1 / 25

Network Analysis of Brokerage Potential at NPT Conferences

This study examines brokerage roles and potential at NPT conferences using network analysis. It explores the impact of brokerage on reducing gridlock and the role of the Non-Aligned Movement. The analysis includes betweenness centrality and eigenvector centrality measures.

arvizu
Download Presentation

Network Analysis of Brokerage Potential at NPT Conferences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Network Analysis of Brokerage Potential at NPT Conferences Tracy Lyon James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies April 25, 2019

  2. “The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the US House of Representatives” • Clio Andris, David Lee, Marcus J. Hamilton, Mauro Martino, Christian E. Gunning, John Armistead Selden • April 21, 2015

  3. Brokerage at NPT Conferences • Network analysis of NPT PrepComs and RevCons • Brokerage could lead to less gridlock • Brokerage definition

  4. Role of Non-Aligned Movement • Comprised mostly of NNWS, vocal at NPT conferences • 120 member states, 17 state observers • Observers include: • Kazakhstan • Mexico • Costa Rica • Argentina • Brazil • China

  5. Agenda 1. Analytical methodology • Betweenness centrality • Eigenvector centrality • Brokerage roles • 2. The 2015 Network • Introduction • Graphs and results • 3. Conclusions • Analysis • Additional research

  6. Quantifying relationships Node 1 5 Edge 4 2 6 3

  7. Betweenness Centrality 1 5 4 2 6 3

  8. Eigenvector Centrality 1 6 4 5 2 3

  9. Brokerage Roles Gatekeeper Representative Coordinator

  10. Brokerage Roles Itinerant Broker / Consultant Liaison

  11. Working Paper Co-authorship

  12. Access and Influence • Working papers represent more than typical: • Political like-mindedness • Affiliation and cooperation • Access and opportunity for communication • A source of consistent, complete and systematic data

  13. The Network

  14. Criteria for Inclusion • Any working paper with more than one delegation • Includes multiple papers by same group of states • Exclusions for methodological reasons: • European Union • Non-Aligned Movement

  15. Betweenness Centrality

  16. Betweenness Centrality

  17. Eigenvector Centrality

  18. Brokerage Roles

  19. NAM Observers with Brokerage Potential • Betweenness centrality: Argentina Kazakhstan Mexico Costa Rica • Eigenvector centrality: China • High brokerage role scores Argentina Kazakhstan

  20. Other Delegations with Brokerage Potential • NAM members: EgyptUAEChileSouth Africa • Non-NAM, non-NATO: IrelandAustriaSwedenNew Zealand • NATO countries: CanadaGermanyNetherlands Poland

  21. Conclusions • Some key NAM observers and members show brokerage potential via betweenness centrality • Connect segregated groups within the network • Analysis includes some unexpected results • Belarus, China, Egypt, UAE • Most noteworthy countries are non-NAM, non-NATO delegations • NAM largely excluded based on eigenvector • Non-NAM circles is where most of the collaboration is happening

  22. Future Research • Transitivity in NPT working paper network • Compare network findings with expert opinion • Voting behavior in the First Committee • Brokerage • Transitivity

  23. Noteworthy Papers “The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the US House of Representatives” Clio Andris, David Lee, Marcus J. Hamilton, Mauro Martino, Christian E. Gunning, John Armistead Selden, April 21, 2015 “Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?” Daniel P. Carpenter, Kevin M. Esterling, David M. J. Lazer, March 21, 2003 “Collaboration Networks in Conference Diplomacy: The Case of Non-Proliferation Regime” Michal Onderco, 2019, conditionally accepted for the International Studies Review

  24. Thank you for your attention!

  25. Betweenness Centrality

More Related