Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Political Alliance Formation and Cooperation Networks in the Utah State Legislature

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social network analysis has become an increasingly important tool among political scientists for understanding legislative cooperation in modern, democratic nation-states. Recent research has demonstrated the influence that group affinity (homophily) and mutual exchanges (reciprocity) have in structuring political relationships. However, this literature has typically focused on political cooperation where costs are low, relationships are not exclusive, and/or partisan competition is high. Patterns of legislative behavior in alternative contexts are less clear and remain largely unexamined. Here, we compare theoretical expectations of cooperation in these contexts from the political and biosocial sciences and implement the first assessment of political alliance formation in a novel legislative environment where costs to cooperation are high and party salience low. We implement a stochastic actor-oriented model (SAOM) to examine bill floor sponsorship, a process in which a “floor sponsor” becomes the exclusive advocate for a colleague’s piece of legislation, in the Utah state legislature from 2005 to 2008—a context in which gender (male) and political party (Republican) supermajorities exist. We find that (1) party and gender homophily predict who legislators recruit as floor sponsors, whereas seniority does not, and (2) legislators frequently engage in reciprocal exchanges of floor sponsorship. In addition, whereas gender homophily increases the likelihood of reciprocity, party homophily decreases it. Our findings suggest that when the cost of cooperation is high, political actors use in-group characteristics for initiating alliances, but once a cooperative relationship is established with an out-group political member, it is reinforced through repeated exchanges. These findings may be useful for understanding the rise of political polarization and gridlock in democracies internationally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data used in analyses are available as supplemental information at https://github.com/danielRedhead/alliance-cooperation-Utah.

Code Availability

Code to reproduce these analyses can also be found at https://github.com/danielRedhead/alliance-cooperation-Utah.

Notes

  1. For further description of procedures in the Utah state legislature, see Brown 2018.

References

  • Aidt, T. S., & Shvets, J. (2012). Distributive politics and electoral incentives: Evidence from seven US state legislatures. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(3), 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (2000). The consequences of party organization in the House: The role of the majority and minority parties in conditional party government. In Bond, J. R., & Fleisher, R. (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 37–72). CQ Press.

  • Alexander, R. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter.

  • André, J. (2010). The evolution of reciprocity: Social types or social incentives? The American Naturalist, 175(2), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andris, C., Lee, D., Hamilton, M. J., Martino, M., Gunning, C. E., & Selden, J. A. (2015). The rise of partisanship and super-cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives. PLoS ONE, 10(4), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.

  • Ballotpedia (2021). State government trifectas. https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas#cite_ref-quotedisclaimer_5-0. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.

  • Barclay, P., & Willer, R. (2007). Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1610), 749-753.

  • Bowser, B. (2000). From pottery to politics: An ethnoarchaeological study of political factionalism, ethnicity, and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(3), 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.

  • Brandenberger, L. (2018). Trading favors: Examining the temporal dynamics of reciprocity in congressional collaborations using relational event models. Social Networks, 54, 238–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K. A., & Rouse, S. M. (2011). Networks in the legislative arena: How group dynamics affect cosponsorship. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 423–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. R. (2018). Utah politics and government: American democracy among a unique electorate. University of Nebraska Press.

  • Brown, A. R. (2020). Voting patterns in the Utah legislature. https://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/floor_votes. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.

  • Browne, W. P. (1985). Multiple sponsorship and bill success in U.S. state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(4), 483–488.

  • Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, G. A., & Patterson, S. C. (1988). Contours of friendship and respect in the legislature. American Politics Quarterly, 16(4), 466–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. E. (1982). Cosponsoring legislation in the US Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7(3), 415–422.

  • Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.

  • Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press.

  • Carroll, R., & Eichorst, J. (2013). The role of party: The legislative consequences of partisan electoral competition. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38(1), 83–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chagnon, N. (1968). Yanomamö social organization and warfare. In Harris, M. M., & Murphy, R. (Eds.), War: The anthropology of armed conflict (pp. 109–159). Natural History Press.

  • Clark, J. H., & Caro, V. (2013). Multimember districts and the substantive representation of women: An analysis of legislative cosponsorship networks. Politics & Gender, 9(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, A., Cranmer, S., Desmarais, B. A., Clark, C., & Moscardelli, V. (2015). The role of race, ethnicity, and gender in the congressional cosponsorship network. arXiv:1512.06141.

  • Cranmer, S. J., & Desmarais, B. A. (2017). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19(1), 66–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2010). Identifying the roles of race-based choice and chance in high school friendship network formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 4857–4861.

  • Dal Bó, P., & Fréchette, G. R. (2011). The evolution of cooperation in infinitely repeated games: Experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 101(1), 411–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalsheim, J., & Starrett, G. (2021). Everything possible and nothing true: Notes on the Capitol insurrection. Anthropology Today, 37(2), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, L. (2020). Utah was fastest-growing state last decade, according to census preview. The Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/12/22/utah-was-fastest-growing/.

  • de la Rúa, A. (2004). L’analyse longitudinale de reseaux sociaux totaux avec siena - methode, discussion et application. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 84(1), 5–39.

  • Easton, D. (1959). Political anthropology. Biennial Review of Anthropology, 1, 210–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Little.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortes, M., & Evans-Pritchard, E. (1940). African political systems. Oxford University Press.

  • Fowler, J. H. (2006). Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis, 14(4), 456–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (2006). Legislative cooperation among impatient legislators. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(1), 68–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, F., Hauert, C., Nowak, M. A., & Wang, L. (2008). Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks. Physical Review E, 78(2), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup (2020). Congress report: Confidence in institutions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx.

  • Garand, J. C., & Burke, K. M. (2006). Legislative activity and the 1994 Republican takeover. American Politics Research, 34(2), 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glowacki, L., Isakov, A., Fowler, R. W. W. R. M., J., and, & Christakis, N. (2016). Formation of raiding parties for intergroup violence is mediated by social network structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113(43), 12114– 12119.

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 19(3), 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M. (2006). The evolution of contingent cooperation. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 185–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkesworth, M. (2003). Congressional enactments of race–gender: Toward a theory of raced–gendered institutions. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 529–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaney, M. T., & McClurg, S. D. (2009). Social networks and American politics: Introduction to the special issue. American Politics Research, 37(5), 727–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hruschka, D. J. (2010). Friendship: Development, ecology, and evolution of a relationship. University of California Press.

  • Huisman, M., & Snijders, T. A. (2003). Statistical analysis of longitudinal network data with changing composition. Sociological Methods & Research, 32(2), 253–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (2016). Polarization, gridlock, and presidential campaign politics in 2016. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 226–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. G. (2018). Rise of far-right extremism in the United States. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states.

  • Kessler, D., & Krehbiel, K. (1996). Dynamics of cosponsorship. The American Political Science Review, 90(3), 555–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. D. (2000). Changes in professionalism in U.S. state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 327–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkland, J. (2011). The relational determinants of legislative outcomes: Strong and weak ties between legislators. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 887–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koger, G. (2003). Position taking and cosponsorship in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28(2), 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konisky, D. M., & Ueda, M. (2011). The effects of uncontested elections on legislator performance. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 199–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutz, G. S. (2005). Issues and institutions: Winnowing in the U.S. Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 313–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D. (2011). Networks in political science: Back to the future. Political Science and Politics, 44(1), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.

  • Lospinoso, J. A., Schweinberger, M., Snijders, T. A., & Ripley, R. M. (2011). Assessing and accounting for time heterogeneity in stochastic actor oriented models. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 5(2), 147–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlan, S. J. (2016). Social evolution: The force of the market. Current Biology, 26(16), 756–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlan, S. J., Erickson, P., Jim Yost, J., Jaramillo, L., & Beckerman, S. (2018). Bands of brothers and in-laws: Waorani warfare, marriage, and alliance formation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1890). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1859.

  • Macfarlan, S. J., & Remiker, M. (2018). Cultural multi-level selection and biological market theory explains the coupled dynamics of labor exchange cooperation and social support. Sustainability Science, 13(1), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlan, S. J., Remiker, M., & Quinlan, R. (2012). Competitive altruism explains labor exchange variation in a Dominican village. Current Anthropology, 35(1), 118–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlan, S. J., Walker, R. S., Flinn, M. V., & Chagnon, N. A. (2014). Lethal coalitionary aggression and long-term alliance formation among Yanomamö men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(47), 1662–16669.

  • Maddox, H. W., & Jerome. (2004). Working outside of the state house (and senate): Outside careers as an indicator of professionalism in American state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection (Yale Studies in Political Science vol. 26). Yale University Press.

  • McNamara, J. M., Barta, Z., Fromhage, L., & Houston, A. L. (2008). The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation. Nature, 451(7175), 189–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinke, S. R. (2008). Institutional change and the electoral connection in the Senate: Revisiting the effects of direct election. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 445–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micozzi, J. P. (2014). Alliance for progress? Multilevel ambition and patterns of cosponsorship in the Argentine House. Comparative Political Studies, 47(8), 1186–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. The American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2017). Full- and part-time legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.

  • National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2020). State partisan composition. https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx. Accessed 16 Nov 2020.

  • Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563.

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

  • Patton, J. (2000). Reciprocal altruism and warfare: A case from the Ecuadorian Amazon. In Cronk, L., Chagnon, N., & Irons, W. (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 417–436). Aldine de Gruyter.

  • Patton, J. (2005). Meat sharing for political support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perc, M. (2014). The Mathew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(98). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.

  • Powell, L. (2013). Bipartisanship: Modeling cross-party coalition building activity in the 99 state legislative chambers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August – September, Chicago.

  • Power, E. A., & Ready, E. (2018). Building bigness: reputation, prominence, and social capital in rural South India. American Anthropologist, 120(3), 444–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna.

  • Redhead, D., & Power, E. A. (2021). Social hierarchies and social networks in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, D., & von Rueden, C. R. (2021). Coalitions and conflicts: A longitudinal analysis of men’s politics. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3, e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2021.26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, D. J., Cheng, J. T., Driver, C., Foulsham, T., & O’Gorman, R. (2019). On the dynamics of social hierarchy: A longitudinal investigation of the rise and fall of prestige, dominance, and social rank in naturalistic task groups. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(2), 222–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, D., Dhaliwal, N., & Cheng, J. T. (2021). Taking charge and stepping in: Individuals who punish are rewarded with prestige and dominance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(2), e12581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richerson, P., Boyd, R., & Henrich, J. (2003). Cultural evolution of human cooperation. In Hammerstein, P. (Ed.), Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 357–388). MIT Press.

  • Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A., Boda, Z., Vörös, A., & Preciado, P. (2020). Manual for RSIENA. University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, Nuffield College.

  • Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265(1394), 427–431.

  • Rocca, M. S., & Gordon, S. B. (2010). The position-taking value of bill sponsorship in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 63(2), 387–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocca, M. S., & Sanchez, G. R. (2008). The effect of race and ethnicity on bill sponsorship and cosponsorship in Congress. American Politics Research, 36(1), 130–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogowski, J. C., & Sinclair, B. (2012). Estimating the causal effects of social interaction with endogenous networks. Political Analysis, 20(3), 316–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, D. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the post-reform House. University of Chicago Press.

  • Schaffner, B. F., Schiller, W. J., & Sellers, P. J. (2003). Tactical and contextual determinants of U.S. Senators’ approval ratings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28(2), 203–223.

  • Schapera, I. (1956). Government and politics in tribal societies. Watts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, W. J. (1995). Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 186–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. (1985). Inuit foraging groups: Some simple models incorporating conflicts of interest, relatedness, and central place foraging. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. (2003). Human cooperation: Perspectives from behavioral ecology. In Hammerstein, P. (Ed.), Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 401–443). MIT Press.

  • Snijders, T. A. (2017). Stochastic actor-oriented models for network dynamics. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4, 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A., Van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapenhurst, R., Pelizzo, R., Olson, D., & Trapp, L. (2008). Legislative oversight and budgeting: A world perspective. World Bank.

  • Sugden, R. (1986). The economics of rights, cooperation and welfare. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

  • The Economist (2021). Why Utah’s conservatism is better. May 1. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/04/29/why-utahs-conservatism-is-better.

  • Thomas, R. J. (2019). Sources of friendship and structurally induced homophily across the life course. Sociological Perspectives, 62(6), 822–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utah Economic Council (2020). Economic report to the governor. Technical report, Gardner Policy Institute. https://gardner.utah.edu/economics-and-public-policy/economic-report-to-the-governor/.

  • Utah State Legislature. (2019). Bills and resolutions for the 2019 general session. https://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/BillList?session=2019GS.

  • Utah State Legislature. (2021). Legislators by year (1896-current). https://le.utah.gov/asp/roster/roster.asp. Accessed 21 April 2021.

  • von Rueden, C. R., Redhead, D., O’Gorman, R., Kaplan, H., & Gurven, M. (2019). The dynamics of men’s cooperation and social status in a small-scale society. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1908), 20191367. Accessed 21 April 2021.

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

  • West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., & Gardner, A. (2007). Evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Current Biology, 17(16), R661–R672.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received financial support from The Lawrence T. Dee and Janet T. Dee Foundation and the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the University of Utah.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    Connor A. Davis & Shane J. Macfarlan

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Connor A. Davis

  3. Department of Human Behaviour, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

    Daniel Redhead

  4. Global Change and Sustainability Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Shane J. Macfarlan

  5. Center for Latin American Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Shane J. Macfarlan

Authors
  1. Connor A. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Redhead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shane J. Macfarlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Connor A. Davis.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

859 KB (PDF)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, C.A., Redhead, D. & Macfarlan, S.J. Political Alliance Formation and Cooperation Networks in the Utah State Legislature. Hum Nat 33, 1–21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-021-09420-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-021-09420-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation