Short Essay Questions

Question 1

How would terrorist networks be different from other networks?

Answer 1

COVERTNESS: Terrorist networks differ from other networks in several key ways, primarily due to their covert nature and the goals they pursue. Terrorist organizations often operate in secrecy to avoid detection by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Their activities, recruitment, and communication are conducted discreetly, often using encrypted or hidden channels. The structure of these networks can be hierarchical or decentralized, but the emphasis is on maintaining operational security.

IDEOLOGY: Terrorist networks also have a more distinct focus on ideological or political goals, often driven by extremist beliefs. This ideological foundation binds members together, making loyalty and secrecy vital.

TRUST BASED: Additionally, these networks tend to rely on trust-based relationships, where members often have limited interactions outside the network to protect their identities and reduce the risk of infiltration.

Question 2

Milla et al. (2020) show how operational
leaders have high betweenness centrality and
ideological leaders do not. They conclude they are more important.

What do you think this might mean?

Is this a reasonable conclusion?

Answer 2

Milla et al. (2020) suggest that operational leaders have high betweenness centrality because they act as intermediaries between different parts of the terrorist network, facilitating communication and coordination. This makes them crucial for the network’s operational effectiveness, as they connect various subgroups, ensuring smooth execution of attacks and activities. In contrast, ideological leaders, despite their influence on recruitment and cohesion, may not occupy the same structural position within the network, which is why their betweenness centrality is lower.

This conclusion is reasonable in the context of the operational function of terrorist networks, where coordination and planning are central to success. However, it could overlook the importance of ideological leaders in shaping long-term strategic goals, maintaining group unity, and driving radicalization. While operational leaders may be more pivotal in day-to-day operations, ideological leaders could be essential for the network’s sustainability and broader vision, making both roles integral in different ways.

Question 3

How might terrorist groups develop their
network to increase their survival?
What kind of ties should they develop?
And what kind of ties should they avoid?

Answer 3

Terrorist groups aiming to increase their survival would strategically develop both strong and weak ties within their network. Strong ties, such as close relationships between key operatives and leaders, ensure reliable communication, trust, and coordination for planning and executing attacks. These strong internal ties help maintain group cohesion, security, and loyalty. Additionally, building weak ties with other groups or external actors, such as financiers or suppliers, can increase their resource access without revealing too much about their inner workings. These weak ties expand their influence, access to resources, and potential for external support.

However, terrorist groups should avoid ties that could compromise their security or stability. Over-reliance on centralized leadership or tight-knit structures can create vulnerabilities, making the group more susceptible to detection and disruption. Likewise, overt ties to state actors or organizations with conflicting goals could lead to betrayal or unwanted exposure. Thus, a balanced network that ensures both operational efficiency and covert external alliances is crucial for survival.

Question 4

For clandestine networks it is often difficult to get a full picture of the network. For each of the following measures, how badly do you think they are affected by missing data?
1 Degree centrality
2 Betweenness centrality
3 Community detection

Answer 4

1. Degree centrality: Degree centrality, which measures the number of direct connections an actor has, is relatively robust to missing data. While missing connections can affect accuracy, degree centrality will still provide useful insights if the missing data involves only a small portion of the network. However, if large portions of the network are missing, degree centrality may underestimate the influence of central actors.
2. Betweenness centrality: Betweenness centrality, which identifies individuals that act as bridges between different parts of the network, is highly sensitive to missing data. If key connections or parts of the network are missing, it could distort the flow of information and underestimate or misrepresent the importance of certain individuals, and also affect other measures like eigenvector. The loss of data can significantly alter the perceived connectivity of the network.
3. Community detection: Community detection is heavily impacted by missing data, as the identification of groups within a network depends on accurate relationships between nodes. Missing connections can lead to misidentifying communities or incorrectly associating nodes with other groups. Therefore, community detection is highly vulnerable to incomplete network data.

Question 5

Hofmann (2020) identifies four different
types of networks, ”full”, ”ideology”,
”signaling” and ”support”.

What are the ties and nodes in each?
What do you think of this approach?

Answer 5

1. Ideological Networks: The nodes in this network are individuals or groups sharing extremist beliefs, either online or offline. The ties are the shared ideological beliefs that connect these individuals, often forming the basis for radicalization.
2. Signaling Networks: The nodes are lone-actors and other individuals seeking validation. Ties in this network are the communication channels, often through online platforms, where the lone-actor expresses intent or seeks recognition from others before carrying out an attack.
3. Support Networks: The nodes in this network include close associates or online groups that provide emotional or logistical assistance. The ties are the relationships that offer crucial support, from encouragement to material help.
4. Full Networks: This encompasses all the above ties combined, representing the broader network of connections that influence the lone-actor.

This approach is valuable because it challenges the isolation myth of lone-actors, emphasizing the importance of understanding their broader network ties for more effective counter-terrorism strategies. It encourages a more comprehensive and nuanced view of lone-actor terrorism.

Question 6

Siegel (2011) assumes that internal
motivation to protest is unrelated to the
position in the network.
Is this a reasonable assumption?
How might it not be?

Answer 6

Siegel’s (2011) assumption that internal motivation to protest is unrelated to someone’s position in the network may not be entirely accurate. In reality, where someone is located in the network could influence their motivation to protest. For example, people in central positions, who are more connected to others, might feel more responsible to act, as they may believe their involvement is important for the group. On the other hand, those on the edges of the network might feel less motivated, as their actions may seem less impactful.

Additionally, individuals who are deeply connected to ideological or support networks might be more motivated to protest due to shared beliefs or the support of others. This suggests that internal motivations to protest are influenced by both personal beliefs and the person’s role within the network, meaning the network’s structure can affect not just how protests spread but also why people decide to participate.

Question 7

We have now read about theoretical models (Siegel, 2009, 2011), social media
(Steinert-Threlkeld, 2017; Larson et al.,
2019; Chen, Oh and Chen, 2021; Masterson, 2024) and general channels (Andrews and Biggs, 2006) of diffusion.

How do these align?
How would the role of media in Andrews
and Biggs (2006) impact on the cascades
in Siegel (2009, 2011)?

Answer 7

The readings explore how networks and media influence collective action and social movements. Siegel (2009, 2011) looks at how the structure of networks—like who is connected to whom—affects whether people decide to join protests. He finds that central figures in a network can encourage others to join, especially when more people start participating. Similarly, Chen, Oh, and Chen (2021) focus on how online media helps spread information quickly and connect people for collective action by reducing barriers and providing emotional motivation.

Andrews and Biggs (2006) discuss the role of media in spreading ideas and helping people connect. In Siegel’s work, media could make it easier for people to join collective actions by sharing information and reducing the perceived risk of participating. Together, these studies show how networks, media, and social connections can work together to encourage or discourage people from participating in large-scale collective actions.

Question 8

Siegel (2011) models repression as the
removal of nodes from the network and
investigates when protest cascades are
stopped. Based on theories we discussed:

What nodes do you think are particularly
important to keep?

What features of a network do you think
make it more or less robust?

Answer 8

In Siegel’s (2011) model, nodes represent individuals in a protest network, and repression involves removing these nodes to disrupt the movement. Key nodes to keep are those with high centrality, such as influential leaders or individuals with many connections. These nodes are important because they help spread information and motivate others to join the protest. If these nodes are removed, the protest is likely to lose momentum.

A network’s robustness depends on its structure. A tightly-knit network with many strong connections between individuals is less robust, as removing a few central nodes can cause it to collapse. In contrast, a more decentralized network with weak ties between individuals is more robust. Even if some nodes are removed, the network can still function, and other individuals can fill the gap. Therefore, decentralized networks are more resilient to repression and can maintain collective action despite efforts to break them down.

Question 9

Steinert-Threlkeld (2017) argues that when the periphery of the network tweets about a protest, it is much more likely to mobilize than when the core does.
Why might this be the case?

Answer 9

Steinert-Threlkeld (2017) suggests that when individuals on the periphery of a network tweet about a protest, it is more likely to mobilize because they often reach new, less engaged audiences. These peripheral individuals are not as tied to the core group, so their messages can spread further, attracting people who might not otherwise be involved. Tweets from the core, however, are likely to reach a smaller, already mobilized audience, leading to less new participation.

Additionally, messages from peripheral nodes can appear more authentic or relatable to others outside the core group, creating a sense of inclusivity and broadening support. In contrast, messages from the core may be seen as part of a pre-existing movement, which could reduce their effectiveness in mobilizing new participants. Thus, peripheral actors can play a crucial role in expanding the reach of a protest and encouraging broader participation.

Question 10

Andrews and Biggs (2006) use membership of the same athletic organisation as a proxy for social networks and distribution of local newspapers as a proxy for media effects.
If you were to study a contemporary protest:

How would you approach this?

What would be good proxies for media
channels, social networks, etc.?

Answer 10

To study a contemporary protest, I would approach it by identifying key factors that influence mobilization, such as social networks and media channels.

For social networks, I could look at participants’ affiliations with specific online communities (e.g., social media groups, online forums) or real-world networks (e.g., university or workplace groups). Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or WhatsApp could be proxies for social connections, as they enable the rapid spread of information.

For media channels, I would analyze the role of digital media platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, where protest organizers often share information and call to action. Traditional media like newspapers and TV might still be relevant, but social media plays a bigger role today in spreading information quickly, especially among younger, more tech-savvy individuals.

I would track both social media interactions (hashtags, mentions) and the spread of protest-related news to understand the interaction between online networks and media coverage in mobilizing participants.

Question 11

How does the k-cores measure differ from other centrality measures?

Answer 11

The k-core measure in network analysis identifies the most cohesive groups within a network, focusing on nodes that are part of a core subgroup with a minimum number of connections (k). It finds subsets of nodes where each node is connected to at least k other nodes in the group. This differs from centrality measures, which focus on individual nodes’ importance within the entire network.

For example, degree centrality measures how many connections a node has, betweenness centrality tracks the number of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest paths between other nodes, and closeness centrality gauges how quickly a node can reach others. In contrast, k-core looks at the network’s structure in terms of subgroups rather than individual node influence. While centrality measures highlight individual prominence, k-core highlights the robustness and resilience of tightly connected subgroups, emphasizing overall network cohesion rather than specific nodes.

Question 12

In both Siegel (2009) and Chen, Oh and
Chen (2021), being in a highly connected
position does not necessarily imply that you are more likely to participate in collective action.
What is the reason for this?

Answer 12

In both Siegel (2009) and Chen, Oh, and Chen (2021), being in a highly connected position does not always increase the likelihood of participating in collective action because the type of connections and the flow of information matter more than mere connectivity.

In Siegel (2009), individuals in central positions may not participate if they perceive high personal risks or lack sufficient incentives, even if they are well-connected. Central positions may offer influence but don’t automatically translate to action.

Similarly, in Chen, Oh, and Chen (2021), being in a highly connected position within an online network doesn’t guarantee action because individuals need motivation, emotional appeal, and the right kind of information to participate. Even with high connectivity, individuals might not engage if they don’t feel personally compelled or if the collective action does not align with their interests. Therefore, the quality and type of connections, as well as personal motivations, influence participation more than simple network centrality.

Question 13

Masterson (2024) finds that densily
connected groups are more likely to engage in dialogue, but lack information on resources available to them, compared to less densily connected groups.
What do you think explains this?
How does this relate to other literature we have read in the module so far?

Answer 13

Masterson (2024) suggests that densely connected groups are more likely to engage in dialogue because strong bonds within the group encourage communication and trust. However, these groups may lack information on external resources because their connections are more focused on internal support and less on linking to outside networks or broader sources of information.

This ties into the concept of “bonding ties” versus “bridging ties” in social network theory. Bonding ties strengthen internal relationships but limit access to new information, while bridging ties connect groups to external resources. In the module, we’ve seen that tightly-knit networks can be powerful for cooperation and emotional support, as seen in Siegel (2009), but they might not provide the information needed for mobilization or resource access, as discussed in Masterson (2024). So, while strong internal connections foster solidarity, weak external ties limit broader awareness and opportunities.

Question 14

What are the nodes and the ties in the
refugee networks of Masterson (2024)?

Answer 14

The nodes represent the individuals or groups within the refugee community, as well as external actors like host communities or NGOs.
The ties are the connections between these nodes. There are two types of ties:

1. Bonding ties: These are connections within the refugee community, providing informal support such as resource-sharing, emotional support, and mutual aid. These ties are strong but may limit access to external resources.
2. Bridging ties: These are connections between refugees and external actors, such as host communities or NGOs. These ties are crucial for accessing formal resources like government assistance, job opportunities, and broader networks.

Masterson emphasizes the importance of balancing both types of ties for refugees’ integration and resource access, as bonding ties support immediate needs, while bridging ties connect refugees to broader resources that are essential for long-term survival and cooperation.

Question 15

Larson et al. (2019) compare the network of Twitter users with tag #JeSuisCharlie who were geotagged at the location of the protest, with others with the same tag who were geotagged elsewhere in Paris at the time.

What is the motivation for this comparison?

How do they construct the remainder of the network?

Answer 15

The motivation for Larson et al. (2019) to compare the network of Twitter users with the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie who were geotagged at the protest location versus those geotagged elsewhere in Paris is to investigate how proximity to the event and social network connections influence protest participation. They aim to understand whether being physically closer to a protest leads to greater mobilization, and how social ties shape participation.

To construct the remainder of the network, they analyze the relationships between Twitter users based on their interactions, such as retweets, mentions, and shared hashtags. They focus on the strength and political activity of users’ connections, examining how exposure to protest-related content spreads within networks. By analyzing these online connections, the study shows how individuals within tightly connected, politically active networks are more likely to participate in protests due to peer influence and information diffusion.

Question 16

Masterson (2024) implements an
experimental design to investigate network effects on collective action.

What is the experimental design?
What treatment is randomized and what effect is evaluated?

Answer 16

Masterson (2024) uses an experimental design to investigate how network structures influence collective action among refugees. The design involves randomizing the exposure to different network configurations, either emphasizing “bonding ties” (connections within the refugee community) or “bridging ties” (connections with external communities or institutions).

The treatment randomized in the experiment is the type of network exposure participants experience. Some refugees are encouraged to strengthen their internal bonds (bonding ties), while others are exposed to opportunities to form connections with external groups (bridging ties).

The effect evaluated is how these different network structures impact refugees’ ability to cooperate, access resources, and engage in collective action. Masterson looks at whether bridging ties facilitate broader resource access and community integration, while bonding ties might support immediate aid but limit long-term integration. The experiment aims to understand which type of network structure better supports refugee cooperation and access to external resources.

Question 17

How do you think DellaPosta, Shi and Macy (2015) and Boutyline and Willer (2017) are relevant for understanding the 2024 US elections?

Answer 17

Cultural markers and lifestyle choices play a significant role in shaping political alignment, especially for those who are moderate or not traditionally engaged in voting. When certain lifestyle choices become strongly associated with a specific political party, they serve as subtle yet powerful signals of identity, making it easier for individuals to connect their personal preferences with political ideologies.

Boutyline and Willer’s research on political echo chambers further deepens understanding by showing how online networks amplify ideological homophily, where individuals connect with like-minded people. In the 2024 elections, these echo chambers on social media may intensify political polarization, making it harder for voters to encounter opposing viewpoints. Together, these studies underscore how both cultural markers and digital environments shape political identities and influence behavior, potentially impacting voter turnout, campaign strategies, and the overall election outcome.

Question 18

Echo chambers are said to cause polarization and misinformation, impacting on democratic debate.

What might be some remedies to reduce the presence of echo chambers in public debate?

Answer 18

Promoting media literacy can help individuals critically evaluate sources and recognize bias or misinformation.

Encouraging exposure to diverse viewpoints, through algorithms that prioritize varied content, can also help break down echo chambers.

Facilitating cross-ideological dialogue in online spaces, where respectful discussion can take place, might reduce ideological homogeneity.

Fact-checking tools and resources to counter misinformation can help people challenge false claims.

Encouraging more accountable social media practices, such as transparency in algorithm design and the promotion of trustworthy sources, is another key strategy.

Fostering education and awareness about the dangers of ideological isolation can motivate individuals to seek a broader range of perspectives and engage in more balanced, informed discussions.

Question 19

If some ideological groups (e.g.
conservatives) are more likely to be
homophilous and selective in their exposure than other groups, what could be political consequences?

Answer 19

If certain ideological groups, like conservatives, are more likely to form homogenous networks and selectively expose themselves to like-minded views, it could deepen political polarization. This isolation from opposing viewpoints could lead to more extreme beliefs, as individuals are less likely to encounter moderate or diverse perspectives. It may also result in a lack of understanding or empathy for other groups, increasing social divisions. Politically, this could make it harder for different ideologies to reach consensus or compromise, affecting policymaking and public debate. It may also contribute to the spread of misinformation, as people within homogenous groups reinforce each other’s beliefs without questioning them. Over time, this selective exposure could erode trust in democratic institutions and hinder cooperation between different political factions.

Question 20

Granovetter (1973) is all about strong and weak ties. To what extent and how would the argument hold for:
- Interlocking corporate networks
- Patronage networks

Answer 20

Interlocking Corporate Networks: In corporate networks, weak ties can be crucial for spreading information, accessing opportunities, and facilitating business partnerships across different sectors. Interlocking directorates, where individuals sit on multiple boards, allow weak ties to link otherwise disconnected companies, providing access to new market information and opportunities.

Patronage Networks: In patronage networks, weak ties can help disseminate resources, favors, and information between individuals in different political or social groups. These weak connections help spread influence beyond close-knit circles, fostering the flow of support and resources to those with distant ties, which can be critical in politics or resource distribution.

Question 21

How are Burt (1992)’s structural holes
related to the different types of centrality?
1 Degree centrality
2 Closeness centrality
3 Betweenness centrality
4 Eigenvalue centrality

Answer 21

Degree Centrality: This measures the number of direct connections an individual has. While individuals with high degree centrality may have many connections, they are not necessarily brokers between disconnected groups. Therefore, degree centrality does not directly correlate with occupying structural holes.

Closeness Centrality: This measures how close an individual is to all others in the network. Those with high closeness centrality tend to have strong ties with other individuals, which can limit their ability to bridge structural holes. They are less likely to occupy gaps between disconnected groups because their ties are dense and internally connected.

Betweenness Centrality: This is most closely related to structural holes. Individuals with high betweenness centrality often serve as brokers, connecting otherwise disconnected groups. These individuals occupy structural holes and benefit from access to diverse information, which makes them valuable for generating innovation and ideas.

Eigenvalue Centrality: This measures an individual’s influence based on the centrality of their connections. High eigenvalue centrality often indicates individuals with access to important groups, potentially enabling them to act as brokers across structural holes, enhancing their influence and capacity for innovation.

Question 22

What is, in your own words, the relationship between structural holes, brokerage, and good ideas in Burt (2004)?

Answer 22

In Burt’s 2004 paper, structural holes refer to gaps in a social network where groups or individuals are disconnected. Those who occupy these holes act as brokers, bridging these groups. Brokers have access to diverse, non-redundant information because they span different groups, which is key to generating good ideas. By combining insights from different perspectives, brokers are more likely to create innovative, valuable solutions. Thus, occupying structural holes enhances one’s ability to generate and promote new ideas, as they connect otherwise isolated information, fostering creativity and innovation. This network position, rather than individual talent alone, plays a critical role in producing and spreading new ideas.

Question 23

What would be the effect of a mechanism of preferential attachment on:
1 Granovetter (1973)’s weak ties and
diffusion?
2 Burt (1992)’s structural holes?

Answer 23

1. Granovetter (1973) - Weak Ties and Diffusion: Preferential attachment, where nodes with more connections gain even more, could limit the role of weak ties. As some nodes become more central, they would dominate network formation, making weak ties less crucial for bridging disparate groups. The diffusion of information may become confined to densely connected clusters, as strong ties grow more dominant, reducing the role of weak ties in spreading new ideas across diverse social groups.
2. Burt (2004) - Structural Holes: Preferential attachment could reinforce the significance of structural holes. As more connections accumulate around certain nodes, these brokers (those bridging structural holes) might grow more influential, gaining greater access to diverse information. However, if preferential attachment leads to an overconcentration of ties within specific groups, it might reduce the number of structural holes available, as networks become more connected and less fragmented, decreasing innovation opportunities for brokers.

Question 24

Do you think patronage networks are
relevant in democracies?
Under what conditions do you think
patronage networks are more or less relevant in a political regime?

Answer 24

Yes, patronage networks can be relevant in democracies, particularly in systems where political loyalty and access to resources or positions are key to maintaining power. In democracies, patronage networks often thrive in environments where political parties or leaders rely on personal loyalty rather than ideological alignment to secure support, especially during elections.

Conditions where patronage networks are more relevant include:
- Weak institutional frameworks, where political parties or leaders may lack strong institutional control and thus rely on personal networks.
- High levels of political competition, where patronage can secure votes and resources to maintain political influence.
- Corruption-prone environments, where patronage systems can be used to distribute state resources in exchange for political loyalty.

Patronage networks are less relevant in:
- Strong democratic institutions with transparent merit-based systems.
- High levels of political accountability, where government positions and resources are distributed based on qualification, not loyalty.

Question 25

How do, according to Keller (2016), social
networks of political elites and patronage networks relate?

Answer 25

According to Keller (2016), social networks of political elites and patronage networks are closely related. Patronage networks are informal structures where political elites provide resources and career advancement in exchange for loyalty and support. These networks often operate beneath formal institutions, shaping political outcomes. Keller emphasizes that social network analysis (SNA) reveals the fluid and hierarchical nature of patron-client relationships among elites, showing how central actors in these networks wield influence by controlling access to resources and political opportunities. Unlike rigid factional affiliations, patronage networks are dynamic, with patrons and clients shifting based on political circumstances. The centrality of an individual in the network often correlates with their political power, as those in more central positions have greater influence and resources. Thus, patronage networks are key to understanding elite politics, where informal ties play a critical role in political mobility and success.

Question 26

For each of the seven diffusion mechanisms, do you think it might apply to moral policies / marriage equality? Why? How?
Would this depend on the mode of adoption (referendum, parliamentary vote, court ruling, etc.)?

Answer 26

1. Common Norm: Marriage equality can spread as a common norm when societies recognize it as a human rights issue. Widespread acceptance, especially in liberal democracies, can lead to adoption as a moral imperative.
2. Coercion/Conditionality: Powerful actors like the EU may pressure states to legalize marriage equality as a condition for membership, similar to democratic or human rights reforms.
3. Spurious Diffusion (Functional Pressures): Countries with similar societal or demographic conditions may independently adopt marriage equality without direct influence, driven by similar political, social, or economic pressures.
4. Learning: States may adopt marriage equality after observing successful implementations in other countries, especially if those states experience positive social or political outcomes.
5. Competitive and Cooperative Interdependence: Countries may adopt marriage equality to align with neighboring states, either to maintain competitiveness or to cooperate in shared regional values.
6. Taken for Grantedness: As marriage equality becomes more common globally, it may be seen as a default policy in progressive nations, with minimal debate or resistance.
7. Symbolic Imitation: States may legalize marriage equality to enhance their global image, especially if they seek to appear progressive or democratic.

The adoption mechanism may depend on the mode of adoption. Referendums often reflect public opinion, while court rulings or parliamentary votes may be more influenced by political elites or international pressure.

Question 27

Based on Murdie and Polizzi (2017), to what extent do TANs (Keck and Sikkink, 1998, 1999) fit with the diffusion mechanisms of Braun and Gilardi (2006)?

Answer 27

Common Norm: TANs often promote shared values, such as human rights, creating a common norm that many actors in the network adopt.

Coercion/Conditionality: TANs sometimes use coercive tactics, such as pressuring governments through public shaming or linking aid to human rights improvements.

Spurious Diffusion (Functional Pressures): The diffusion of human rights practices through TANs can occur due to shared functional needs across states, particularly in situations where countries face similar pressure from international organizations or the global community.

Learning: TANs facilitate learning by showcasing successful advocacy models (e.g., campaigns by organizations like Amnesty International), prompting other actors to adopt similar strategies.

Competitive and Cooperative Interdependence: TANs often operate within a competitive environment, where states may adopt human rights policies to align with global trends, but also in cooperative interdependence where they work together to achieve common goals, such as international human rights agreements.

Taken for Grantedness: Over time, human rights norms promoted by TANs become widely accepted as “default” practices by many states.

Symbolic Imitation: Some states may adopt human rights policies promoted by TANs not because they are functionally effective, but to improve their image or legitimacy in the international community

Question 28

Murdie and Polizzi (2017) discuss normative framing, donor funds, and information flows.
How do these align with the diffusion mechanisms?

Answer 28

Normative Framing: This aligns with the Common Norm mechanism. TANs use normative framing to position human rights policies, like marriage equality, as morally legitimate and desirable. This framing creates a shared understanding that adopting such policies is the “right” thing to do, encouraging states to adopt them due to the perceived legitimacy of the norm.

Donor Funds: This aligns with the Coercion/Conditionality mechanism. Donor organizations and states may tie funding or other resources to the adoption of certain human rights reforms, including marriage equality. This conditionality pressures governments to implement such policies in exchange for financial or political support.

Information Flows: This relates to both the Learning and Spurious Diffusion mechanisms. TANs facilitate the flow of information across borders, allowing states to learn from the experiences of others who have successfully adopted human rights policies. Additionally, information flows may lead to spurious diffusion, where countries independently adopt similar policies because of shared challenges or similar international pressures.

Question 29

Do you think the seven diffusion mechanisms are:
exhaustive and exclusive?

Answer 29

Not Exhaustive: While the mechanisms cover a broad range of ways in which policies, norms, or practices can spread, they do not account for every possible factor or process. For example, mechanisms like network effects (how policies spread through dense social networks not covered in the listed mechanisms) or ideas from outside traditional state actors, such as the influence of grassroots movements or technology, might also contribute to diffusion but aren’t captured here. The spread of policies can involve more complex combinations of influence or new forms of media and communication that the seven mechanisms don’t fully encompass.

Not Exclusive: The mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, meaning they can overlap and interact in practice. For instance, learning and coercion/conditionality can work together, where states learn about successful policies through international pressure or incentives, blurring the boundaries between the mechanisms. Similarly, symbolic imitation might be influenced by the diffusion of a common norm, as countries may adopt certain practices to signal alignment with international standards or values.

Question 30

How and why would networks be important for
1 lobbying
2 policy-making?

Answer 30

Lobbying: Networks are crucial for lobbying because they provide a platform for actors (NGOs, interest groups, individuals) to pool resources, share information, and coordinate actions to influence policymakers. Through networks, lobbyists can amplify their message, mobilize support, and gain access to key decision-makers. Strong networks also allow for better alignment of interests, increasing the likelihood of successful advocacy.

Policy-making: Networks play a vital role in policy-making by facilitating the exchange of knowledge and expertise among different actors, including governments, organizations, and experts. Networks enable collaboration, ensuring that diverse perspectives inform policy decisions. They also enhance the flow of information and create opportunities for negotiation, helping policymakers identify solutions that are both practical and politically viable. Through networks, policymakers can build consensus, gain legitimacy, and implement policies effectively across various stakeholders.

Question 31

Carpenter, Esterling and Lazer (2003) argue that high demand for information leads to more strong and fewer weak ties.
What would be potential political
implications?

Answer 31

Policy Influence: Strong ties facilitate trust and collaboration, making them critical in shaping policy outcomes. Actors with strong ties are more likely to influence decision-makers, as information flows more efficiently within these close-knit networks. This could lead to greater consolidation of power among established interest groups.

Inequality in Access: If information is concentrated within strong ties, actors outside these networks (with weak ties) may struggle to access critical information. This could reinforce existing power dynamics, as marginalized groups or new entrants may be excluded from key decision-making processes.

Efficient Decision-Making: Strong ties reduce information friction, enabling faster and more reliable decision-making. However, this could also limit the diversity of perspectives, potentially leading to policy decisions that favor the interests of a few powerful groups rather than a broad consensus.

Question 32

Imagine you are a consultant for an interest group and a policy debate is upcoming.
What recommendations would you make in terms of investing in network ties? Where should they target their efforts and why?

Answer 32

1. Create a network that is specific to the interest you want to lobby. Include every relevant stakeholder.
2. Create ‘weak’ ties with many stakeholders and establish a collective action framework (united front) and emphasise the united commitment to the issue (as per reading 2)
   
   1. Co-opt your policy with other relevant social issues to maximise your support base
3. Create ‘strong’ ties with relevant decision and policy makers (as per reading 1) and hope they share information with you as well to influence your strategy going forward but also benefit the wider weaker tie network.
   
   1. Make sure that you are the central node in this network (information goes through you and you have the most access to different actors, you are representation of the united front

Question 33

Aside from the demand for information
(Carpenter, Esterling and Lazer, 2003), what other factors do you think would impact on preference for weak or strong ties? How would position in the network matter?

Answer 33

Trust and Reliability: Strong ties are more likely to provide trustworthy and reliable information because they are built on long-term relationships. When trust is a priority (e.g., in collaborative efforts), strong ties are preferred. Weak ties, however, may be used when less trust is required or when actors seek diverse viewpoints.

Resource Exchange: Strong ties are often useful for ongoing resource exchange (e.g., funding, policy support). Weak ties, on the other hand, may be more appropriate when actors want access to new resources, ideas, or political opportunities that they do not already possess within their close network.

Position in the Network: Actors in central positions with high degree centrality may prefer weak ties to maximize their reach across different clusters and influence a broader set of actors. In contrast, those in peripheral positions may rely on strong ties to gain access to important resources and information within a tightly-knit community.

Nature of the Policy Issue: Complex or technical issues may require strong ties for consistent collaboration and detailed information exchange, while emerging or low-risk issues may benefit from weak ties to access a broader range of perspectives.

Question 34

How and when do interlocking
directorates become important
politically?

Answer 34

Influence and Power Consolidation: Interlocking directorates can enhance the political power of certain groups or individuals by connecting powerful business elites, policymakers, and key institutions. This can lead to a concentration of influence in decision-making, particularly in sectors like finance, energy, or defense. Politically, this can affect policy outcomes by ensuring the interests of these elites are well-represented.

Policy Networks and Lobbying: When key policymakers sit on the boards of corporations or vice versa, interlocking directorates can facilitate information exchange and coordinated lobbying efforts. These connections can lead to policy decisions that benefit the interests of those involved in the network, often leading to favorable regulations or government contracts.

Crisis or Economic Shifts: During periods of economic instability, interlocking directorates become politically relevant as they may help stabilize industries through collective action, such as coordinated responses to financial crises or regulatory changes. The connections within networks can lead to quicker, more unified political strategies.

Access to Resources: Politically, organizations or individuals in interlocking directorates may gain access to financial resources, political capital, and strategic alliances that are unavailable to others, influencing political agendas or elections. These networks can provide significant leverage in both domestic and international politics.

Question 35

What (if anything) do
interlocking directorates tell us
about political power in a
regime?

Answer 35

Concentration of Power: Interlocking directorates highlight the centralization of power in a few influential individuals or organizations. When key policymakers, business leaders, or elite actors sit on multiple boards, it suggests a high degree of interconnectedness among them. This concentration can indicate a system where decision-making is controlled by a narrow group, often at the expense of broader democratic participation.

Elite Networks: These directorates expose the existence of elite networks, where power and resources are shared among a small group of influential individuals or organizations. Such networks may drive policy decisions that disproportionately benefit the elite, undermining equality and social mobility.

Access to Influence: Interlocking directorates reveal the pathways through which individuals or groups gain access to power and influence within the regime. Politicians or policymakers in these directorates might shape laws, regulations, and business practices in ways that favor the interests of interconnected businesses or industries, thus solidifying their control over political power.

Corporate-State Relationships: In some regimes, interlocking directorates may reflect a corporatist or oligarchic structure, where political power is closely tied to corporate interests. These relationships can create a regime where economic and political power are inseparable, and government decisions often serve corporate interests over the public good.

Stability or Risk: If interlocking directorates form a cohesive and stable network, they can contribute to regime stability by ensuring coordination between economic and political leaders. However, if the networks become too insular or self-serving, they could breed corruption or public dissatisfaction, potentially undermining the regime’s legitimacy.