Abstract
Besides the increasing scope of transnational activities of civil society actors, international relations of national legislatures have long been expanding, yet without attracting substantial scholarly attention. We can observe that national Members of Parliament meet in various bi-and multilateral organisational forms within and beyond international organisations to fulfil parliamentary functions. We present a conceptual framework differentiating between two forms of international parliamentary relations: multilateral vs. bilateral organisation. We argue that multilateral participation is mostly driven by the supply of such organisations and can mainly be found in Europe and Africa. On the contrary, the capacity of chambers can explain the realisation of bilateral channels. We test our claims with data for the international relations of 144 national parliaments. Our explorative empirical study is the first to jointly analyse bi- and multilateral transnational parliamentary relations and shows that international parliamentary cooperation varies over legislatures and regions, generating genuine clusters of institutionalised communities. Our findings help to embed the existing research on international parliamentary institutions and diplomacy in a larger context of international relations. Furthermore, our global relational account of national parliaments speaks to research on diverse topics of domestic outcomes, such as democratisation, norm and legal diffusion, and governmental control.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For convenience, we use ‘parliament/parliamentary’ and ‘legislature/legislative’ interchangeably, (see Kreppel 2014). Despite conceptual differences, our aim here is to highlight shared institutional characteristics and patterns observable on global, organisation field levels of analysis, rather than delineating differences on organisation levels. The same holds for our usage of ‘international’ and ‘transnational’ as legislative work we are interested in meanders between both levels.
Currently, the Franco-German Parliamentary Assembly is the sole example for a bilateral IPI.
On a bilateral level, also other forms of cooperation emerge like the exchange between foreign committees or parliamentary presidents. However, IPFGs are the only organisational form of bilateral parliamentary contact that is practiced in a comparable fashion throughout the world.
We choose this broad, organisational definition in contrast to nominal understandings early studies employ (see Costa et al. 2013b) to not bias case selection with functional outcomes, but focus on the organisational quality of transnational parliamentary relations, recently see also Rocabert et al. (2019), Verdoes (2020).
IPFGs are often also called Parliamentary Groups, Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Groups, Parliamentary Diplomatic Groups, Contact Groups, or Parliamentary Group of Friendship (and Cooperation).
Normally, one parliament selects a target country of interest and tries to establish links with the parliament there, but also to the civil society and the government. It is possible that a selected parliament refuses the reciprocity principle and does not establish an official contact channel, especially due to a lack of interest, capacity, or political will.
Examples include the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) or the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (see Cofelice 2016).
We thank one anonymous reviewer for pointing out that some IR literature argues in the opposite direction, with small states being more motivated to engage internationally due to their small market size (Katzenstein 1985). However, we opt for this direction of the hypothesis and our focus on formal, material capabilities.
We generated our data set in 2018 and tried to collect the most recent data. An obvious shortcoming of the cross-sectional data is that we cannot trace developments over time. However, our feasibility study showed that it was almost impossible to find longitudinal data for bilateral relationships. Thus, we faced the trade-off to either end with only around 20 national chambers over time or to have around 150 chambers for only one year. For the descriptive purpose of this paper, we decided to follow the second option.
One documented case in the literature is the Association of Senates, Shoora and Equivalent Councils in Africa and the Arab World (ASSECAA), see Kissling (2011: 56).
We only code national parliaments’ full membership and exclude observer status and the like to focus on institutions’ organisational core.
Based on the UN regional coding we are using here, Turkey belongs to the Asian country cluster. However, in practice it holds membership in numerous European IOs such as the Council of Europe, OSCE, and NATO and has candidate country status in the EU. Therefore, it could be easily seen as a European country as well, which fits the cluster we identify.
We prefer OLS instead of a Poisson regression which would be more appropriate for count data since the interpretation of the results is more straightforward. In Appendix A.1, we however compare to two final OLS models with the Poisson models. In terms of the direction of the results and the level of significance, basically no difference exists. Furthermore we were concerned about the robustness of the results in terms of model over-specification. Appendix A.2 contains slimmer models with less independent variables as a robustness test. Also here, no big differences to the final models appear. The very few changes will be discussed in the text.
Six IPI memberships is the median in the entire population of our data set.
In network analytical terms, the correct terminology for our endeavour is ‘components’ instead of ‘clusters.’ Components of a graph are sub-graphs that are connected within, but disconnected between sub-graphs; see (Hanneman and Riddle 2005). However, to maintain consistency and our interest in suitable IR rather than network terminology, we decide to use ‘clusters’ instead of ‘components’ since this term proves to be more universally applicable to global political phenomena.
References
Ahrne, Göran and Nils Brunsson (2005) ‘Organizations and meta-organizations’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 21(4): 429–49.
Ahrne, Göran and Nils Brunsson (2008) Meta-Organizations, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Alger, Chadwick F. and Kent J. Kill (2014) ‘How Are, and Should, Parliamentarians of States Be Involved in Global Governance?’, Journal of International Organizations Studies 5(2): 71–84.
Anadolu Agency (2018) ‘Turkish parliament formed friendship mostly with Africa’, available at www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/turkish-parliament-formed-friendship-mostly-with-africa/1317641 (last accessed on 13 April 2020).
Axelrod, Robert M. (1984) The evolution of cooperation, New York: Basic Books.
Börzel, Tanja A. and Thomas Risse (2016) ‘Three Cheers for Comparative Regionalism’, in Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, eds, Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, 622–47, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brechin, Steven R. and Gayl D. Ness (2013) ‘Looking Back at the Gap. International Organizations as Organizations Twenty-Five Years Later’, Journal of International Organizations Studies 4(Special Issue): 14–39.
Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds (2013) Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
Cofelice, Andrea (2012) ‘International Parliamentary Institutions. Some Preliminary Findings and Setting a Research Agenda, UNU-CRIS Working Papers W-2012/3’, UNU-CRIS Working Papers W-2012(3).
Cofelice, Andrea (2016) ‘The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and Its Contribution to Democracy Promotion and Crisis Management’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 11(2‒3): 292–310.
Cofelice, Andrea and Stelios Stavridis (2014) ‘The European Parliament as an International Parliamentary Institution (IPI)’, European Foreign Affairs Review 19(2): 145–78.
Cogan, Jacob K., Ian Hurd and Ian Johnstone, eds (2016) Oxford Handbook of International Organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Costa, Oliver, Clarissa Dri and Stelios Stavridis, eds (2013a) Parliamentary Dimensions of Regionalization and Globalization. The Role of Inter-Parliamentary Institutions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Costa, Oliver, Stelios Stavridis and Clarissa Dri (2013b) ‘Introduction’, in Oliver Costa, Clarissa Dri and Stelios Stavridis, eds, Parliamentary Dimensions of Regionalization and Globalization. The Role of Inter-Parliamentary Institutions, 1‒19, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crum, Ben and John E. Fossum (2013a) ‘Chapter One. Practice of Interparliamentary Coordination in International Politics: The European Union and beyond’, in Ben Crum and John E. Fossum, eds, Practices of interparliamentary coordination in international politics. The European Union and beyond, 1‒14, Colchester: ECPR Press.
Crum, Ben and John E. Fossum, eds (2013b) Practices of interparliamentary coordination in international politics. The European Union and beyond, Colchester: ECPR Press.
Cutler, Robert M. (2001) ‘The Emergence of International Parliamentary Institutions. New Networks of Influence in World Society’, in Gordon S. Smith and Daniel Wolfish, eds, Who Is Afraid of the State? Canada in a World of Multiple Centres of Power, 201–29, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cutler, Robert M. (2013) ‘International Parliamentary Institutions as Organizations’, Journal of International Organizations Studies 4(Special Issue): 104–26.
Debre, Maria J. (2021) ‘Clubs of autocrats: Regional organizations and authoritarian survival’, The Review of International Organizations: 1–27.
Deutsche Welle (2019) Baku-Affäre: Bußgeld gegen CDU-Abgeordnete verhängt [Baku Scandal: Penalty imposed on CDU lawmaker], available at https://p.dw.com/p/3F0x8 (last accessed on 13 April, 2020).
Fiott, Daniel (2011) ‘On the Value of Parliamentary Diplomacy’, Madariaga Paper 4(7): 1–7.
Fish, M. S. and Matthew Kroenig (2009) The Handbook of National Legislatures. A global survey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flockhart, Trine (2004) ‘“Masters and Novices”: Socialization and Social Learning through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’, International Relations 18(3): 361–80.
Gianniti, Luigi and Nicola Lupo (2016) ‘The Role of the European Parliament President in Parliamentary Diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 11(2-3): 144–60.
Griglio, Elena and Stelios Stavridis (2018) ‘Inter-parliamentary cooperation as a means for reinforcing joint scrutiny in the EU: upgrading existing mechanisms and creating new ones’, Perspectives on Federalism 10(3): I–XVIII, available at http://archive.sciendo.com/POF/pof.2018.10.issue-3/pof-2018-0028/pof-2018-0028.pdf (last accessed on 16 April, 2021).
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Miles Kahler and Alexander H. Montgomery (2009) ‘Network Analysis for International Relations’, International Organization 63(3): 559–92.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. and Alexander H. Montgomery (2006) ‘Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(1): 3–27.
Hanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle (2005) Introduction to social network methods, Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside.
Hix, Simon and Bjørn Høyland (2013) ‘Empowerment of the European Parliament’, Annual Review of Political Science 16(1): 171–89.
House of Commons (2019) Parliamentary Debates (Hansard).
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2005) ‘Parliamentary Involvement in International Affairs’. A report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to the Second World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments New York, 7‒9 September, 2005, New York, NY: Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2015) PARLINE database on national parliaments. Vol. 10, No. 1, available at http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.asp (last accessed on 29 August, 2019).
James, Alan (1980) ‘Diplomacy and International Society’, International Relations 6(6): 931–48.
Jetschke, Anja and Sören Münch (2020) ‘The Existence of Courts and Parliaments in Regional Organizations. A Case of Democratic Control?’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 61(2): 309–33.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (1985) Small States in World Markets. Industrial Policy in Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. (1982) ‘The Demand for International Regimes’, International Organization 36(2): 325–55.
Keohane, Robert O. (1984) After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. (1986) ‘Reciprocity in international relations’, International Organization 40(1): 1–27.
Kinne, Brandon J. (2014) ‘Dependent Diplomacy: Signaling, Strategy, and Prestige in the Diplomatic Network’, International Studies Quarterly 58(2): 247–59.
Kinski, Lucy (2020) ‘What role for national parliaments in EU governance? A view by members of parliament’, Journal of European Integration, advance online publication 18 September, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1817000.
Kinski, Lucy and Ben Crum (2020) ‘Transnational Representation in EU National Parliaments: Concept, Case Study, Research Agenda’, Political Studies 68(2): 370–88.
Kissling, Claudia (2011) ‘The Legal and Political Status of International Parliamentary Institutions’, in Giovanni Finizio, Lucio Levi and Nicola Vallinoto, eds, The Democraization of International Organizations, 1–75, International Democracy Watch. Centre for Studies on Federalism.
Kraft-Kasack, Christiane (2008) ‘Transnational Parliamentary Assemblies. A Remedy for the Democratic Deficit of International Governance?’, West European Politics 31(3): 534–57.
Kreppel, Amie (2014) ‘Typologies and Classifications’, in Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld and Kaare W. Strøm, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, 83–101, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lenz, Tobias (2021) Interorganizational Diffusion in International Relations. Regional Institutions and the Role of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lenz, Tobias, Alexandr Burilkov and Lora A. Viola (2019) ‘Legitimacy and the Cognitive Sources of International Institutional Change. The Case of Regional Parliamentarization’, International Studies Quarterly 63(4): 1094–107.
Lipps, Jana (2021) ‘Intertwined parliamentary arenas: Why parliamentarians attend international parliamentary institutions’, European Journal of International Relations 27(2): 501‒20.
Lüddecke, René (2010) Parlamentarisierung der nationalen Außenpolitik. Studien zum Parlamentarismus [The Parliamentarization of National Foreign Policy. Studies in Parliamentarism], Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Lupo, Nicola and Cristina Fasone, eds (2016) Interparliamentary cooperation in the composite European constitution, Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Lupu, Yonatan and Brian Greenhill (2017) ‘The networked peace. Intergovernmental organizations and international conflict’, Journal of Peace Research 54(6): 833‒48.
Malamud, Andrés and Stelios Stavridis (2011) ‘Parliaments and Parliamentarians as International Actors’, in Bob Reinalda, ed., The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, 101–15, London: Ashgate.
Malang, Thomas (2019) ‘Why national parliamentarians join international organizations’, The Review of International Organizations 14(3): 407–30.
Malang, Thomas and Philip Leifeld (2021) ‘The Latent Diffusion Network among National Parliaments in the Early Warning System of the European Union’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 59(4): 873–90.
Martin, Lisa L. (1993) ‘The Rational State Choice of Multilateralism’, in John G. Ruggie, ed., Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Practice of an Institutional Form, 91–125, New York: Columbia University Press.
McCourt, David M. (2016) ‘Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism’, International Studies Quarterly 60(3): 475–85.
Moravcsik, Andrew (2000) ‘The Origins of Human Rights Regimes. Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe’, International Organization 54(2): 217–52.
Murdie, Amanda and David R. Davis (2012) ‘Shaming and Blaming. Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs’, International Studies Quarterly 56(1): 1–16.
NAPP (2014) ‘Grupos Parlamentarios de Amistad’, available at http://www.parlamentocubano.gob.cu/index.php/asamblea-nacional-del-poder-popular/grupos-parlamentarios-de-amistad/ (last accessed on 5 May, 2020).
Navarro, Julien (2010) ‘The Creation and Transformation of Regional Parliamentary Assemblies. Lessons from the Pan-African Parliament’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 16(2): 195–214.
Neumayer, Eric (2008) ‘Distance, power and ideology. diplomatic representation in a world of nation-states’, Area 40(2): 228–36.
NPC (2019a) ‘Senior Chinese legislator calls for closer community of shared future with Guinea’, available at www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/c23934/201911/b6706d671c2c4008aa2c5278792c290b.shtml (last accessed on 13 April, 2020).
NPC (2019b) ‘Senior Chinese legislator calls for more parliamentary exchanges with Cote d’Ivoire’, available at www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/c23934/201911/8b12cad8ecd84d40ab2f56cc9d326557.shtml (last accessed on 13 April, 2020).
Petrova, Irina (2019) ‘Inter-parliamentary cooperation in post-Soviet space. exploring blind spots of regional dynamics’, in Kolja Raube, Meltem Müftüler-Baç and Jan Wouters, eds, Parliamentary Cooperation and Diplomacy in EU External Relations. An Essential Companion, 413–30, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Pevehouse, Jon C. (2005) Democracy from Above. Regional Organizations and Democratization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pevehouse, Jon C. and Bruce Russett (2006) ‘Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace’, International Organization 60(4): 969–1000.
Pigman, Geoffrey A. (2010) Contemporary diplomacy. Representation and communication in a globalized world, Cambridge: Polity.
Poast, Paul and Johannes Urpelainen (2015) ‘How International Organizations Support Democratization: Preventing Authoritarian Reversals or Promoting consolidation?’, World Politics 67(1): 72–113.
Rankin, Jennifer (2017) ‘Azerbaijan revelations spark “great concern” at Council of Europe’, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/05/azerbaijan-revelations-could-herald-shake-up-at-council-of-europe (last accessed on 13 April, 2020).
Raube, Kolja, Meltem Müftüler-Baç and Jan Wouters, eds (2019) Parliamentary Cooperation and Diplomacy in EU External Relations. An Essential Companion, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ringe, Nils and Jennifer N. Victor (2013) Bridging the information gap. Legislative member organizations as social networks in the United States and the European Union, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Rittberger, Berthold (2003) ‘The Creation and Empowerment of the European Parliament’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41(2): 203–25.
Rittberger, Berthold (2007) Building Europe’s Parliament. Democratic representation beyond the nation-state, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rittberger, Berthold (2012) ‘Institutionalizing Representative Democracy in the European Union. The Case of the European Parliament’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 50: 18–37.
Rocabert, Jofre, Frank Schimmelfennig, Loriana Crasnic and Thomas Winzen (2019) ‘The rise of international parliamentary institutions. Purpose and legitimation’, The Review of International Organizations 14(4): 607–31.
Roger, Charles B. (2020) The Origins of Informality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruggie, John G. (1992) ‘Multilateralism. The Anatomy of an Institution’, International Organization 46(3): 561–98.
Šabič, Zlatko (2013) ‘International Parliamentary Institutions. A Research Agenda’, in Oliver Costa, Clarissa Dri and Stelios Stavridis, eds, Parliamentary Dimensions of Regionalization and Globalization. The Role of Inter-Parliamentary Institutions, 20–41, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Šabič, Zlatko (2008) ‘Building Democratic and Responsible Global Governance. The Role of International Parliamentary Institutions’, Parliamentary Affairs 61(2): 255–71.
Schade, Daniel and Stelios Stavridis (forthcoming) ‘Attendance at the Interparliamentary Conference on the CFSP/CSDP. Fostering the Emergence of a Parliamentary Epistemic Community in the EU?’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, advance online publication 19 January, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13174.
Schimmelfennig, Frank (2016) ‘Europe’, in Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, eds, Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, 178-201, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schimmelfennig, Frank, Thomas Winzen, Tobias Lenz, Jofre Rocabert, Loriana Crasnic, Cristina Gherasimova, Jana Lipps and Densua Mumford (2020) Rise of International Parliaments. Strategic legitimation in International Organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, John (2012) What is Social Network Analysis?, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Selden, Zachary and Linda Oehman (2019) ‘The NATO Parliamentary Assembly in parliamentary diplomacy’, in Kolja Raube, Meltem Müftüler-Baç and Jan Wouters, eds, Parliamentary Cooperation and Diplomacy in EU External Relations. An Essential Companion, 205–19, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shugart, Matthew S. (2005) ‘Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns’, French Politics 3(3): 323–51.
Singer, J. D. (1988) ‘Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985’, International Interactions 14(2): 115–32.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2004) A new world order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stavridis, Stelios and Davor Jančić (2016) ‘Introduction. The Rise of Parliamentary Diplomacy in International Politics’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 11(2-3): 105–20.
Thompson, Alexander (2006) ‘Coercion Through IOs: The Security Council and the Logic of Information Transmission’, International Organization 60(1): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060012.
UNSD (2019) ‘UNSD — Methodology. Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49) Overview’, available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/overview/ (last accessed on 7 August, 2019).
Vabulas, Felicity and Duncan Snidal (2013) ‘Organization without delegation. Informal intergovernmental organizations (IIGOs) and the spectrum of intergovernmental arrangements’, The Review of International Organizations 8(2): 193–220.
Verdoes, Alexander (2020) ‘Explaining the Emergence of International Parliamentary Institutions. The Case of the Benelux Interparliamentary Consultative Council’, Parliamentary Affairs 73(2): 385–407.
Wagner, Wolfgang (2013) ‘Chapter Twelve. Who is Coming? Attendance Patterns in the NATO and WEU Parliamentary Assembies’, in Ben Crum and John E. Fossum, eds, Practices of interparliamentary coordination in international politics. The European Union and beyond, 195‒211, Colchester: ECPR Press.
Wang, Liwan (2016) ‘Parliamentary Diplomacy in the Chinese Constitution and Foreign Policy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 11(2‒3): 253–74.
Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust (1994) Social network analysis. Methods and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Thomas Winzen and the participants of the panel ‘The Parliamentary Organisation of International Relations’ at Drei-Ländertagung in February 2019 at ETH Zurich for their helpful comments on an early draft of this paper. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and editors for their helpful and constructive comments and questions on earlier versions of the manuscript. Michael Giesen gratefully acknowledges the funding by the German Research Foundation DFG through the IRTG Grant ‘Human Rights under Pressure,’ Einstein Foundation, and Stanford University. Thomas Malang’s data collection effort was supported by the Office for Equal Opportunities, Family Affairs and Diversity of the University of Konstanz with a grant for ‘Flexible Working Conditions for Postdocs with Family Duties.’ He also gratefully acknowledges funding by the German Research Foundation DFG through the Emmy Noether programme, Grant No. 447624982.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: Robustness of OLS
Appendix 1: Robustness of OLS
A.1: Replication of Model 3 and 4 of Table 2 of the main Text with Poisson regression (with robust standard errors)
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bilateral OLS | Bilateral Poisson | Multilateral OLS | Multilateral Poisson | |
Population log | 1.50 | 0.07 | − 0.19 | − 0.03 |
(2.58) | (0.10) | (0.19) | (0.03) | |
GDP log | 0.25 | 0.00 | − 0.03 | − 0.00 |
(0.53) | (0.02) | (0.04) | (0.01) | |
Military power | − 4.54*** | − 0.23*** | 0.06 | 0.01 |
(1.60) | (0.06) | (0.12) | (0.02) | |
Parliamentary power | 57.82*** | 2.11** | 0.03 | 0.01 |
(20.98) | (0.78) | (1.57) | (0.22) | |
Size parliament | 0.06*** | 0.00*** | − 0.00* | − 0.00** |
(0.01) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Polity IV | − 1.51** | − 0.07*** | − 0.06 | − 0.01 |
(0.60) | (0.02) | (0.04) | (0.01) | |
Monarchy | − 17.77 | − 1.14 | − 1.03 | − 0.19 |
(12.46) | (0.70) | (0.91) | (0.16) | |
Parliamentary | − 18.62** | − 0.62** | 0.66 | 0.11 |
(7.30) | (0.31) | (0.54) | (0.09) | |
Base: presidential | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
(.) | (.) | (.) | (.) | |
Semi-presidential | − 0.16 | − 0.12 | 0.92* | 0.14* |
(7.09) | (0.28) | (0.51) | (0.08) | |
Other | − 7.27 | − 0.23 | − 2.40* | − 0.40*** |
(19.04) | (0.68) | (1.36) | (0.09) | |
Asia | − 14.25 | − 0.42 | − 1.59** | − 0.23** |
(8.79) | (0.26) | (0.63) | (0.10) | |
Africa | − 29.48*** | − 1.23*** | − 0.76 | − 0.09 |
(8.77) | (0.36) | (0.66) | (0.12) | |
Base: Europe | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
(.) | (.) | (.) | (.) | |
Americas | − 9.69 | − 0.27 | − 2.67*** | − 0.40*** |
(9.14) | (0.24) | (0.62) | (0.13) | |
Oceania | 26.34 | 0.98** | − 4.11*** | − 0.71*** |
(18.80) | (0.47) | (1.32) | (0.08) | |
N IGOs | − 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.05*** | 0.01*** |
(0.23) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.00) | |
N IPIs | 2.79** | 0.08** | ||
(1.25) | (0.04) | |||
N IPFGs | 0.01** | 0.00** | ||
(0.01) | (0.00) | |||
Constant | − 18.40 | 1.48** | 6.79*** | 1.88*** |
(21.53) | (0.67) | (1.43) | (0.23) | |
Observations | 135 | 135 | 135 | 135 |
R 2 | 0.412 | 0.477 |
A.2 Stepwise introduction of predictors to check for overfitting
Regression result for bilateral part
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Bilateral | Bilateral | Bilateral | |
Population log | 6.68*** | ||
(2.37) | |||
GDP log | − 0.07 | ||
(0.48) | |||
Military power | − 0.56 | ||
(1.24) | |||
Parliamentary power | 52.16*** | ||
(19.72) | |||
Size parliament | 0.03*** | ||
(0.01) | |||
Polity IV | − 1.43** | ||
(0.60) | |||
Monarchy | − 23.22* | ||
(11.90) | |||
Parliamentary | − 8.80 | ||
(7.23) | |||
Presidential | 0.00 | ||
(.) | |||
Semi-presidential | 4.80 | ||
(7.46) | |||
Other | 1.87 | ||
(20.27) | |||
N IGOs | 0.30* | ||
(0.16) | |||
N IPIs | 2.06 | ||
(1.28) | |||
Asia | − 22.35*** | − 16.27** | − 3.37 |
(6.81) | (7.22) | (7.72) | |
Africa | − 32.41*** | − 20.42*** | − 29.07*** |
(7.43) | (7.62) | (8.35) | |
Europe | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
(.) | (.) | (.) | |
Americas | − 20.82*** | − 8.66 | − 13.45 |
(7.59) | (7.28) | (9.61) | |
Oceania | 2.76 | 11.38 | 17.41 |
(19.54) | (18.81) | (20.22) | |
Constant | − 13.93 | 11.70 | 8.07 |
(16.31) | (11.87) | (15.37) | |
Observations | 135 | 135 | 138 |
R2 | 0.235 | 0.283 | 0.236 |
Regression results for multilateral part
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Multilateral | Multilateral | Multilateral | |
Population log | 0.02 | ||
(0.17) | |||
GDP log | 0.01 | ||
(0.03) | |||
Military power | − 0.09 | ||
(0.09) | |||
Parliamentary power | 2.12 | ||
(1.44) | |||
Size parliament | − 0.00 | ||
(0.00) | |||
Polity IV | − 0.06 | ||
(0.04) | |||
Monarchy | − 0.27 | ||
(0.83) | |||
Parliamentary | 0.46 | ||
(0.50) | |||
Presidential | 0.00 | ||
(.) | |||
Semi-presidential | 0.79 | ||
(0.51) | |||
Other | − 2.29* | ||
(1.38) | |||
N IGOs | 0.03** | ||
(0.01) | |||
N IPFGs | 0.01 | ||
(0.01) | |||
Asia | − 2.82*** | − 2.82*** | − 2.09*** |
(0.48) | (0.53) | (0.50) | |
Africa | − 1.55*** | − 1.33** | − 0.80 |
(0.53) | (0.55) | (0.60) | |
Europe | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
(.) | (.) | (.) | |
Americas | − 3.25*** | − 3.10*** | − 2.79*** |
(0.54) | (0.53) | (0.62) | |
Oceania | − 4.39*** | − 4.24*** | − 4.29*** |
(1.39) | (1.37) | (1.34) | |
Constant | 7.80*** | 7.55*** | 5.43*** |
(1.16) | (0.86) | (0.94) | |
Observations | 135 | 135 | 138 |
R2 | 0.343 | 0.355 | 0.412 |
A.3 Test of models for subsample of countries with at least 4 IPI-Memberships
(1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|
Bilateral | Multilateral | |
Population log | − 1.30 | − 0.22 |
(3.27) | (0.23) | |
GDP log | − 0.35 | − 0.05 |
(0.55) | (0.04) | |
Military power | − 3.33* | 0.13 |
(1.78) | (0.13) | |
Parliamentary power | 51.95** | − 0.08 |
(21.31) | (1.54) | |
Size parliament | 0.12*** | − 0.00 |
(0.02) | (0.00) | |
Polity IV | − 1.70*** | − 0.06 |
(0.63) | (0.05) | |
Monarchy | − 17.35 | − 2.00** |
(14.34) | (1.00) | |
Parliamentary | − 21.60*** | 0.40 |
(7.38) | (0.54) | |
Presidential | 0.00 | 0.00 |
(.) | (.) | |
Semi-presidential | − 0.46 | 0.68 |
(7.07) | (0.49) | |
Other | − 6.36 | − 2.85** |
(18.58) | (1.28) | |
Asia | − 14.35 | − 1.00 |
(8.83) | (0.62) | |
Africa | − 35.46*** | − 1.04 |
(9.07) | (0.67) | |
Europe | 0.00 | 0.00 |
(.) | (.) | |
Americas | − 12.06 | − 2.85*** |
(9.40) | (0.61) | |
Oceania | 36.76** | − 3.93*** |
(18.39) | (1.26) | |
N IGOs | − 0.07 | 0.05*** |
(0.23) | (0.02) | |
N IPIs | 2.47* | |
(1.35) | ||
N IPFGs | 0.01* | |
(0.01) | ||
Constant | 20.73 | 7.91*** |
(27.05) | (1.75) | |
Observations | 125 | 125 |
R 2 | 0.472 | 0.470 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giesen, M., Malang, T. Legislative communities. Conceptualising and mapping international parliamentary relations. J Int Relat Dev 25, 523–555 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-021-00251-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-021-00251-x