a a accommodates 1 Appendix

ere centrality Degree the shortest path between pathbetween the shortest

Betweenness centrality Betweenness

a be may through an actor. an through in advantaged advantaged in

–

t he

CEU eTD Collection at dnmc i dfeet lcoa sses rtoa cho rational systems: electoral different in dynamics party of interpretations tackling been have perspectives two systems, electoral on literature the In electoralreform and inthe empirical reveals time. analysis that dynamics over its i dynamics legislative understanding to approach methodological the in the literature macro science network the to and analysis, network of methodology behavior the legislative literature the to adds paper This specific problems. and or aspects theories, methodology network analysis network social topology, network concerning hypotheses 2008 Laver and on focus clear a with colleagues studies his and Fowler James are networks legislative networks political of authors prominent most the Third, 2002 political, specific under and legislation of process the on emphasis puts rather It change. system electoral of problem the tackle not does focus its but networks, policy on literature level horizontal the at relationships power or networks, coll in moves strategic as such aspects address to failing limited, yet informative, be the 1986 leg on n The ; ) , the competing principals‟ theory, the institutional effects, or the party unity effect on effect unity party the or effects, institutional the theory, principals‟ competing the , ovelty - Haus and Sweeting 2006 islative behavior focused on the hierarchical structure of the Parliament Parliament the of structure hierarchical the on focused behavior islative havior of legislators legislators of havior political aspect of electoral system change. The contribution of this study this of contribution The change. system electoral of aspect political

of the study can be found in more than more in found be can study the of ; Tam Cho and Fowler 2010 Fowler and Cho Tam CHAPTER 2. ( cnmc ad oil realities social and economic, ae 2007 Carey ) .

; PREVIOUSSTUDIES ; ae ad hgr 1995 Shugart and Carey 14 Zhang et al. 2008 al. et Zhang

one area one Scn o al tee s growing a is there all, of Second . ( Fowler 2005 Fowler ice institutionalism and cultural cultural and institutionalism ice

. First of all, previous literature previous all, of First . ( making during a specific time, specific a during making e rin n tn Heuvelhof ten and Bruijn De ) . However, their studies test studies their However, . ;

) Fowler 2006 Fowler . These studies are are studies These . n h cnet of context the

then ( Lancaster aboration ; Fowler resides resides

CEU eTD Collection rvds n con o mauig at bhvo b loig t niiul politicians‟ individual at as systems, electoral different in disunity looking or unity party towards drive they how and by behavior behavior party measuring of account an provides ( vo personal for party encourage that systems Electoral differentrules impact cumulative a have probably short generate to capacity limited rule of calculation strategic the by than rather heart, motivatio affective by primarily driven are citizens and elites Political turnout. electoral of patterns in and loyalties party and identities social the of strength in notably societies, postindustrial and industrial in evident politics electoral of basis mass the in contrasts marked be will there that predicts theory The societies. postindustrial in arising politics citizen of forms new with culture, political the for consequences profound modernizati Cultural 2004 p the that assumption the on works second turnou electoral of levels and loyalties, party and cleavages social of impor most ( policy shape and office get votes, maximize to looking constraints, institutional to responding rationally are politicians that assumption the on based is first The theories. modernization Ames 1995 Ames 1999 Müller and Strøm ) rocess of societal societal of rocess .

tant aspects of voting behavior, from behavior, voting of aspects tant ; Golder and Stramski 2010 Stramski and Golder ( Norris 2004 Norris n hois ugs ta te rcs o scea mdriain has modernization societal of process the that suggest theories on tes are thought to enable to thought are tes modernization ; Pennings and Lane 1998 Lane and Pennings ) .

- competition among legislative candidates within the same the within candidates legislative among competition term changes in political behavior, although reforms will will reforms although behavior, political in changes term

in the longer term as new generations grow up under under up grow generations new as term longer the in

deep rather than sheer rationality drive politicians politicians drive rationality sheer than rather ; Hix, Johnston, and Iain 2010 Iain and Johnston, Hix, - rooted cultural “habits of the heart” arisi heart” the of “habits cultural rooted 15

disunity relative to closed lists election rules election lists closed to relative disunity

patterns of party competition, party of patterns ) . - R based rewards. Electoral engineering has has engineering Electoral rewards. based ules have multiple consequences on consequences multiple have ules ns and by habitual habits of the of habits habitual by and ns t ) . John John . ( ors 2004 Norris to Carey (2007 Carey the strength strength the ng from ng ( ) Norris . The The .

the )

CEU eTD Collection alaetr dsiln wti pormai ad oeie eiltv pris de o the to due parties, legislative cohesive and programmatic within discipline parliamentary in while leadership, party central the of autonomy direct the under being than rather vote, personal a on based service constituency to turn to the constituencytheir to in electorates accountable directly legislators make also would reform of type this Thus, affairs. electedgeographically based in provides SMDs local representatives their and citizens between link the intuitively, system, SMDs with MMP a to lists closed with PR from switching when voters to politicians of accountability more towards systemati a shown not have far so evidence empirical the though Even from more cross leg their and disunity, more experience would parties governing office into them getting or careers furtheri in politicians individual control to resources necessary the has that principal main the as leadership, party central the to accountable more are politicians because system, h partyto be unity lists closed with system PR a in that expect should one Therefore, lists. closed with systems in than competition intraparty promote that rules under elected are legislators where systems unity party legislative reduce will principals these of demands the in divergence votes, legislators‟ influence to resources controls (principal) ( leaders party of those with whose conflict principals may other demands from pressure to as well as leadership party their to accountable i that fact the behavior. party for indicator an siuinl atr sae hte, n t wa dge, eiltr are legislators degree, what to and whether, shape factors nstitutional - party thanintheother voting system igher and legislative parties to be more cohesive than in a MMP withSMDs MMP a cohesivethanin more legislative tobe parties and igher

( He claims that the competing principal competing the that claims He Norri ( Carey 2007 Carey s 2004 s ) 16 . In the latter system, legislators are more prone prone more are legislators system, latter the In . )

. Further, in systems with elected presidents, elected with systems in Further, . ”

the PR with closed lists one should notice should one lists closed with PR the ( Carey 2007 Carey

communities witha inthecommunities nation‟s voice ( Carey 2007 p. 92) . “ , 93) , hn oe hn n actor one than more When islative losses are to result result to are losses islative ) .

. Voting unity is lower in lower is unity Voting . s‟ theory is based on based is theory s‟ ad la change clear and c ng their their ng CEU eTD Collection rus otn tde wti ec cuty r ein n isola in region or context institutional country each within studied often groups, on based individual from evidence choices, electoral the to respond voters how of analyses and systems; different result election aggregate from evidence the analyzing deducing and consequences, certain rules, formal the classifying between divided been has literature the Typically, 2004 electorate the in behavior political mass of patterns change to or tides social counter to power the have not do politicians individual and parties systems, democratic in Moreover, the to society one from differ therefore and determined socially and rooted deeply are customs institutional and beliefs, ideological values, predominant because parliaments, s counter at accountable them holding elections and performance their assess meaningfully can therefore are representatives their what of view clear a have citizens where level, local the to affairs political brings alternative the while voters, their and legislators between and parties identifiable programmatic disciplined having by accountability, government maximizes which that is system political efficient an that suggests one accountability: of conceptions on on Depending to rational legislatorsmai to leads that candidates of renomination and nomination the over leadership party the of power get ht h aoto o SD wud o gnrt smlr eair n different in behavior similar generate not would SMDs of adoption the that uggest ) .

- ruet oe fo te rpnns f utrl oenzto tere. They theories. modernization cultural of proponents the from comes argument ( ors 2004 Norris policy mandates; the other, in contrast, suggests that such a system widens the gap agap systemwidens suggeststhatsuch thecontrast, thepolicy other, mandates; in e‟s understanding of efficient government, there are two opposite opposite two are there government, efficient of understanding e‟s ( Norris 2004 Norris ; ae 2009 Carey - level national surveys of the electorate and on experiments or focus or experiments on and electorate the of surveys national level ntain party unity ) . In addition to this, two sets of methodological approache methodological of sets two this, to addition In . , 2007 ; ( ae ad hgr 1995 Shugart and Carey 17 Norris 2004 Norris

; Carey 2007 in rm hi broader their from tion , ) 2009 Hwvr te main the However, . doing for them, and and them, for doing ) .

s held under under held s (

Norris Norris other. s CEU eTD Collection and MPs notofindividual parties, endogenous of from appear preferences patterns thenvoting influence votes, members‟ p from estimating by behavior parliamentarians‟ 1966 numbers in increased realistic end that study, of elements the much too isolate causality, of mechanisms detecting at good very though even experiments, laboratory and homogeneity, time model to fac confounding separate cannot countries, respective the to specific variables account into take country The countries. between variance unexplained regression the and variables, Large fallacies. ecological or validity external of short fall large to studies case focus approaches methodological of type second The mainly actors, political of individuals). rationality instrumental total possibly the simplifying vastly (e.g. parsimony, assumptions of mistaken trap the into fall they that however seems It par understanding for helpful findings, substantive produced models formal using scholars reasoning, deductive Through measurements. in consistent less or more are they have modeling formal on based are that studies first, far: so preferred been have tors in assessing behavior change. Time assessing behavior tors in ; the advantage that they formulate clear propositions, evidence is easy to evaluate, and evaluate, to easy is evidence propositions, clear formulate they that advantage the Snyder and Groseclose 2000 Groseclose and Snyder ( ors 2004 Norris

- N analyses based on national survey data. These contributions usually contributions These data. survey national on based analyses N ; ( lno, aka, n Rvr 2004 Rivers and Jackman, Clinton, remn t l 1978 al. et Freedman ( Kam 2001

coefficients used typically have large standard errors and a lot of of lot a and errors standard large have typically used coefficients ) . However, one of the acclaimed problems with inferring with problems acclaimed the of one However, . ) .

- series analyses still face shortcomings when trying analyses when face shortcomings series still 18 )

. Further, studies using roll call data have have data call roll using studies Further, . ast votes is that of selection bias. If parties parties If bias. selection of that is votes ast - based empirical analyses, even though though even analyses, empirical based

n xesv eprcl tde, from studies, empirical extensive on - N studies ignore country ignore studies N ; nesn Wts ad Wilcox and Watts, Anderson, up being hardly hardly being up ( on 1957 Downs ty behavior. ty - specific specific )

CEU eTD Collection at er hwvr shlr o dfeet oil cec taiin akolde the acknowledged traditions science social different of scholars however, years past the “sociol data, network social of lack the of because that out pointed (1973), Agenda Research 499) “socio the on focus to studies first the among was school Columbia the of approach “sociological” p and provocative, new, a set (1944),electionAmerican presidential 1940 Gaudet‟sstudythe Lazarsfeld, on and Berelson of notable contributionResearch, University‟s withtheColumbia Socialmost BureauApplied of Bunt, andSteglich 2010 sm mostly data, longitudinal network use actor models Such factors. considering confounding for controls in and formation flexible tie influencing more are that models based for precise more for strives controls latest The of short fall however factors models confounding these reciprocity; or transitivity closure, 1999 Albert changes gradual for account to able be to complexity in grown network a in relations social of function utility the regarding theories single simple analyzing from Starting actors. the of behavior the and networks the of dynamics the influence can that variables exogenous and endog the of aspects different on concentrate literature this in analyzed models based actorThe deriveinferencedynamics. network to about estimations and probabilities on based of type third A . Carl Scheingold, in his paper Social Networks and Voting: The Resurrection of a a of Resurrection The Voting: and Networks Social paper his in Scheingold, Carl . - ogical” model soon fell into disuse into fell soon model ogical” structural and social and structural ) . Attention has been also given to more detailed network characteristics, such as as such characteristics, network detailed more to given also been has Attention . studying social networks has been focused on constructing statistical models statistical constructing on focused been has networks social studying ( asra 1979 Wasserman ) .

- interactional effects of voting behavior” voting of effects interactional all - ( size directed networks directed size aa n Gyl 2000 Goyal and Bala romising framework for studying voting behavior. The The behavior. voting studying for framework romising

models have driven scholars to construct stochastic actor stochastic construct to scholars driven have models ; asra ad aouc 1988 Iacobucci and Wasserman ( Scheing 19

old 1973 old ( ; Snijders 2001 Snijders umn 2000 Hummon ; Eulau and Siegel 1981 Siegel and Eulau - rvn micro driven ( rc 1976 Price ; ( Eulau a Eulau Snijders2005 ) tee oes have models these , ; osnt 2006 Kossinets nd Siegel 1981 Siegel nd ; Baraba - mechanisms ; ) Snijders, . In the In . i and si enous ) - - , . CEU eTD Collection stream of literature seems plausible and sound, it cannot account for large, undirected undirected large, for account cannot it sound, and plausible seems literature of stream a the this to Adding missing. is aspect key this networks undirected For outcomes. possible the knows one once termination or formation tie of probabilities calculate to easier is it because mainly networks, a the while networks, undirected in result legislators the between ties as chose I relations the Second, etc.). membership, committee membership, constituency party membership, as such actors, the of characteristics aroundfloat pro the making clear, less or more are constraints institutional (the networks political such of nature intrinsic the of because partly and newcomers), 40% to up get changes networks the of composition the where legislatures, (two chose I frame time the because partly design, my fit not does which variable, key models. another are data panel such Network with studied networks typical than larger are networks the First, at. look to gener knowledge on building however models, constructed previously these from differs design research My context 2005 behavior political of measures reliable and valid of evidence behavio individual political with variable, independent of aspect structural the with Juggling ignored. been previously have that factors of number a about generated much been has knowledge research, science political recent in focus a such With study. under individuals the t to refer that questions concerning research pursue to means the now have ( network of usefulness McClurg and Young 2011 Young and McClurg ; njes 2001 Snijders ual effects confirmed” seems ated by them. An actor An them. by ated ) ctors‟ attributes, the result is very hard to estimate. Even though this this though Even estimate. to hard very is result the attributes, ctors‟ . In other words, “the utility of social network analysis in studying studying in analysis network social of utility “the words, other In .

aa n uvy eerh n ohr ufed o pltcl science political of subfields other and research survey in data ) . With the increasing number of recorded objective data, scholars scholars data, objective recorded of number increasing the With . ( Eulau 1981 and Siegel -

as well as group as well as - based model cannot account for the networks I chose I networks the for account cannot model based ctor 20 - based models work extensively with directed with extensively work models based

- level effects, scholarship has shown shown has scholarship effects, level , 509) ( r as a dependent variable or or variable dependent a as r Eulau and Siegel 1981 Siegel and Eulau .

babilities of tie formation tie of babilities he social aspect of of aspect social he ; Snijders Snijders of CEU eTD Collection Congress directly from the network data, without specific information about the ideology or or ideology the about information specific without data, network the in from directly polarization Congress in increase the quantify to used be can it that so partition, given intra of number the measures modularity of idea the 2007 legislators positional hold advantagestendencies,also some theimportanceof but one methodology a as analysis network social using that claiming legislature, the studying to approach network a of usefulness the emphasize of control took Republicans the when 104 the in culminated that polarization partisan in increase sharp a demonstrating polarization, political of measures explicit shows analysis Their Congress. collaboration the investigate to legislation, same the on relationships collaboration their on based Congressmen of structure community the identify 96 the from 2004, and 1979 between cosponsor, they l on based Congress of Members between networks constructing by Congress States United the analyze Theyanalysis. network social using behavior, legislative focusedon Mucha and Fowler, Porter, Traud, Friend, Zhang, politicaltopic science within and legislative political behavior: behavior. narrow a about knowledge generating in used be can methodology, a as analysis, no network a showing at aims it rather But science. political in analysis network social of utility the confirms that study another yet being at aim not does thesis This 2003). dea into put constantly are however Efforts composition. in change significant a with networks, ling with such networks (Preciado, Snijders, and Lospinoso 2011; Huisman and Snijders and Huisman 2011; Lospinoso and Snijders, (Preciado, networks such with ling )

without specific political knowledge about them about knowledge political specific without

of “modularity” to investigate the organizational structure of Congress. The method The Congress. of structure organizational the investigate to “modularity” of both Chambers Chambers both - community versus inter versus community 21

can spot not only the obvious behavioral obvious the only not spot can ( th hn e a. 2008 al. et Zhang

Congress to the 108 the to Congress communities in both chambers of the the of chambers both in communities ( Zhang et al. 2008 al. et Zhang ( hn e a. 2008 al. et Zhang vel way in which social social which in way vel th -

community edges for a for edges community oges (1995 Congress

)

rt a td that study a wrote ) . Zhang et al. use use al. et Zhang . th

one. Then, they Then, one. ) Te authors The . egislation that egislation ( Porter et al. etPorter al.

h U.S. the - 1996), 1996), CEU eTD Collection noted are analyzing the United States Congress, in the context of a two a of context the in Congress, States United the analyzing are noted time. over dynamics be and differences the However, composition their observe and communities detect also I and MPs, among legislation same the of sponsorship on based networks collaboration legislative much resembles design research My dimensionality rules and institutional different possib is it network the of use the validate results TheirRepublicans. 2008 membership committee and region, party, with well quite correlate communities their about politica knowledge specific any incorporating without behavior political recognized confirming party, opposite the of members with more collaborate who Senators moderate partitioni the that findthey networks their visualizing Through chamber. each for networks 13 for parties across or lines, party within collaborations observethey extent what to see and networks, legislators‟ w other In communities. other in those and nodes its between connections than nodes its among connections internal more have should ( of chamber” numbers whole the the of balance (i.e., partisan the committee reflects typically each Republicans) and Democrats in balance partisan “the that yield results Their initiate they legislation the or of, part are they committees the legislators, the of orientation political Zhang et al. 2008 al. et Zhang ) Te as ietf a ru o Suhr Dmcas ht ossety opno with cosponsor consistently that Democrats Southern of group a identify also They . l orientations” l ( Zhang et al.2008 le to derive ideology measures from collaboration data in spite of its known high high known its of spite in data collaboration from measures ideology derive to le ng does not lie precisely along party lines. “Our analysis picks out known known out picks analysis “Our lines. party along precisely lie not does ng , 2) , . To identify network communities they hypothesize that a community a that hypothesize they communities network identify To . ( Zhang et al. 2008 al. et Zhang ) .

tween these two approaches are many: first, the authors above above authors the first, many: are approaches two these tween

f hn‟ ad i clege‟ td. as analyze also I study. colleagues‟ his and Zhang‟s of , 2) , . Among the results they find that collaboration that find they results the Among . 22 ( ords, they look at particular clusters in the the in clusters particular at look they ords, Zhanget al.2008

- modularity method and suggest that suggest and method modularity ) .

- party system, while I while system, party ( Zhang et al. al. et Zhang CEU eTD Collection networkshow convincing evidence analysis should ofrecurrent patterns. social of method the legislators, among collaborations of maps the build can scholars and met the that confirmation a as thesis my in serves article Zhang‟s behavior. legislative and systems, party systems, electoral of study the for possibly and politics, Romanian for implications different resu same the techniques almost towards the converge later, show I as However, dynamics. and structure analyzing community by legislative behavior legislative on reform electoral of effects the measuring in resides metho a as analysis network social that show to and one the than polarization political measure to is goal complex their Besides, colleagues. his and Zhang by presented more much is analysis my and techniques different slightly use I 2010). 2 (2006, years four for Romania) in exist not does (cosponsorship sponsorships of dataset a collected I while 2004, and 1979 between cosponsorships of dataset a have They countr multi a at look wt fr oe ifrn pltcl itr, utr ad otx a te mrcn one. American the as context and culture history, political different more far with y

hod works, irrespective of the country under analysis. As long as data is available is data as long As analysis. under country the of irrespective works, hod - at ytmadteitrcinbtensxt nn eiltv ate n a in parties legislative nine to six between interaction the and system party t a i te ae f h Uie Sae, u wt far with but States, United the of case the in as lts 23

dology works. My aim is different, and it it and different, is aim My works. dology

007, 2009 and 2009 007, CEU eTD Collection variety of major social affiliations: their social class, their ethnic group, their religious group, religious their group, ethnic their class, social their affiliations: social major of variety affiliations social cross is attitudes changing people for reasons main the of one that change. attitudinal is investigation of topics major the of One studied. intensively been has change attitude research, social dynamic In benefits. support, them achievepreferences,personalbethem help would that way a in act typically would legislators judgment, of kind this to According benefits. of for membership party of importance le envisioned the only not indicates quotation This behavior claimare that MPs primarily purposive above section systems, electoral and behavior legislative on literature the in found studies in change the by affected is MPs the behaviorof 2008? in reform electoral the of light in change MPs Romanian thesis This gislators, but it also points out the fact that MPs rationalize their purposes for action in terms in action for purposes their rationalize MPs factthat the out points also it gislators,but ( op the than governing the rather of member a being (…) Additionally, (…) the patronage. of over distribution influence and positions, leadership and committee to promotion including p electoral enhance can that name brand a with identification and to access instant copartisans, like with action collective structured of possibility the offer parties because achi to order In Owens 2003

CHAPTER

is t nwrn te question the answering at aims ( ae 2009 Carey opcs poie hm ih oetal sgiiat eiltv resources, legislative significant potentially with them provide rospects,

they have. “Individuals do not belong to one group only. They have a a have They only. group one to belong not do “Individuals have. they ) .

eve their goals, they typically join and work within political parties political within work and join typically they goals, their eve 3. RESEARCH 3. QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES oiin at o caiin offers coalition or party position ; ae ad hgr 1995 Shugart and Carey Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet (1948 Gaudet and Berelson, Lazarsfeld, 24 o dd h claoain eain among relations collaboration the did how

( the electoral system is supported by previous by supported is system electoral the Owens 2003 )

. infcnl getr benefits greater significantly ot e Most ; Mayhew 2004

votes, office,related careervotes, or paain o legislative of xplanations

h asmto ta the that assumption The - rsue rm different from pressure

) - . the in noted as minded

) –

theorize

CEU eTD Collection speaking, this should be an ev an be should this speaking, Intuitively districts. member single the to down narrowed be further can areas these system, post the In voters. their represent best would think they that bills special initiating for sim from MPs Romania). in (counties, circumscriptions electoral common of consists group this 2008, before system, PR the In group. third a also is There conflict. to come might then views ideological population; whole the for or population best is what of view general a to according appear, may problems to solutions uniting or conflicting and field, the in expertise the is denominator common the Here, affairs. work party together each of Members Parliament). the of design institutional the to (due position a assigned is MP every which in group a is This group. committee specialized the is there party central the by playerspivotal partyandby leaders organization, different reward and punishment control, to prone is legislator the machine, of majority the multi the consider us Let more boththese work should or less for phenomena. the same mechanisms analogy an make further I thesis, this of purpose the For increases). vote legislative a of importance relative the thus smaller; is population the and higher, are stakes the stiffer, is competition (the decisive more cas they vote The vote. also They attitudes. political have Legislatorsconsidered.beshould too assumptions legislators,otherbehaviorof the discussing when However, hold. might this research, attitude and behavior voting general of discussion individuals” some on will claims conflicting affiliations various These participate. they which in associations informal the n cmo eprie il lk euain hat cr, rnprain r foreign or transportation care, health education, like field expertise common a on P) Oe ey motn asmto i ta pry atr. n h party the In matters. party that is assumption important very One MPs). - of legislative votes and the act of initiating proposals, arguing that arguing proposals, initiating of act the and votes legislative of group affiliations of MPs. First and foremost, there is the party (for (for party the is there foremost, and First MPs. of affiliations group en stiffer competition, if the assumption is that voters can see, see, can voters that is assumption the if competition, stiffer en ( aased Brlo, n adt 1 Gaudet and Berelson, Lazarsfeld, 25

ilar circumscriptions might compete might circumscriptions ilar t is different though; more frequent, more though; different is t ( Carey and Shugart 1995 Shugart and Carey

948

for the target the for , xiv , ) . Second, . ) - . In a In . make 2008 2008 CEU eTD Collection whyThis is I at proposals the initiated and amnotat thefinal ofMPs looking voteaye ornay. relationships of aff be to first the are relationships these levelsince legislators, among the at seen be should shift a such of signs first The in terms. understood absolute be not should this However, together. proposals initiating diverse MPs more of towards clusters trend a show should characteristics network the that means part necess the observe to is expectation My 2010. and 2009, 2007, 2006, years, four of period a for MPs I Thus, t according they totheinitiate. bills preferenc main the are what reveal will VI Chapter in subgroups and groups of analysis close A patterns. particular in proposals initiate to them determine to as enough strong are ideologies and affiliations polit onlyif hold should model theoretical This legislators‟ the conflicting interestsand might ideologiesintervene. So them. for done actually have MPs their what measure and experience

test this hypothesis by looking at the characteristics of the collaboration relationships among relationships collaboration the of characteristics the at looking byhypothesis this test lns ne te R ytm ad oe cross more and system, PR the under lines y ary network modifications along these years that led to less collaboration along the the along collaboration less to led that years these along modifications network ary he collaborations mixed switch A H1: first - member proportional one proportional member hypothesis isthat

from a proportional representation system with closed lists to a to lists closed with system representation proportional a from

es of the legislators, and if cross if and legislators, the of es :

with SMDs with 26 ical preferences of MPs are stable, and if party if and stable, are MPs preferencesof ical

- at claoain fe te reform the after collaboration party

should exhibit more cross more exhibit should - pressures determine them to change to them determine pressures ected by the electoral change. electoral the by ected - party party This . party

CEU eTD Collection whole, the general consensus in every group concerning particular problems (e.g. consensus (e.g. problems particular concerning group every in consensus general the whole, a as partygoals of the and purposes theintended I informationcommunication about By mean (horizontal groups different from members of but communication), contact direct and folds structural the through other the to group one from faster travel communication makes structure hierarchical information the how over control better leaders these offer structures network Particular studied. be will group the of rest the opportunities” rewarding more over, controlexercise and in, hand a haveabout, know who individuals the are holes structural groups” as much between so groups brokers within leaders not things, of edge the at people as much so things of i carry who „brokers‟ opinion precisely more are „leaders‟ “Opinion scores). betweenness highest the have (who people connected most the committees, the of party, the of leaders the mainly actors key the of One Therefore,sanctions onMPs. pr a that knowing Nonetheless, f party legislator central a the punish can which leadership with sanctions possible means also Voting legislation. of piece 2009 unity party of indicator as vote final the using Moreover, justifications. its and format, its proposal, the concerning agreements and negotiations legislators, among ties working pro initiated so vote, the of time the and legislation of piece a initiate they times the between minds their change might MPs )

nformation across the social boundaries between groups. They are not people at the top the at people not are They groups. between boundaries social the across nformation does not take into account initial sincere motivations of MPs for proposing a certain a proposing for MPs of motivations sincere initial account into take not does

it does not necessarily mean that the information will get to everybody. to get will information the that mean necessarily not does it o e okd t n y nlss r te so the are analysis my in at looked be to ( ut 1999 Burt more crossmore oposal might have little chance little have might oposal ( Burt 1999 Burt

oas ersn ter first their represent posals is spread in the network (vertical communication). A less A communication). (vertical network the in spread is r o keig h pry lgmn o seii issues. specific on alignment party the keeping not or 37) , - party collaborations are expected to form are collaborations expectedparty , 49) , . “Individuals with contact networks rich in in rich networks contact with “Individuals . 27 . The flow of information from the leaders to leaders the from information of flow The .

-

of passing loosens the threat of of threat the loosens passing of ie oiain. hy imply They motivations. time - ald oiin leaders;‟ „opinion called .

( Carey

CEU eTD Collection tha system lists closed with PR the in dense less be will relationships collaboration that expect should one reputation, party than rather personal a on campaign to candidates of incentives to Shug and Carey to According The as follows: second hypothesis is can theempirical be from analysis drawn ofthe data. c more A legislator. the by seen problems the to solutions possible its for ideology new aconveying to simply group, ora within accountable, MPsconflicts their hold to citizens suppo of lack the in stem can answers Possible why. is question the and occur, still can behavior in changes However, people. the of party the from support less or more ofbenefit legislators the opinions, MP each for place in to be already assumed are opinions because apply, not does quote the of part second the legislators, ( t crystallize will interactions mutual exist, feelings vague e only but attitudes prior no when them; reinforce will certain interactions mutual exist, attitudes prior a to When (…) leadership. opinion should beyond and “above group the MPs in MP each of of commonalities attitudes political of crystallization The party‟s the by tailored proposal, expressive and instrumental goals frame a in particulartime care health a or bill, education specific a initiating on Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1948 Gaudet and Berelson, Lazarsfeld, n in the MMP with SMDs. First, because in the first system MPs respond more to the party party more respond tothe first MPs system First, inthe with SMDs. because n inthe MMP collaboration the to Due H2: rt from the party, weak control and punishment and reward mechanisms for the the for mechanisms reward and punishment and control weak party, the from rt

among MPs sh ieto o te lcoa rfr, h dniy of density the reform, electoral the of direction art‟s (1995) model of electoral formulas and their relationship their and formulas electoral of model (1995) art‟s ( Miller Miller ould increase from2006to2010 , xxiii , n Soe 1963 Stokes and 28 - xxi

v). Since the discussion here refers only to only refers here discussion the Since v).

hese feelings into definite opinions” definite into feelings hese ) – Acrig o hs bles and beliefs these to According .

short - , mid

-

or long xtent reflect reflect xtent - term). lear answer lear

CEU eTD Collection relationships. collaboration initiating Therefore, an col see should increase one of indensity in freedom more candidates the giving reputation party the than important more is candidates the of reputation personal the system, latter the S list. party the on ranking and campaigning of means financial candidates, re and selection of resources the controlling principal main the as leadership 29

laborations to2010. from 2006 econd, because in because econd, - selection of of selection

CEU eTD Collection upgrade to now able are that scientists network by developed tools the of because important between more and more becoming links is networks political studying towards science political in approach the as proposals legislative initiated at and network, the in nodes the as legislators at look I realities. structural their about and Parliament, the inside and Deputies about information simple This actors. interdependent between relationships of characteristics vie the proposals legislative the and 2010, Romanian the Parliament for dataset networked a collected I 2011, January and 2010 May Between look atthem s encourage should data “objective” etc., logs, computer and phone Internet, 2009 Lazer and Pentland, justifications and explanations careful self of types other any as data, relational However, analyses. network fit to as data sociometric recoding towards or questions), egocentric (like surveys in parameters network of inclusion d networked to importance increasing giving in Trends projects. such from available already data or surveys from collected data, sociometric to contend scholars r that data networked of lack significant a is there that, of Because literature. science the political in new relatively is analysis network social through behavior legislative of study The esearchers can use. Usually, because collecting one‟s own datasets is costly and requires time, time, costlyrequires andis datasetsown one‟sUsually,collecting becauseuse. can esearchers o ntok nlss te data the analysis, network of w - eotd aa ae lo ujc t reliabilit to subject also are data, reported , which consists of the nam the of consists which , ( Lazer 2011 the initiated legislative proposals reveals facts about collaborative relationships collaborative about facts reveals proposals legislative initiated the CHAPTER4 ) ) . . With the increasing availability of “passive” data sources, like the like sources, data “passive” of availabilityincreasing the With .

e tu cletd s relevant is collected thus set .

DATA es of the Deputies in office in office in Deputies the of es y have initiated during these years these during initiated have ( Freeman, 30

ANDMETHODOLOGY

ise, n hne neecs eus very request inferences hence and issues, y ony ad rea 1987 Freeman and Romney, –

t ok a te structural the at looks it

2006, 2007, 2009, and 2009, 2007, 2006, t ps twrs the towards push ata . From the point of point the From .

h nodes. the hlr t also to cholars ; Eagle,

The CEU eTD Collection 2 lgsaie rpsl; h nme o dpte i te arx s 3 pu aohr that 3 another plus 333 is matrix the in deputies of number the proposals; legislative 722 accommodates matrix the 2009, For analyzed). were data the when account into taken were fin that deputies 22 another plus 2004 the in deputies of number 914 constant (the 2007, proposals initiated for proposals; legislative 994 accommodates matrix affiliation the 2006, year solution the be to seems Parliament Romanian ( transfo totally to power the has node single one because data, networked collecting in problem a usually is specification Boundary interests). or ideology, lines, party to (according Parliament the inside clusters collaboration identifying co and interests; and attachments (legislatoraffiliation ties as proposal) legislative a (initiating sponsorships using dataset, own my collected I literature, the in gap the in fill validly and reliably to and research my of topic the understand better to able be To 4.1 understanding pa for tools methodological feasible provides analysis network that argue I Thus, legislators. of behavior the for proxy valid a be to proposals initiated the consider I observation. of units self by unbiased data, objective through paper the in studied be therefore will aspects These collaboration. metaphor simple of of aspects structural hidden sometimes the about information retain They entities.quantifiable level the from networks of concept the Perliger and Pedahzur 2011 Pedahzur and Perliger

Data

-

rty dynamics andrty dynamics legislative behavior. eotn, r te sub other or reporting, among the nodes (legislators). The dataset consists of two types of data: data: of types two of consists dataset The (legislators). nodes the among - by - legislative proposal) data proposal) legislative ) . Therefore, looking at the whole population of legislators in the in legislators of population whole the at looking Therefore, . se ter adts n ewe tee w yas bt who but years, two these between in mandates their ished - fiito (legislator affiliation etv mtos f ahrn ifrain bu the about information gathering of methods jective 31

rm the network if it is included or excluded excluded or included is it if network the rm o onay pcfcto polm Fr the For problem. specification boundary to -

this type of data helps identify ideological ideological identify helps data typeof this

- by - eiltr dt th data legislator) cl osrcin t fully to constructions ical - 08 eiltrs a 325 was legislatures 2008 t s epu in helpful is at CEU eTD Collection relevant for this study for two reasons: first, it examines the importance of network structure structure network of importance the still examines it first, reasons: two is for study this for relevant participation, political individual and action collective purpose, different slightly „Opinion the reflect will thesis my in networks legislative the that expect I structures, network different on Based and co affiliation the of representations graphic the show I below UCINET, of program extension legislative the initiated MP1 LP5, legislatorLP4, LP1, proposals X, year In follows: as read be should table This sponsored a together. bill co 1 relation: a of absence or presence the show only data affiliation the representing matrices The (columns). legislator each by sponsored LPs by set other the and (rows), legislators the by represented is items of set one words, other sponsorshi by represented is relation the where (LPs), proposals legislative and (MPs) legislators between relationships binary of consists dataset affiliation The analyzed. were data finished their manda - fiito dtst osss f eain bten w lgsaos f n ol i they if only and if legislators two between relations of consists dataset affiliation - affiliation networks for the four years for networks thefouraffiliation analysis, changes. under tobetter visualize -

MP5 MP4 MP3 MP2 MP1 edr tp o ntok See‟ tplg, even typology, Siegel‟s network. of type Leader‟ the typology used by used typology the

LP1 LP = legislative proposal; MP =LP name MP of = thelegislator legislative proposal; tes in between these two years, accountwhen the whowere but into taken between these two tes in 0 0 1 1 1

and LP6, but did not initiate LP2, LP3, or LP7. Using NetDraw, an NetDraw, Using LP7. or LP3, LP2, initiate not did but LP6, and Table Table LP2 0 1 0 1 0

Siegel (2009 Siegel

1 . Example data affiliation of LP3 1 0 0 0 1

) – 32

to examine collective action in the context of context the in action collective examine to there is a re a is there

LP4 0 1 0 1 1

lation; 0 lation; LP5 0 1 1 0 1 though it was constructed for a a for constructed was it though

–

LP6 there is no relation. The relation. no is there 0 1 1 1 0

LP7 0 0 0 1 0

. In p. CEU eTD Collection individuals as the rest, they also pertain the substantive advantage of controlling resources resources controlling of advantage substantive the pertain also they rest, the as individuals of number higher a influence to able being of terms in present, nodes these that advantage besides Obviously, connections. many havingnetwork, the in hubs as work who opinion The legislature the of productivity incre the that suggest findings Their Congress. U.S. the inside what from away far 1998 small the in that finds Siegel second, at looks the it interaction characteristics motivations. between network and individual w making, decision collective for ases inasmall ases ) , participation is high, information spreads fast, mainly through strong ties. This is not is This ties. strong through mainly fast, spreads information high, is participation , Figure - leader network, as represented in the top right of Figure 1, shows several leaders several shows 1, Figure of right top the in represented as network, leader 1 . Siegel’s Network Typology (Network Visualizations) (Network Visualizations) Typology Network . Siegel’s - world typeworld network, toavery of due communication. pathfor smooth Tam Cho and Fowler (2010 Fowler and Cho Tam - world network, initially conceptualized by conceptualized initially network, world hile paying attention to individuals in the networks, and and networks, the in individuals to attention paying hile 33

)

found in their study on legislative networks legislative on study their in found ( ( Siegel 2009 Watt s and Strogatz Strogatz and s

the structural the

)

CEU eTD Collection representatives (Green) and the Independents (Pink). (Pink). Independents the and (Green) representatives cross and defined, better are clusters party the where networks, 2010 and 2009 the to compared as 2007, and 2006 in strong and diverse more be cross of traces Second, 2010. to 2006 from legislators among relationships collaboration increasing of trend a be to seems there First, observations. several show below 3 Figure in displayed networks The 2010 very clustered relationships. the of out sticking cluster bills particular any without so, more even initiating2009 in together, MPs of polarization clear a is there 2007 and 2006 in If process. initiative n Another 55%. to 52% from deputies, by initiated proposal of number the in increase slight a also is byinitiated cent, proposals Finally, per deputies. ten in2010,there there increase52% of isan In42 2007, governments‟ initiatives. or weretotal proposals withsenators.either byrest were initiated deputies or Thesenators‟ alone the of 47.7% only 2006, In years. four the all in case the is it as government, the by initiated MPs. by initiated not were that proposals legislative represent left the on squares isolate The year. particular that in proposal any initiate not did that legislators blue the and squ legislators, the represent circles red The 2010. and 2009 2007, 2006, years Fig participation, and vice versa. elites When influence. their under those for available r 2 elw ipas h aflain ewrs (legislator networks affiliation the displays bellow 2 ure rs ersn te ntae lgsaie rpsl. h ioae ice o te et are left the on circles isolate The proposals. legislative initiated the represent ares oticeable thing in the graphs is the centripetal characteristic of the proposal proposal the of characteristic centripetal the is graphs the in thing oticeable - party collaboration can be seen in all the networks, some of them appearing to to appearing them of some networks, the all in seen be can collaboration party

% of the proposals were initiated by deputies. In2009, bydeputies.were initiated proposals the of % 34

- party collaborations include the U the include collaborations party ae o mtvtos tee s less is there motivations, low have - by - legislative proposal) for the the for proposal) legislative They could have been been have could They

graph, to the to graph, DMR

Figure 2 . Graphic representation of theGraphic affiliationdata2006(top of left), representation 2007 (top. right), 2009(bottom left), 2010(bottomright)

CEU eTD Collection

Proposals Proposals Legislative Initiated Blue Legislators Red

Squares Circles

–

–

Figure 3 . Graphic representation of theGraphic of representation .

CEU eTD Collection co - affiliation data2006

(top left)

, 2007

(top right) , 2009

(bottom left) , 2010

(bottom right)

Pink Grey S (PUR Liberal Social Romania Partyof Brown Party Lilac Party(PC) Blue (UDMR) Romania of MagyarUnion Green PartyLiberal (PNL) Yellow (PD/PD 2008) February from PartyLiberal Party(Democra Orange Party(PSD) Democratic Red L)

–

– – – –

Social

–

Conservative Independents – Minorities Romania Great - –

– L)

the Democratic theDemocratic

Humanist National

Democratic

- tic –

-

CEU eTD Collection cosponsorship term the case, Romanian the In proposal. the of support in sign to legislators other persuade to has initiator the that means Cosponsorship legislators. individual t fromdifferent is sponsorship Congress, U.S. the In cosponsorship. and sponsorship American the at look us let aspect this clarify to order In legislation. of piece same the proposes that group collective i Romania in sponsorship of characteristic the since others, the all with MP one by initiated proposals of number the up add to sense make not does it words, other in cumulative; not is proposals of number the that noted be should It three MP2, legislator with together twoproposalproposals MP3, with proposal one initiated MP1 proposals. legislative fourof number total a initiated yearMP1 Inlegislator X, follows: as read be should table This year). particular a for etc., four three, four, (e.g. MP a by initiated proposals legislative of number co of example an 1, Table in example the Following other. each with legislator every bytogether toge bill a sponsored co The - fiito dt i peetd n al 2. Table in presented is data affiliation

- affiliation dataset consists of relations between two legislators if and only if they they if only and if legislators two between relations of consists dataset affiliation he one in the Romanian Parliament, because proposals can be initiated only by by only initiated be can proposals because Parliament, Romanian the in one he MP5 MP4 MP3 MP2 MP1 ther. The numbers in the cells represent the number of bills sponsored sponsored bills of number the represent cells the in numbers The ther.

Table Table MP1 2 2 3 1 4

MP =MP name of thelegislator 2 s with MP4, and MP4, MP5. s with . Example co of

MP2 1 2 3 1 0

37 Here, the diagonal values represent the total total the represent values diagonal the Here, s that there can be an individual initiator, or a or initiator, individual an be can there that s

MP3 - 1 4 2 3 1 affiliation data affiliation

MP4

4 1 1 2 1

MP5 1 1 0 2 2

os not does CEU eTD Collection ( characteristics structural by generated patterns to refer and biology, or mathematics, physics, for criteria like However, disciplines other in stones mile their found have backwards. analyses relational from generalizations going sounds impossible almost are generalizations sciences social in most counts what is generalize to able being where environment an In issue. validity external the is data proble important most the Probably compelling. seems sponsorship of mind, act the through another in one to legislators link to this chose I why justifying With data. the collecting of costs the and data, of availability the three question, on ultimately depends researcher the of decision the these options, of either of disadvantages and advantages methodological the in engaging Without network. a form legislators make that links the as attribute objective more a counting than differen very produce can legislators between ties as friendship counting networks, legislative in example, For important. very is nodes the between links as count to what about explained as First, met. be must criteria several why, and whom over influence more exerts who infer to co they but another, one from independent not are actors statisti classical to opposed As the Parliament, etc.). groupsminorityin the of byrepresentatives opposition, the from members particularby party, a of members the all (by legislator one than more by initiated be can proposals because exist, Barabásiand Cran above, the more complete the network is, the better. Second, making a decision decision a making Second, better. the is, network the complete more the above, dall 2003

; Barabasi 2010 cal approaches to studying behavior, SNA assumes that the the that assumes SNA behavior, studying to approaches cal ( ig Koae ad eb 1994 Verba and Keohane, King, ) .

38

m one would always have with networked networked with have always would one m - exist in interdependency. To be able able be To interdependency.in exist

things: the research research the things: ) , claiming that that claiming , t results results t

CEU eTD Collection a initiating for punished being him/her of probability the being than bigger is vote final the MP in dissenting for party the by an punished of probability the words, other In proposal. initiated an than consequences in vote final a advantage: one bares behavior legislators‟ about infer to votes MPs‟ final on preferences. than rather sponsorships on focusing However, own their to than more cohesion of pressures party to response in th proposals say can one proposals, initiated to reasoning this Extending parties, and MPs notofindividual endogenous preferences from appear votes, parties patterns of thenvoting influence members‟ biases statistical significant by affected are and scores, loyalty party level individual provide not do voting, consensual for account not do but parties, and issues theory c probability cohesion calculate analysis of unit the as votes call roll individual intra of aspect the hide might data call roll on Relying own. their of subfield a in developed have analyses call roll However, countries. across comparable hardly are data call roll of analyses d to due votes second, recorded); any hardly are there others, in year; every session each for recorded systematically are votes legislatures some (in country to country from differs data the of availability the h Severalproblems bias. selection of that is votes past from estimating by behavior parliamentarians‟ inferring with problems acclaimed the of One sponsorships?4.1.1 Why -

and inter and - party differences at the pre the at differences party ( Anderson, Watts, and Wilcox 1 Wilcox and Watts, Anderson,

ifferences in voting rules and the nature of the party competition, competition, party the of nature the and rules voting in ifferences legislative proposal that has less chances of getting passed in passed getting of chances less has that proposal legislative ( K am 2001 - floor stages stages floor ) 39 .

h Primn wih mr i trs of terms in more weighs Parliament the 966 ave been spotted with roll call data: first,data:call roll with spotted beenave ) (

Owens 2003 Owens to allow comparisons across policy policy across comparisons allow to t P iiit particular initiate MPs at ) . Some studies that use that studies Some . ( efcet bsd on based oefficients epst 2006 Desposato ) If .

CEU eTD Collection of thesame as ofthe between bill thelinks Congress, that: arguing twomembers s a In levelindicators ofobjectivenessused oftomeasure behavior. the concerning claims making about cautious be should one research, science social of nature very the by Nonetheless, act. the of consequences the on therefore and constraini MP, the lesser over power a have they because preferences, induced electorally their and issues I onpolicy though, of nointention have distinguishing between personal theMPs‟ preferences intentions, voting their and preferences the measuring MPs‟ connecting discussion their a reflects In proposal policy preference. the if party their against proposal a initiate would MPs as This assum the on based is statement plenary. the in voting of act the to compared as interests, or preferences ideological their on based proposal a sponsor to MPs to liberty more gives proposals initiating However, for persuasion purposes bill, the passing for vote in advantage (for possible as party/alliance legislative a of members many as by initiated are proposals that assume to fair is It preferences. his/her to according M an for freedom more for allows proposals initiating of act the that said be can it Therefore, bill. the of approval in vote to Parliament the in majority a getting of probability betw minds proposal particular that (if pass to proposal block in the vote they initiating that MPs assuming of number the of function a is latter The Parliament. the tudy on the American Congress, Tam Cho and Fowler (2010) focus on cosponsorships cosponsorships on focus (2010) Fowler and Cho Tam Congress, American the on tudy Cosponsorship embodies a social component by bringing together members of of members together bringing by shared component via Congress social a embodies Cosponsorship e te ie hy ntae t n te ie hy ae o oe n t ad the and it) on vote to have they time the and it initiate they time the een wog rfrne i otn h cs. n okn a te c o sponsorship of act the at looking In case. the often is preference‟ „wrong –

appearingas a very import

neet o atiue. lcoa cneto tere (Mayhew theories connection Electoral attributes. or interests ption that policy issues matter for legislative behavior, insofar insofar behavior, legislative for matter policyissues that ption 40

ant bill andant a bill cohesiveparty, etc.).

–

and do not change their their change not do and

P to behave to P

ng ng CEU eTD Collection bill the that attention pay would legislator a bill, a sponsoring when that likely is it words, electorate the with relationship her of because bill the on working in interested princi ideology, one‟s against goes that something on signature her put not would one since proposal, the on peers with debate and legislati reading close a implies still this proposal, the of authors the not but initiators, the are sponsors two the by then and commission, parliamentary the implementation, of mechanisms bypassed beto bill the wantsone treated superficiallyif becannot group,that feasibilityaspects etc., target stands, it which on values and principles desig it: to related aspects the all of think to need proposal legislative a make to want that members the since relationships, working close implies bill a initiating of process The (sponsors).initiators Pa the in documented formulated the proposals legislative All legislature. Romanian the in case the always almost is though latter The collectively. or individually both bill a propose can They bill. the of initiators/authors the In signature. by it supporting but bill, the of author the being not to refers „Cosponsoring‟ it. of author the be to Congress have necessarily not the does but of bill, a initiates member a means States United the in „Sponsoring‟ initiators. the is/are w and bill a of author the is who between differentiating to refers simply procedures and Romanian the between difference The n hs ieaue s ht rus f opnos hr sgiiat xeine and experiences significant share cosponsors of groups attributes that is literature this in 1995) Krehbiel 1997; Krehbiel document of to cosponsorship and (Gillian preferences budgetary and expertise used Theoriesby defined legislators between links also have districts). Scholars 1996). safe Krehbiel and versus (Kessler marginal (e.g., security interlegislativesignaling electoral perhaps by are or similar linked ideologically are cosponsor who legislators that posit 1974) ( Tam Cho andFowler 2010

suggest cosponsorship is meant to influence other legislatorsotherinfluence to meant iscosponsorship suggest . Whatever the linking mechanism, a common thread common a mechanism, linking the Whatever . sponsorship ples or values. What is more, a sponsor would also be be also would sponsor a more, is What values. or ples ) . rliament contain the names and signatures of the the of signatures and names the contain rliament

41

and the U.S. the and cosponsorship ve Chambers. Even if the the if Even Chambers. ve

Romania, the sponsors are sponsors the Romania,

terminologies –

n, goals, goals, n, in other other in ho CEU eTD Collection I dyads, of analyses consider that approaches other to opposed as However, tie. collaboration constituency the or attrib membership are party membership the Substantively, composition. the attributes individual the and network, the of structure the considered be can variables relational The Kossinets 2006 netwo in data missing of effects the of analysis detailed a (for researcher the for challenges important conveys analysis network in Sampling samples. with working not and change. networks, legislators‟ whole the this analyzing by avoided are from bias selection of Problems emerging trends new the of crystallization the for allow I elimination this By systems. electoral of types two the between year transition a be to it consider I as years for networks (explicit years specific for out mapped networks smaller between comparison a on as well as goal a of signs observe I precisely I Second, time. over undergone have they changes the and networks the of topology the in interested ideol membership, party as such factors by affected are they how and are there particularities structural what see to frame, time particular a in (MPs) I First, ideas. two follow I Roma the inside networks collaboration political the of analysis the on Based 4.2 legislativeinitiated betweenthe links seem proposals to represent fit legislators. go not would

achievement to constituency to achievement Methodology

ou o te fet te lcoa sse cag hd n h networ the on had change system electoral the effects the on focus against the social, economic and political realities in her constituency. Hence, Hence, constituency. her in realities political and economic social, the against ) .

2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010). I leave out the year 2008 from the analysis, the from 2008 year the out leave I 2010). and 2009, 2007, 2006,

utes that influence the probabilities of legislators forming a a forming legislators of probabilities the influence that utes

map out the network the out map

geographical - service politics. The study The politics. service

shift from legislators interested in central party party central in interested legislators from shift 42

s of the Romanian Members of Members Romanian the of s ogy, and interests. I am particularly particularly am I interests. and ogy,

focus es

on the overall network, network, overall the on nian Parliam nian rk analysis, see see analysis, rk

Parliament ks, more more ks, ent, ent,

CEU eTD Collection the for measures centrality the calculate I constituencies? same the from deputies other with proposals initiate constituencies certain from coming deputies do much bet How deputies. relationships collaboration the out map I hypothesis, the test to order In tend tobe Therefore, toosmall. inference withlinear models potentiallyunreliable. is are that as errors standard the since appear analyses, statistical traditional to may used scholars for inference problematic data, network on measures these performing While measures. extensi NetDraw its with program, analysis network social a UCINET, is analyses the performing in Iuse software The complexity,givenresearch andavailable, the thedata reasonable approach. questions seemsa high; be might might patterns the results of accuracy the the however, of precision The skills. programming good and very models or mathematical software sophisticated requires attributes their to according actor each Formeasuring legislators. 380 aroundcontains analysis under considered years four the of each more, is What seats. retained parties 6 2008, since 2004 the with system, multiparty a has hard very is relationships dyadic measuring change, composition dynamic a such at Therefore, parliament. in once ties form to try newcomers the while collaboration, 40% about of was 2008 in change new The systems. electoral two the between changing is composition network suggests research my of nature the first, reasons: two in grounded I words, other In groups. small immediate with interaction individual single the on focus to choose

computed for interdependent data, while assuming that the data points are independent, independent, are points data the that assuming while data, interdependent for computed comers. This fact indicates that the other 60% of the legislators already have a history of of history a have already legislators the of 60% other the that indicates fact This comers.

ok t fiitos f niiul eiltr t eitn gop. hs hie is choice This groups. existing to legislators individual of affiliations at look on, a useful visualization tool. I also employ conventional statistical conventional employ also I tool. visualization useful a on, - 2008 legislature accommodating nine parties, while while parties, nine accommodating legislature 2008

43 be ambiguous. Thus, choosing parsimony over over parsimony choosing Thus, ambiguous. be

probabilities of collaboration between between collaboration of probabilities . Second, Romania Romania Second, . ween similar similar ween

CEU eTD Collection inf of suffer will network the actors key these Without network. the in spreads information way an the in play role nodes important which out find can one words, other In network. the in have they position iden helps measure This actor. an through go actors third and second between paths betweenness shortest the of is many how shows employed which centrality, method Another network. the in actors key towards indicates th show will measure This has. node a ties direct of number the to refers it and centrality degree Freeman‟s is used be to measures the of first The in relation for exampletotheMPs. committee of memberships patte understanding in role meaningful a have then will networks Weighted often. more together collaborate to tend party same the within from legislators that is assumption the if mostly meaningful more become values these labels, party can specific at looking By values. some Iget and it adding by data the legislators aggregate between relationship the of strength the in interested were I if example, in of are networks of types these Both B). with collaborate A did times many how (i.e., other each with collaborate legislators certain often how of terms in relationship the of strength the show collaborat A (if form simplest their in relationships collaboration show networks unweighted The networks. weighted of that is here concept important An Parliament. the in whom with proposals initiates who tells a I constituencies. on based data attribute with subgroups networks the inside groups cohesive and cliques comparing the by needed, is networks the within at look closer a Further, distances). geodesic and closeness, betweenness, w actors certain of prominence the tell measures These networks. terest in this paper, depending on the assumptions put forward when analyzing them. For For them. analyzing when forward put assumptions the on depending paper, this in terest ormation interruption. Measuring the extent to which the network network the which to extent the Measuring interruption. ormation ed with B or not). The weighted networks, on the other hand, hand, other the on networks, weighted The not). or B with ed tify the “best” nodes in terms of the geographical geographical the of terms in nodes “best” the tify 44 lso look at the deputy the at look lso

rns of collaboration, especially cross especially collaboration, of rns e centrality of the nodes, which further further which nodes, the of centrality e

ithin the network (degree, (degree, network the ithin - by - deputy data, which which data, deputy attributes, such as as such attributes, - party party CEU eTD Collection permutations 1000 default UCINET‟s the at procedure, randomization a using constructed is underlying distribution the that exception the with test, square chi standard a performing to similar is pro The membership. party their by patterned are MPs the among collaborations the if tests then procedure The MP). each of affiliation party the represents which vector (a variable relat test The variables. categorical with relationships dyadic mixed for Table Contingency Relational co symmetric the for fr increase should networks collaboration of scores density the which to according hypothesis, density the test to Further, “bridges” actors. tobe ableclusters, thebehavior tounderstand those between two of ro and importance the understand easily more can sub the at looking Furthermore, education). or policy, foreign cross (e.g. interest expertise of grounds on collaborate l the increases This together. working parties different from members of formed are which committees, specialized of existence the as such arrangement institutional t in role important an plays that node, connected densely a indicates actor an of neighborhood dense A nodes. other to ties affiliated their and nodes the at look to means clustering displays he cluster and further in the network. Overlaps will most probably occur, mainly due to the to due mainly occur, probably most will Overlaps network. the in further and cluster he s dai bnr vral (n h MP the (in variable binary dyadic a es ( Cliff and OrdCliff and1973 - affiliation matrix, which is partitioned into groups, through the the through groups, into partitioned is which matrix, affiliation om 2006 to 2010, I will do a randomization test of autocorrelation autocorrelation of test randomization a do will I 2010, to 2006 om ) .

45

les of individual actors that can operate as operate can that actors individual of les - to - MP adjacency matrix) to a monadic monadic a to matrix) adjacency MP - party collaboration among experts of experts among collaboration party - structures of the network, one one network, the of structures ikelihood of MPs to to MPs of ikelihood

cedure cedure CEU eTD Collection the between connection the for calculated is density the and sets, two are proposals) initiated and (legislators modes two the rather themselves, among connected not are vertices the data netw each densityfor low a have to is expectation yearThe before. the than proposals more initiate MPs year, each that suggesting increasing, is density the Visibly, count the see to order in networks, four the of density the at looked I data affiliation the for First, 5.1.1 Density party within motivates also it if see to and collaboration party or cross collaboration. MPs of attention working the captures le of kind what understand relevantto is legislation.This of respectivepiece that pass tocollaboratetogether MPs to inorder most ofimportant forandthe themenables which MPs wha initiated legislator what about information containing one the is at look I that matrix of type first The Connections and 5.1 clusters affiliation). 2 the for computed measures (legislator matrix affiliation matrices: co and of proposal), types two use I above, noted As

of the number of ties, by dividing the raw count by the maximum possible in the graphs. graphs. the possiblein maximum bythe count raw the dividing by ties, of number the of

pooa. hs dt hl ietf wa pee o lgsain ee most were legislation of pieces what identify help data These proposal. t - affiliation matrix (legislator matrix affiliation CHAPTER 5. - mode data (affiliation data), and then for the 1 the for then and data), (affiliation data mode

RESULTS

46 - by

-

legislator). I first present the resu the present first I legislator). ANDIMPLICATIONS ork, because in 2 in because ork, - mode data (co data mode

- by lts of the the of lts - gislation initiated initiated - mode mode - CEU eTD Collection be networks observedfor theother i Something present. are legislators among ties possible all of 18% 2006, co the for deviation standard the and year each for scores density average the shows 3 Table MPs. among collaborations of frequency the about information density reveals The ties. possible of number the by divided ties the of sum the is networks the of density the data, valued For network). the in legislators other all with collaborated legislator mat affiliation the in (co data mode 2 from it transformed I data, affiliation the of sense make better to order In legislators proposals andeach initiated legislative year. density the shows 2 Table sets. distinct two - affiliation matrix matrix affiliation 2010 2009 2007 2006

i, h co the rix,

Table Table Table Table Density Scores 2006 2010 2009 2007 4

. Co 3 0.0191 0.0094 0.0082 0.0053 – . Affiliation Data -

affiliation one displays valued data (number of times a a times of (number data valued displays one affiliation legislator

– - affiliation Dataaffiliation the density increases. Avg. Density

1.45 0.63 0.39 0.18

- by scores for each of the years, and the number of of number the and years, the of each for scores 47 -

No. of MPsNo. of legislator). As opposed to the binary relations binary the to opposed As legislator).

- 336 336 367 368

Density Scores –

Density Scores St. dev.St.

2.6379 1.3481 1.4709 0.5735

No. of LPsNo. of 885 722 914 994

nteresting can then can nteresting

- affiliation data. In In data. affiliation - mode data to 1 to data mode - CEU eTD Collection 2009, 2007,21;in ties; in 16,and in 2010, 20. 11 was node a of density average neighborhood the 2006, in that means This 1.776. and 2.002 2007 in 0.929; is one weighted 1.1 is coefficient clustering overall the 2006, In values. low maintaining thus 20, and varies between together legislators11 tocluster the tendency of rather the loosenetworks, network each of coefficient clustering the computed I networks, the of “texture” the grasp better to Next, 5.1.3 Clustering Coefficient for tocollaboratetogether2006, even twoMPs then very was isnot ifthe it difference big. in cohesiveness respective their with pairs reachable among distance average the for results the presents 4 Table 2010. to 2006 from along goes one as nodes of pair a between distance shorter a towards indicates trend the too disc pattern the following and network, the of co characteristic the for distances geodesic computed I calculated. is actors between distance the when networks these from extracted be can information More 5.1.2 G

Average reachable(among pairs) distance eodesic Distances eodesic Table Table Ee tog te epcie este o te ewrs hwd ht hy are they that showed networks the of densities respective the though Even . 5 . The average. The distance (among pairs) byyear reachable Distance

– - 2.101 and 1.907; in 2009 in 1.907; and 2.101 based cohesion based

scores. The values indicate that in 2010 it was easier easier was it 2010 in that indicate values The scores. 48

2006 0.41 2.03 -

fiito mtie. s macro a As matrices. affiliation

– ussed above for the density, here here density, the for above ussed

1.898 and 1.627; and in 2010 2010 in and 1.627; and 1.898 0.415 1.887 2007

0.606 1.697 2009

66, and the the and 66, 0.728 1.531 2010

–

-

CEU eTD Collection for of24,852, is67ties out in the2006network centrality degree mean The centralization. network overall the and observations), of (number year each is MPs of number the (sum), ties possible of number total the (mean), has node a the for values the presents 5 Table legislators. other with relations collaboration developed MP respective the more the to, connected is MP a legislators more the context, this In others. of number a to is node this connected more the node, a of value degre the higher The has. node a ties direct of number the to refers measure centrality This 5.2.1 Degree Centrality inferences withthehighest persons about the particular scores. D legislators. the of names the on focus not do I computed. measures centrality the by shown as actors most important the of results the just present will I simplicity, of sake the For patters. collaboration party central the for one earlier, they discussed are As organization. what and network the in actors powerful and prominent most the are who observe to interesting is it networks, political about is paper this Because well, as actors individual at look to is approach the now, the in actors important about whole only followed that section previous the to opposed As network. information out finding with deals paper the of part This Centr 5.2 ality measures isplaying them is only a matter of making a point clear, and not to make to not and clear, point a making of matter a only is them isplaying

should see a difference from 2006 to 2010 in the the in 2010 to 2006 from difference a see should 49

a network of368 nodes.

in order to understand their roles. roles. their understand to order in

verage number of ties a ties of number verage - network characteristics, characteristics, network

e CEU eTD Collection network, of withacentralization about 45% other to compared as values, centralization low are these however, Overall, resources. to as well as others important to access them give which positions advantaged their to due colleagues, their on influence of level higher a exert centra degree highest the with network actors increases, the values centralization when words, other In have. degree high a with actors influence the of terms in networks the in relationships the are unequal how tells measure centralization network The new working their ties with colleagues developing of potential their for also but MPs, connected most the as position their for only not important are They legislators. other with ties new form easily very can they that fact the coll most the formed actors these that indicate scores degree These PD from 1,733), = (degree Mircia Giurgiu again is score degree highest the with legislator PD party, r now the of member Mircia, Giurgiu is ties of number highest the with MP the 2009, In (PNL). Party Liberal National party coalition ruling the of member is He 844). = (degree ne the in node connected most the is and (PSD), Party Democratic Social party, ruling legislature‟s 200 In twork. For the 2007 network, Puşcă Mircea Valer is the most connected legislator legislator connected most the is Valer Mircea Puşcă network, 2007 the For twork. , odce lrn a te ihs dge (ere 23. e s mme o that of member a is He 283). = (degree degree highest the has Florin Iordache 6, - L

Network Centralization –

Democrat No. of Obs. No. of - iea Pry wt 62 olbrto te. ial, n 00 the 2010, in Finally, ties. collaboration 692 with Party, Liberal Table Table Mean Sum 6 . Degree year by Centrality

.

24,852 0.031 2006 368 67

( types of networks such as Knoke‟s information Knoke‟s as such networks of types Knoke and 19 Knoke Kuklinski

50

0.04805 52,306 2007 367 142

0.05345 70,542 2009 336 209

aboration ties and point to point and ties aboration

82 lity are people who can can who people are lity

) . 0.10386 163,794

2010 336 487

uling uling - L. CEU eTD Collection (PSD+PC Mircea Duşa 0.88%. in 31,841, of out 94, is mean the 2010, in Finally, 2.85%. is index centralization network overall The legislators. 336 of network a in 36,009, of out 107, is mean The 697. 1 = betweenness network The 367. of 1.2 network is a centralization in 1670, 4 of out 113, is measure The this representative. for group mean overall minority a 943), = (betweenness Aledin Amet is network the info of terms in network the in node powerful most the seems legislator This score. degree highest the had who same the 1,694), = (betweenness Florin Iordache is score betweenness highest the with legislator The high many from MPs ties other with parties. boundaries, party the keep in boundaries party to the cross legislators many order that mean would scores in betweenness and network, large a is this since 36 specific a in (working constraint of network a in 50,937, of out 138, institutional is mean betweenness the 2006, In committee). specialized the simply by or positions, influential legislat the are These interruption. information of suffer will network the actors key these Without network. the in informationway spreads roleinthe whichnodesan important centrality, playfind out can one netwo the the in of have they terms position in geographical nodes “best” the identify helps measure This actor. an through third go and actors second between paths shortest the of many how shows centrality Betweenness 5.2.2 Betweenness centrality 8 nodes. The network centralization index is 2.32%, a very low value, but an expected one, one, expected an but value, low very a 2.32%, is index centralization network The nodes. 8 ntok f 3. h ntok etaiain s h lws aog h aaye years, analyzed the among lowest the is centralization network The 336. of network a % I 20, ua ail (PD Daniel Buda 2009, In 5%. ors that connect different groups inside the Parliament, either by their their by either Parliament, the inside groups different connect that ors rmation spread, or knowledge share. In 2007, the “best” node in in node “best” the 2007, In share. knowledge or spread, rmation

–

the alliance between the Social the between alliance the 51 rk. In other words, by computing betweenness betweenness computing by words, other In rk.

- ) s h lgsao wt te highest the with legislator the is L) - Democratic Party and the the and Party Democratic

forming CEU eTD Collection collaborations among legislators. of number relevant the to according points cut collaboration subsequent the at 2010 and 2009 co the display 7 to 4 Figures networks. the of display visual the examine to useful is it numbers, at looking Before 10). to 7 (Tables section Appendices the in reported are year each for analysis (RCT) Table Contingency a Relational computed I formulas electoral the legislator the for of autocorrelation of test characteristics randomization the to due 2010 to 2006 from sec the testing For The Density5.3 Test parties. political the for disadvantage huge a be to argued be might party nonetheless, the This, outside boundaries. ties working developing start to easy is it which in thesis, the in earlier „Opinion an indicate they precisely, more network, hierarchical less a indicate these however, Here, example). for network, disruption, hierarchical highly (information disadvantage a considered been have might values betweenness s circumstances, other In 583). = (betweenness node “best” the is Party) Conservative

ond hypothesis that density of collaboration relationships should increase should relationships collaboration of density that hypothesis ond

52 - affiliation networks for networks affiliation

- edr tp o ne of type Leader‟ - by - legislator data. The results for the the for results The data. legislator

the years 2006, 2007, 2007, 2006, years the twork as discussed discussed as twork uch low uch CEU eTD Collection are ties collaboration five at gr the of component main who the from disconnected (Pink), independents some by represented is clique colleagues. Anotherclearly theirdisconnected from obvious eight together, proposals initiated t tend that legislators eight of formed them of one with party, the string the therefore, way, a hierarchical more in wherework rather MPs modular network, ina aligned (Red) be to seem Social the collaborators: of groups several observe can one legislature, 2006 the Inside study. previous any bynow by unrevealed structuresnetwork some see clearlycan One than the agreed oncut point. s hand left the on isolates The UCINET. by counted not is MPs two between link initial the because four of point cut a at collaborations five is It times. five than more even together collaborated that MPs on relationships stronger represents between ties thi The the together. proposals initiating representson times five collaborated line that legislators black thin The of numbers proposals. five initiating at 2006, on in MPs collaborations the of network weighted the see can one 4, Figure In

Figure 4 . Co - affiliation network with partyaffiliation network membership 4 atcut point - like shape of the red squares. Three cliques though stick out inside inside out stick though cliques Three squares. red the of shape like

53

aph (the PSD and others). A third interesting interesting third A others). and PSD (the aph ide are MPs that collaborated less times times less collaborated that MPs are ide o maintain their ties up to up ties their maintain o

Pink Grey (PUR Romania Brown Party Lilac (PC) Blu (UDMR) MagyarUnion of Romania Green Party(PNL) Yellow (PD/PD from February 2008) (DemocraticLiberal Party Orange Party(PSD) Red e

–

– – - – –

SL)

Social

ck black line line black ck

– ConservativeParty Independents – - Minorities - GreatRomania –

– L)

theDemocratic

- – HumanistParty of NationalLiberal

2006

DemocraticParty Democrats

SocialLiberal

- Democratic

CEU eTD Collection memberships. cross that suggest to seems This Services. Specific and Industry Food Forestry, Agriculture, for Committee co parliamentary in membership their at looking by explained be can parties different of members between ties working strong PUR three and (Blue) members Conservative two (Green), members two with Democrats the of member a between collaboration the graph: the of middle the in appears structure interesting most The independentsLiberals andthe (Yellow). n particular PD/PD the of members are groups other in infiltrated squares orange the appear: characters interesting si a as parties, other the from disconnected also are They (Orange). members Party‟s Democratic the among collaboration Social the of members with proposals main initiating the som to of connected because still graph, the are of they component themselves, among connection strong a have to seem though even who (Lilac), Party Romania Great the of members the by formed is clique - etwork they appear to have been having collaborations more constantly with the the with constantly more collaborations having been have to appear they etwork L who collaborated with members of other parties for at least five times. In this this In times. five least at for parties other of members with collaborated who L

- party collaborations might be understood by looking at committee committee at looking by understood be might collaborations party gn of maintaining their party line behavior. However, some some However, behavior. line party their maintaining of gn mmittees. Most of them were members in 2006 in the the in 2006 in members were them of Most mmittees.

e of their members‟ repeated collaboration on on collaboration repeated members‟ their of e

54 of the Liberals, with a Hungarian representative Hungarian a with Liberals, the of -

Democratic Party. Another component is the is component Another Party. Democratic – SL members (Brown). These These (Brown). members SL CEU eTD Collection is graph the in group diverse more the Again, members. PD as well as collaboration, third the at already very relationships its a of most lost displays PSD PNL, which to comparison PNL In cluster. connected inside mainly strong, very are relationships the that means This proposals. initiating on collaborations eight already at MPs among relationships b should It connected clusters of tothemain thecomponent. PUR of members between appears collaboration party Party Social the Romania from members with Great typically party, the by represented is collabo more for allow they PNL, to comparison by though, representatives, cluster strong rather Another parties. other of members with collaborating in lines party the outside going often very bloc, cohesive a form They members. Party‟s Liberal National the yellowis graph the clear in represented The cluster appear. changes some collaborations of network weighted 2007 the In Figure e emphasized that this time, the cut point was 7, meaning that the graph represents graph the that meaning 7, was point cut the time, this that emphasized e 5 . Co - affiliation withaffiliation partynetwork membership 7 atcut point 55 -

eortc at o te eort. Cross Democrats. the or Party Democratic

- SL, PSD and PD, this structure being structure this PD, and PSD SL,

Pink Grey Liberal(PUR ofRomania Brown Party Lilac Party(PC) Blue Romania(UDMR) MagyarUnion of Green LiberalParty (PNL) Yellow L) Februar LiberalParty from Party(Democratic Orange Party(PSD) Red ration outside the the outside ration

–

– – – –

Social

–

– Conservative In y(PD/PD 2008) – Minorities GreatRomania –

–

theDemocratic

dependents HumanistParty National

2007 Democratic

– - -

Democratic Social SL)

very very well well

- - CEU eTD Collection a of presence the is though curious is What lines. party across collaboration of patterns strong the explains Services Specific and Industry Food Forestry, Agriculture, for Committee th which with cluster PD the to connected (Grey) representative minority a of and (Red) members PSD three of persistence the is here striking is what However, interconnected. highlyare They (Orange). some appear: clusters disconnected (Ye Party Liberal the main from legislators Two proposals. initiating on together times 10 collaborated network the in appear that MPs the meaning nine, of point cut a at legislature the shows above 6 Figure which them. system encourage electoral should new the of characteristics the of to density due higher relationships, a collaboration display should network weighted The districts. member single with Th also are forCommittee Agriculture,IndustryFoodand Forestry, Specific Services. that parties legislative various from members by represented e 2009 network is already part of the new electoral systemelectoralnew the alreadyof is networkpart 2009 e Figure 6 . Co . - affiliation withaffiliation partynetwork membership 9 atcut point ey collaborated for already ten times. Again, membership in the the in membership Again, times. ten already for collaborated ey llow) and some legislators from the Democrat the from legislators some and llow) 56

olbrto rltosis nie the inside relationships collaboration , the mixed the , - member proportional proportional member

Pink Grey Romania(UDMR) MagyarUnion of Green LiberalParty (PNL) Yellow L) February(PD/PD 2008) LiberalParty from Party(Democratic Orange Party(PSD) Red members in the the in members

–

– –

Social

–

- Independ Minorities –

–

theDemocratic

2009 National

Democratic

- - Democratic Liberals Liberals ents

- - L CEU eTD Collection to (Tables7 section Appendicesthe analysisin displayed this are of results showingthe tables Relationa a computed I membership, party shared their on based MPs between relationships collaboration of aspect „homophily‟ the test to order In Finance,Banks and, different parties: the from MPs among relationships collaboration strong enable to seem committees other return, In strength. loses committee this 2010 in Services, Specific and Industry Food F Agriculture, for Committee the of members between happened collaboration party cross strongest the networks previous the in If other. each to connected strongly are two The clear the see o clustering can one collaboration, of level this at Even proposals. initiating in together times 11 least at for collaborated have network this in legislators the that means which nine, stron the have to seems graph 2010 The Means.Mass Communication minority Figure representative (Grey), the Vice the (Grey), representative Committee for Culture, Arts, Mass Information Culture, Means Arts, for Committee Mass f the main two parties: PD parties: two main the f 7 . Co . - affiliation withaffiliation partynetwork membership 10 atcut point , and the , and Committee for Legal forCommittee Matters,Immunities Discipline, and

- L, the governing party, and PSD, the opposition party. opposition the PSD, and party, governing the L, gest collaboration relationships. The cut point here is is here point cut The relationships. collaboration gest - Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and and Arts Culture, for Committee the of Chairperson 57

l Contingency Table analysis. The The analysis. Table Contingency l , th e Committee for Budget, forCommittee Budget,

Pink Grey (UDMR) MagyarUnion of Romania Green Party(PNL) Yellow (PD/PD from February 2008) (DemocraticLiberal Party Orange Party(PSD) Red

–

– –

Social

–

Independents Minorities - –

-

– L)

theDemocratic

NationalLiberal

DemocraticParty 2010

- Democratic orestry, orestry, .

- CEU eTD Collection 2006 and 2010. years the for least at well, as showed analyses previous the as networks, the of density the in distributed. similarly not is acrossparties collaboration that indicate results The rejected. been has change no of hypothesis null the that meaning ones, expected the than greater are observations the for values observed The chance. 2010 (2006 significant were 2010 and 2006 for computed ones the only analyses, four the of Out MPs. among ties of formation the facilitate not words did other change system In electoral other. the to year one from networks the of density the in change no is there that is hypothesis null The 4992.916. 2010, for and 2813.649; network, 2009 the for ch Pearson The expected values the under independence model. from frequenciesdifferthe thattheobserved tables is inthese analysis. observation under One years the b of each have in seats having matrices parties legislative The of number the value. to according expected partitioned the by divided expected the the of minus square observed the as reported, is value square chi observed the Further, table. second the th reports table third A groups. the throughout distributed randomly and independent are MPs between tiesthe that assumption the on based frequencies, the of valuesexpected givesthe which table membe party the to corresponding table contingency a in frequencies classified cross the shows that table a contain They 10). –

i. .37, hc en htte20 n 09rsls c results 2009 and 2007 the that means which 0.0327), = sig. e observed values in each cell of the first table divided by the corresponding cell in in cell corresponding the by divided table first the of cell each in values observed e

i square value for the 2006 test is 2950.329; for 2007, the values is 1465.823; 1465.823; is values the 2007, for 2950.329; is test 2006 the for value square i si atiue n te legislator the and attribute rship The chi square test confirms that there was a change change a therewas that confirms squaretest chi The 58

- by ould be explained by explained be ould - eiltr aae; a dataset; legislator –

sig. = 0.0105; = sig. , the the , een een CEU eTD Collection can who people are centrality degree highest the with network actors increases, the values centralization when words, other In have. degree high a with actors influence the of terms how tell values centralization network The into taken are networks the account. of sizes the if value low rather a nodes, 27 varies and coefficient 12 clustering between The 2010. to 2009 from as well as 2007, and 2006 between t the though big, very not is difference the if even 2006, in was it than 2010 in together collaborate to MPs two for easier is It 2010. to 2006 from along An year. goes one to as nodes of pair a between distance year shorter a is there that suggests spotted tendency from legislators among collaborations of number the in increase an is there that indicates trend first The analysis. under years of blocs two the between and th Thus, section. results the in identified were networks the of characteristics The Parliament. the in proposals initiate legislators how of understanding the for relevant are measures certain why e (Zhang membership committee and region, party, with well quite correlate communities Collaboration 2008). al. et (Zhang cross stronger The lines. party th found: have (2008) al. et Zhang what to similar quite are results These networks. these of features main the detect to as measures centrality network employing 2010, and 2009 2007, years2006, the for parliament Romanian the inside the out map to was here aim my thesis, the of beginning the in noted As Implications 5.4

oooyo h ewrssest niaecnitn hne btente years the between changes consistent indicate to seems networks the of topology e

- at claoain cnim eonzd oiia behavior political recognized confirm collaborations party t al. 2008). The above sections have focused on explaining on focused have sections above The 2008). al. t

unequal the relationships in the networks are in in are networks the in relationships the unequal 59

e partitioning does not lie precisely along along precisely lie not does partitioning e ed emd o e decreasing be to seemed rend

legislative networks networks legislative other other CEU eTD Collection cross coordinating leaders/brokers opinion with legislature, 2008 Opinion my earlier, shown As network. world small a resembles Congress US the that out find (2010) Fowler and Cho Tam them tocross from when the party other initiatingMPs parties. with lines proposals central the to accountable more is characteristic this holds, institutionalism closed a under that expect would one since counterintuitive, choice rational of assumptions basic the relationships collaboration formed MPs bloc, the first the both control brokers in these that indicate networks the earlier, Overall, it. inside and seen membership party outside collaborations be could as However, party. the outside for easily to prone more are individuals because boundaries, party hierarchical, less weakens this is that argue can one network pole, opposite the the At relationships. horizontal because encouraging thing, positive a is (brokers) intermediaries relaas work that individuals few having that conveysthat one here: suggested becan interpretations of kinds different Two low. were measures centrality betweenness the Same, theyalsoones seemdiscipline. be whomaintainparty to the on influence more even exert leaders these that out pointing significantly increases centralization network the where system, SMDs with MMP the in contrary, the On w people (those brokers‟ „opinion the to listen to seem MPs system, lists closed with PR the in that shows observation This resources. to as well as others important to access them give of level higher a exert t te ihs dge cnrlt) ee tog te codnt cross coordinate they though even centrality), degree highest the ith - Leaders networks, in Siegel‟s terms, rather than the former (the case of the 2004 the of case (the former the than rather terms, Siegel‟s in networks, Leaders results suggest that the Romanian sponsorship networks are more like like more are networks sponsorship Romanian the that suggest results influence on their colleagues, due to their advantaged positions which positions advantaged their to due colleagues, their on influence party organization, therefore decreasing the incentives for for incentives the decreasing therefore organization, party 60

more outside the party lines. If one of of one If lines. party the outside more

- lists system legislators would be be would legislators system lists - party collaborations). The The collaborations). party m new ties with people people with ties new m - party collaborations. collaborations. party their colleagues, colleagues, their

tionships tionships - CEU eTD Collection local the on dependent more and organization, party central the on dependent less MPs make would system a such that are expectations districts, members single with system proportional c rational a from unexpected, counter of traces fewer are there but (UDMR), party minority Hungarian the and group, independents‟ larger the involve frequent more is discipline party and big, very not is 2009 bloc, second the In collaboration relationships. weight much how to as drawn be can inference that so MPs, of labels party and names with confronted be then can which constructed, be might stands ideological and issues policy on proposals the le specific the into depth in more look might research further interpretation, an such For label. party than important more are issues policy that be might it parties, other from MPs with collaborate to tend legislators, the the of control more to conducive system a in actors, rational If actors themselves and initiate coordinatecross positioned best the that be can approach, institutionalist choice rational the follow cross coordinating in role lesser a play these where network a to label, party the outside collaborating and together clusters linking in part important an play actors some which in network a from 2010, to 2006 the But chan networks the low. of structure the are that show to seems scores data the in betweenness trend decreasing the generally, because, though, network of type high er the betweenness scores, the more hierarchical the network is. It is not a Hierarchical a not is It is. network the hierarchical more the scores, betweenness the er do legislators put on policy issues as opposed to party membership in forming in membership party to opposed as issues policy on put legislators do - at claoain Aohr interpr Another collaboration. party - 2010, the networks are less hierarchical, even though the difference difference the though even hierarchical, less are networks the 2010,

- intuitive collaborations with MPs outside one‟s party. This too is too This party. one‟s outside MPs with collaborations intuitive hoice institutionalist view, because in a mixed member member mixed a in because view, institutionalist hoice gislative proposals initiated by the MPs; a categorization of categorization a MPs; the by initiated proposals gislative - party collaboration. 61

. Most of the cross the of Most . etation of this trend, that would would that trend, this of etation

central party organization over over organization party central - party collaborations party ged from from ged CEU eTD Collection differentformulation research of the question. a and needed, be would analyses further Thus, thought. of lines theoretical two presenting chang of observations presents article this claim, causal a making Without formulae. proportional different of context the in used, been has behavior legislative of measurement direct a Thus, behavio legislative of changes 1 Aitkin instit that suggest theories modernization cultural of Proponents change. institutional structural, to very sensitive are networks since employed, be can analysis network social of tools discussed, are i the about of claims When way measurement. alternative an emphasizes behavior legislative of study the to approach new This divisions. policy either of terms in parties among polarization create that m as such discourses, political the at looking by extent, greater a to affiliation, party cross to the way this decreasing according camps the split have might discourses political particular that indicate might these context, political Romanian the into Put otherwise. shows data the However, constituency. same the from legislators with collaboration of strategies about more organizatio party es between the two systems, and discusses possible paths to causal inference, by by inference, causal to paths possible discusses and systems, two the between es 994

; Lovenduski and Norris 1993 Norris and Lovenduski ad te lcl cos sne h vote the since actors, local other and n toa cags il ae n mat ny n h ln run long the on only impact an have will changes utional - r are visible immediately, if proper measurement tools are used. are tools measurement proper if immediately, visible are r party collaboration. Further research might tackle this problem problem this tackle might research Further collaboration. party mpact of the electoral rules, as a dependent variable, dependent a as rules, electoral the of mpact ) . A social network analysis approach indicates that that indicates approach analysis network social A . 62

- seeking - oriented goals or ideological or goals oriented - idd P wud care would MPs minded edia coverage of debates debates of coverage edia ( Lijphart and and Lijphart

CEU eTD Collection (2004 legislatures the of samples still they complete, are with worked have I that networks yearly 2 almo I first, approach: this to limitations of number a are There work. it like making of concepts, strategies some rethinking and rethink accountability political to redefining is step next the clarified, been have subjects these Once principal the like theories research combining further start, should where from elements the on light shed to was study this of purpose The legislative behavior tenta a delivering and question, this exploring at aimed study This 2009). (Carey constituents their to legislators of accountability greater achieve to system electoral the changing of support in evidence clear show not did individualistic to system, PR a in representation, collective from reforms that claims (2009) Carey John behavior. legislative and accountability political studying to approachmethodological Ianother demands,proposed principals‟ their to respond (2009 districts member single with systems electoral (2006 lists two closed between with and representation proportional years four of period a for legislature the of Romanian collaboration of networks the out mapped I relationships, the measuring therefore them, between links as proposals initiated their and nodes as MPs the treating By Parliament. ana I thesis, this In - mode dataset, for reasons of time and space. Looking at the big picture, even though the though even picture, big the at Looking space. and time of reasons for dataset, mode - 2008; 2008 - 2012). 2012). lyzed the characteristics of the legislative networks inside the Romanian Romanian the inside networks legislative the of characteristics the lyzed –

collaboration. collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS tive answer by looking at the most sensitive indicator of of indicator sensitive most the at looking by answer tive

- 00. ae o te hoeia mdl ht legis that model theoretical the on Based 2010). 63

- st completely neglected the analysis of the the of analysis the neglected completely st agent theory with theory agent - 07 ad mixed and 2007)

representation in a SMDs system SMDs a in representation network methodology. network - member proportional proportional member lators lators –

CEU eTD Collection 19 in where Zealand, New of case the at look might one analysis, network social of by using system effects electoral In totest order the recurrent patterns. convincing of evidence maps the build can scholars and available is colla data as long As other. the to society one from differ therefore and determined socially and rooted deeply are customs institutional be cannot diffe behavior in similar observed that say who theorists, modernization cultural by promoted idea the contradicts claim This analysis. under country the of irrespective works, method goals. their in different quite are studies the Deputies, of Chamber legislative Romanian the for of did I as patterns Congress U.S. same the for behavior the almost observed have (2008) al. et Zhang though Even and its agency rethinking by theory, principals‟ competing the to positions network links research i on positio strategic a with legislators ( system representation proportional the in discipline party expected cross relations system ties thaninthe previous form to electoral collaboration However, system. mixed the in easier is It systems. electoral different two in legislators of collaboration the about Parliament. Romanian information the inside patterns some revealing years, of sets two the between and The

nitiating legislative proposals legislative nitiating computed measures showed some interesting changes in the network structure each year, each structure network the in changes interesting some showed measures computed borations among legislators, the method of social network analysis should show show should analysis network social of method the legislators, among borations - party collaborations in 2006 and highly dense with strong party clusters in 2010. in clusters party strong with dense highly and 2006 in collaborations party practical for party politics. implications is ae h opst efc ta epce, w expected, than effect opposite the have hips rent parliaments, because predominant values, ideological beliefs, and and beliefs, ideological values, predominant because parliaments, rent Zhang‟s article serves in my thesis as a confirmation that the the that confirmation a as thesis my in serves article Zhang‟s n in the networks the in n .

Generally, the effect of the electoral reform is weak. This weak. is reform electoral the of effect the Generally, Findings show that show Findings 64

, who ,

t a less a ith encourage cross encourage there is change in the the in change is there

es ntok ih more with network dense 2006 - member proportional proportional member - - party collaborations collaborations party 2007)

the observed observed the is broken by broken is behavior behavior 4 the 94 The The

CEU eTD Collection policyto party informing collaboration relationships. issues asopposed membership on put legislators do weight much how to as drawn be can inference that so MPs, of labels and issues policy on proposals migh stands the ideological of categorization a MPs; the by initiated legislative proposals specific the into depth in more look might research Further question. research analys further Thus, thought. of lines theoretical two presenting by inference, causal to paths possible discussed and systems, two the between changes of observations presented study this claim, causal a making Without results. reliab the test to order in done, be must study this of replication a Further, skills. programmingand requiremathematicaladvanced networks the characteristicof 2004 the from 40% to (up bet legislatures changes composition major the large), (quite networks the of size the However, actor an perhaps needed, is design research complex more a analysis dynamic size the to due mainlydynamic, than static more is thesis present the in computed analysis the However, systemproportional toaPR withSMDs closed with lists. mixed a from Romania: in as around way other the changed was systems electoral

and characteristics of the data set, and because of time and space constraints. For a a For constraints. space and time of because and set, data the of characteristics and t be constructed, which can then be confronted with names and party party and names with confronted be then can which constructed, be t es would be needed, and a different formulation of the the of formulation different a and needed, be would es - 08 o h nx lgsaue, n te undirected the and legislature), next the to 2008 65

ility and validity of the the of validity and ility - ae one. based

- member ween ween CEU eTD Collection Co Clique centrality Betweenness (2 matrix Affiliation 1. Appendix - affiliation matrix (1 matrix affiliation

suffer information of interruption. infor way the in role important an play nodes which out find can one centrality, betweenness computing by words, other In network. the in have they position geographical the ac a proposal 1ifiinitiated j,and 0ifnot). contain matrix the in cells the proposal; initiated the j and legislator the is i where Xij, particip they events the and rows, the in people of names the of consists that matrix a events; which in participated have actors which on data Mainly, it contains information on who who on information contains it Mainly, others. the all with MP each of ties collaboration the shows therefore It columns. as than grounds different on collaborating parties, different from members mixed be might there or together, initiating party same the from members of groups homogeneous be might there insid because interesting collaborations is This of groups. cohesive of developments clusters parliament, timely seeing in useful is analysis network”another toother members ofthe than –

tors go through an actor. This measure helps identify the “best” nodes in terms of terms in nodes “best” the identify helps measure This actor. an through go tors “A sub “A

party membership (personal interests). Glossary - mation spreads in the network. Without these key actors the network will will network the actors key these Without network. the in spreads mation set of a network in which some actors are more closely connected to one one to connected closely more are actors some which in network a of set - mode data) mode

- - mode data) mode

Shows how many of the shortest paths between second and third third and second between paths shortest the of many how Shows

–

membership or participation data, such as when we have have we when as such data, participation or membership

– APPENDICES

this matrix consists of MPs as rows and the same MPs MPs same the and rows as MPs of consists matrix this

66

collaborated with whom in the Parliament Parliament the in whom with collaborated

( Hannemanand 2005 Riddle

ated in as columns (matrix columns as in ated ) .

A clique A clique the e CEU eTD Collection Ties n Social attributes Node Node distance Geodesic centrality Degree

–

-

o te ups o te analyses the of purpose the For h lgsaos nds. as ue trbts uh s etaiy esrs (degree, measures centrality as such attributes use also I (nodes). legislators the for attributes categorical as membership constituency the and membership committee affiliation data; andsquares represent legislativeonly proposals, data inaffiliation differen have leg a or legislator, a either be measuringthe network. the density of morethe network of thea ofwho resources as on call to able be and to, access have may They (...) individuals. other on dependent less are (...) ties many have they Because positions. advantaged be may actors other to collaborated thecelldisplay witha j5 times, will 5). ij i if legislators; between relationships weighted the display cells the where Xij, (matrix membersif there of other isanissue parties align party strong a is there (when party same the of members of signatures the Romanian system In observations. objective quantifiable are they because actors, the among ties/links a as primarily analysis network social use methodology. I thesis, this In people. between betweenness,attributes oflegislators. density)for as thenetworks In this study the node takes two forms, depending on the focus of the analysis. It can can It analysis. the of focus the on depending forms, two takes node the study this In etwor k analysis k

–

–

characteristics of the nodes. In this study I use the party membership party the use I study this In nodes. the of characteristics –

The number of direct conn direct of number The

t graphic signs graphic t the shortest path between two nodes in the network. the in nodes two between path shortest the

–

both a theory and a methodology for the study of complex relations complex of study the for methodology a and theory a both ,

MPs initiate/sponsor legislative initiate/sponsor proposals, usuallybacked upby MPs

– islative proposal (depending on the data discussed, discussed, data the on (depending proposal islative

circles represent legislators, in both affiliation and co and affiliation both in legislators, represent circles ,

hv coe to chosen have I

67

ections a node has node a ections

- based interests, ora based personal one. le” ( Hannemanand 2005 Riddle

osdr eiltv propos legislative consider

.

“Actors who have more ties ties morehave who “Actors

T his is relevant for for relevant is his ment), or or ment),

) .

als ). , the the , they they

as -

CEU eTD Collection Significance = 0.010599 Observedchi = square 2950.329 value 10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2. Appendix 1.05 1.48 1.19 0.95 1.02 0.79 0.91 1.13 1.37 3.56 Table Table 1

7 . Relational Contingency Analysis 2006(Co Table for 0.97 1.34 1.39 0.91 0.93 0.79 0.76 0.88 2.36 1.37 2

Relational Contingency Tables Contingency Relational

0.71 0.95 0.65 0.61 0.51 1.26 0.88 1.13 0.7 1 3

0.67 0.85 0.63 0.66 0.57 1.03 0.51 0.76 0.91 0.8 4

Observed/Expected

M embership) 0.78 1.07 0.57 0.61 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.67 1.14 0.77 5

68

1.64 0.78 0.66 0.93 1.02 0.75 1.08 1.35 0.87 0.7

6

0.87 0.77 0.63 0.65 0.91 0.95 0.66 0.79 0.87 1.47 7

- affiliation and Partyaffiliation and 1.35 1.14 0.85 1.39 1.19 1.05 1.72 2.37 0.87 1 8

1.08 0.67 0.95 1.34 1.48 1.09 2.75 1.72 0.79 0.8 9

0.99 1.09 1.05 0.66 0.75 0.71 0.67 0.71 0.97 1.05 10

CEU eTD Collection

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Significance = 0.886711 Observedchi = square 1465.823 value Table Table 0.89 0.91 0.18 0.96 0.91 0.82 0.81 0.84 1.76 1

8 . Relational Contingency Analysis 2007(Co Table for 0.81 0.86 0.85 0.78 0.76 1.54 0.84 0.9 0 2

0.82 0.79 0.15 0.92 0.77 1.47 0.76 0.81

0.9 3

1.01 0.79 0.72 0.92 1.49 0.77 0.78 0.82 Observed/Expected 0 4

Membership)

69 0.93 0.89 0.97 1.88 0.92 0.91

0.9 0.9 0 5

0.81 1.05 1.86 0.97 0.72 0.92 0.85 0.96 0 6

0.15 0.18 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 affiliation and Partyaffiliation and

1.56 1.05 0.89 0.79 0.79 0.86 0.91 0.9 0 8

1.77 0.81 0.93 1.01 0.82 0.81 0.89 0.9 9

CEU eTD Collection

Table Table Table Table 10 9 . Relational C . Relational Contingency Table Analysis 2010(Co Table . Relational Contingency for 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 5 4

Significance = 0.486651 Observedchi = square 2813.649 value Significance = 0. Observedchi = square 4992.916 value 1.05 0.75 0.76 0.83 0.79 1.63 0.87 0.81 0.71 0.82 0.87 1.9 1 1

ontingency Analysis 2009(Co Table for 0.66 0.78 0.78 1.49 0.79 0.72 1.54 0.87 0.79 0.73 0.68 0.8 2 2 032797

Observed/Expected Observed/Expected Membership) membership)

1.05 0.69 0.83 1.62 0.78 0.83 0.77 0.67 0.64 1.34 0.72 0.82 3 3

70

0.69 0.64 1.39 0.64 0.68 0.71 0.35 0.54 2.18 0.83 0.78 0.76 4 4

0.77 1.24 0.64 0.67 0.73 0.81 1.15 1.26 0.54 0.69 0.66 0.75 5 5

- - affiliation and Partyaffiliation and affiliation and Partyaffiliation and 0.77 0.69 0.77 0.79 0.87 1.15 0.35 1.05 1.05 1.6 0.8 6 6

CEU eTD Collection using by structure network friendship Inferring 2009. Lazer. D. and Pentland, A.S. N., Eagle, Downs, Anthony. 1957. Brazil's in switching party and ideology, Ambition, rent? for Parties 2006. S.W. Desposato, Decision and Analysis Policy 2002. Heuvelhof. ten Ernst and Hans, Bruijn, De politics. Romanian Contemporary Introduction: 2010. W. Crowther, 1989 Romania Tunnel: the of End the at Light 2000. A. Craiutu, data. call roll of Rosenblut analysis F.M.C. statistical G.W., Cox, The 2004. Rivers. D. and Jackman, S. J., Clinton, Ord.Cliff, A.D., 1973. and J.K. in Union. European the to accession and unity democracy with travails Romania's 2007. M. Ciobanu, party and institutions, Carey, M.2009. John political principals, Competing 2007. M. John Carey, ordering rank a vote: personal a cultivate to Incentives 1995. Shugart. M.S. and J.M., Carey, under Incentives Centrifugal and Centripetal 2011. Hellwig. Timothy and Ernesto, Calvo, Representation. Proportional to Road Competitive The 2009. E. Calvo, leaders. opinion of capital social The 1999. R.S. Burt, Syste Electoral Mixed of Effects The 2000. S. Birch, networks. of science new The Linked: 2003. Crandall. RE and A.L., Barabási, Baraba Barabasi, A.L. 2010. formation. network of model noncooperative A 2000. Goyal. S. and V., Bala, 1966. Wilcox. A.R. and Watts, M.W. L.F., Anderson, the in voting of bases barrel: pork and pressures, constituency rules, Electoral 1995. B. Ames, i AL, n R Abr. 99 Eegne f cln i rno networks random in scaling of Emergence 1999. Albert. R. and A.L., si, legisla of electoral formulas. Different Electoral Systems. (02):254 andSocial Scienceof Political Studies European Contemporary for Association University Budapest. the of Conference Physics of journal 286:509 68:1181 Ill., Northwestern U.P. Brazilian Congress. mobile phonemobile data. chamber deputies. of Decision on Impact the and Analysis of Quality Making. the Improve to How Network: Studies Communist De Science Party. Democratic Liberal Japan's of Case The Factions: American Science Political Review Europe mocracy: inthe Balkans. Routledge RegimeLondon: Change tive voting. tive voting. -

Asia Studies - - 29 (01):33 29 - Impact Assessment andProjectImpact Assessment Appraisal 512. 1229. 295.

Bursts: the everything hiddenpatternbehind wedo Bursts:

Legislative andAccountability Voting An EconomicDemocracy Theory of

American Journal of Political Science JournalAmerican ofPolitical - 71:409.

56. Proceedings ofthe N 43 (1):1 The Journal ofPolitics The

59 Am Electoral Studies Electoral

LISTOFREFERENCES , n MF Tis 19. lcoa Rfr ad h Ft of Fate the and Reform Electoral 1999. Thies. M.F. and h, (8):1429 erican Science Journal ofPolitical Spatial Autocorrelation Spatial

- 5. American Scienc Journal ofPolitical

566 (1):37 - 1450.

98 (02):355 71

14:417 ational Academyational ofSciences

.

57 (02):324 - Legislative roll Legislative - ms in Eastern Europe. In Europe. Eastern in ms 440. 370. The Annals of the American Academy Academy American the of Annals The . London: Pion.

(4).

: Cambridge University Press. . New York: Harper. York:. New

- 343.

(1). British Journal of Political Political of Journal British

- 50 (1):62 1998.

- call analysis call :169 omns ad Post and Communist

: Dutton. e Experimenting with with Experimenting

55 (1):27 ol Politics World -

- 194. 106 (36):15274. 80. Econometrica

30th Annual Annual 30th Making in a a in Making : Evanston, : - American American 41. Science

61 61 - .

CEU eTD Collection Congress. in influence Constituency 1963. Stokes. D.E. and W.E., Miller, Science. Political Relational A 2011. Young. J.K. and S.D., McClurg, Mayh and reform law change:Electoral ça Plus 2010. King. F. Ronald and Gabriel, Cosmin Marian, Lovenduski, and J., 1994. Aitkin. D. and A., Lijphart, c political The 1990. A. Lijphart, Future. the to Back Science: Political in Networks 2011. D. Lazer, Berelson, Bernard F., Paul Lazarsfeld, politics. barrel pork and structures Electoral 1986. T.D. Lancaster, networks. social in data missing of Effects 2006. G. Kossinets, Knoke, 1982. Kuklinski. D.,and J. 1994. Verba. S. and Keohane, R.O. G., King, from Evidence Behaviour? Parliamentary Explain Preferences Ideological Do 2001. C. Kam, 2000.UtilityHummon, N.P. and dynamic networks. social data network longitudinal of analysis Statistical 2003. Snijders. T.A.B. and M.E., Huisman, In System. Electoral Leadership:an Choose to How 2010. Iain. Political McLean and Johnston, Ron Simon, and Hix, Democracy Local 2006. Sweeting. David and Michael, Haus, Institutio Electoral and Congruence 2005. Riddle. M. and R.A., Hanneman, Ideological 2010. Stramski. J. and M., external Golder, and shortcomings internal Romania: in democracy Building 2001. T. Gallagher, informant and structure Cognitive 1987. Freeman. S.C. and Romney, A.K. L.C., Freeman, Norton. WW York.New Statistics, Adhikari.1978. A. and Purves, R. Pisani, R. Freedman,D., Party of Tournament A 2008. Laver. Michael and H., James Fowler, 2005. ed. H., Fowler,James Ne Cosponsorship Legislative 2006. H. James Fowler, Behavior: Political and Analysis Network Social 1981. Siegel. W. Jonathan and Heinz, Eulau, ew, D.R. 2004. qualitative research GreatBritain and Canada. with changingcom AcademyBritish Review Drawing a Map. California Riverside, CA. American Science Journal ofPolitical neglect. accuracy. Resolution of Conflict of Politics Networks A Feasibility Study. Political SciencePolitical Review 44(1)Politics 43 (1):7 elections. parliamentary Romanian 2008 the seven 1945 democracies, SciencePolitical Review Politics Mind aPresidential Campaignthe Voterin MakesUp His Science Review 268.

- 44:61 Democratic Consolidation inEastern Europe Democratic Consolidation 18.

American Anthro American . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

P. Norris.P. 1993. :39 - Congress: The electoralCongress: connection 68.

7 (1):67. - Political Studies Political 43.

position. Sociological &position. Research Methods 32:253 : Princeton UnivPr. The Western QuarterlyThe Political

Turnout in a Small World Small a in Turnout

(1). . :481

- 57 (1):45

1990

The pologist Network analysisNetwork neune o eetrl as 1945 laws, electoral of onsequences lcoa sses n pry ytm: suy f twenty of study A systems: party and systems Electoral Genderparty politics and - 496. : Oxford University: Oxford Press, USA. Journal ofLegislative Studies

and Hazel Gaudet. 1948. 1948. Gaudet. Hazel and Introduction to social network methods network social to Introduction

- 56.

89 (2):310

72

Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in in inference Scientific inquiry: social Designing 54 (1):90

. Beverly Sa CA: Hills, Communist and Post and Communist - . Edited by A. Zuckerman, byA. Edited . 325. tworks in the House and Senate. and House the in tworks - 106. : Yale Univ Pr.

Social Networks

34 (4):499

2:383 : SageLtd. Publications Social Networks Social . 2nded. The People’s Choice: How How Choice: People’s The -

413. 7 (4):89

Decision Rules. Rules. Decision

- nentoa Political International Polittical Science and and Science Polittical Political Science and and Science Political 509

-

- Communist Studies Communist 85.

ge. 22:221

- -

287.

126. The American American The : University of of University : The Social Logic Logic Social

28 (3):247 28 -

249. American American

Journal Social Social

ns. - -

CEU eTD Collection J. Peter and Fowler, H. James Porter, A. Mason Traud, L. Amanda Friend, J. A. Yan, Zhang, DJ, and Strogatz.Watts, SH world. 1998.Small data. networks social Sequential 1988. Iacobucci. D. and S., Wasserman, stichastic A 1979. S. Wasserman, World: Small a in Success Legislative 2010. Fowler. H. James and K., Wendy Cho, Tam 1999. Müller. W.C. and K., Strøm, roll congressional in influence party Estimating 2000. Groseclose. T. and J.M., Snyder, In data network longitudinal for Models 2005. T.B.A. Snijders, stochastic to Introduction 2010. Steglich. C.E.G. and Bunt, de van G.G. T.A.B., Snijders, net social of evaluation statistical The 2001. T.A.B. Snijders, Action. Collective and Networks Social 2009. A. David Siegel, th voting: and networks Social 1973. C.A. Scheingold, processes. advantage other and bibliometric of theory general A 1976. S. D. Price, networks: in mating settings, in Meeting 2011. Lospinoso. J. and Snijders, T. P., Preciado, th in structure Community 2007. Friend. AJ and Newman, MEJ Mucha, P.J. M.A., Porter, and Terrorism of Study the in Analysis Network Social 2011. Pedahzur. A. and A., Perliger, legislatures: democratic in Lane. Pennings, and P., J.E. 1998. discipline and cohesion party Explaining 2003. J.E. Owens, 2004. P. Norris, systems. mixed and majoritarian proportional, systems: electoral Choosing 1997. P. Norris, CambridgeUniversity Press. Analysis Network actor Blackwell. Methodology Science American Sociological Review the American Science forInformation Society BeachWinds Resort actor stochastic representatives. Applications of house states united Violence.Political purposiveness andcontexts. Pr. ScienceInternational Political Review Mucha. 2008. Community Structure in Congressional Cosponsorship Networks. Networks. Cosponsorship Congressional in Structure Physica Community 2008. Mucha. 53:261 Francisco: Jossey In reciprocity. by of Politics Legislation. Congressional ofDynamics the and Analysis Network Social Europe voting.

- based modelsforbased dynamics. network -

American Journal of Political Science Political of Journal American 28

make harddecisions 53 (1):122 53 (7). Electoral engineering: voting rules and political and rules voting engineering: Electoral

2.

(1).

, edited by M. Sober and M. Becker. Boston and London: Basil Basil London: and Boston Becker. M. and Sober M. by edited , 386 (1):414

- oriented models for large network network large for models oriented - , edited by P. J. Carrington, J. Scott and S. Wasserman. New York: York: New Wasserman. S. and Scott J. Carrington, J. P. by edited , Bass. - Political SciencePolitical 44(1) andPolitics 138.

oilgcl Methodology Sociological

- 438.

Comparing party systemComparing change model for directed graphs with transition rates determined determined rates transition with graphs directed for model : Cambridge UnivPr. Journal of Legislative Studies Policy, office, or votes?: how political parties in Western Western in parties political how votes?: or office, Policy,

39:712 - 73

720. 18 (3):297.

Nature hsc A Saitcl ehnc ad its and Mechanics Statistical A: Physica Social Netw Social

27:292 44 (2):193

, edited by K. F. Schluesser. San San Schluesser. F. K. by edited , 393:440 e ressurection of a research agenda agenda research a of ressurection e

dynamics. In Sunbelt XXXI. Trade Trade XXXI. Sunbelt In dynamics. - 306. work dynamics. In dynamics. work :45 orks - American Journal of Political Political of Journal American Models and Methids in Social Social in Methids and Models - 442. 211. -

50.

9 (4):12

: P behavior 32:44

sychology Press. - 60. - 40. : Cambridge Univ Univ Cambridge :

Psychometrika Sociological Sociological The Journal The Journal of Journal

- call call e