How do non-governmental organizations (NGOs) choose their partners when working in transnational advocacy networks? This case hypothesizes that NGOs form homophilous partnerships to minimize risk from cooperation. It employs two-mode exponential random graph models to examine the original data regarding the activities, attributes, and partnerships of NGOs sponsoring transnational advocacy events on climate change. The paper finds that homophily is a significant driver of partnership formation in transnational advocacy networks, even when controlling for relevant confounders, such as the differential tendency for groups to form partnerships, the varying attractiveness of the events on which the partnerships are formed, and geographic propinquity. It also finds that value-based homophily tends to be the strongest driver of partnership formation and that homophily is not generally conditional on event risk. These findings speak to the challenge of diversity in transnational advocacy networks, with implications for problem-solving and advocacy.
AgneessensF.EverettM. G. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on advances in two-mode social networks. Social Networks, 2(35), 145–147.
2.
AllanJ. I. (2021). The new climate activism: NGO authority and participation in global climate governance. University of Toronto Press.
3.
AtobaY.ShumateM. (2015). International nonprofit collaboration: Examining the role of homophily. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 587–608.
4.
BandyJ.SmithJ. (2005). Coalitions across borders: Transnational protest and the neoliberal order. Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
BerardoR. (2014). Bridging and bonding capital in two-mode collaboration networks. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 197–225.
6.
BerardoR.ScholzJ. T. (2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 632–649.
7.
BobC. (2005). The marketing of rebellion: Insurgents, media, and international activism. Cambridge University Press.
8.
BodenO.PrellC. (2011). Social networks and natural resource management. Cambridge University Press.
9.
BomiriyaR. P. (2014). Topics in exponential random graph modeling [Doctoral dissertation, Penn State University].
10.
BusbyJ.KaplanE. (2006). Unexpected power: Conflict and change among transnational activists. Cambridge University Press.
11.
CarpenterR. C. (2014). Lost causes: Agenda vetting in global issue networks and the shaping of human security. Cornell University Press.
12.
CooleyA.RonJ. (2002). The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security, 27(1), 5–39.
13.
De BurcaG.KeohaneR. O.SabelC. (2014). Global experimentalist governance. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 477–486.
14.
DianiM. (2015). The cement of civil society: Studying networks in localities. Cambridge University Press.
15.
EarlJ.MartinA.McCarthyJ.SouleS. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 65–80.
16.
GerberE. R.HenryA. D.LubellM. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598–610.
17.
GerhardsJ.RuchtD. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 555–596.
18.
HaddenJ. (2015). Networks in contention: The divisive politics of climate change. Cambridge University Press.
19.
Hafner-BurtonE. M.KahlerM.MontgomeryA. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592.
20.
Hafner-BurtonE. M.MontgomeryA. (2015). Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27.
21.
HandcockM. S.HunterD. R.ButtsC. T.GoodreauS. M.KrivitskyP. N.Bender-deMollS.MorrisM. (2016). statnet: Software tools for the statistical analysis of network data (R Package Version 2016.9). The Statnet Project. http://www.statnet.org
22.
HenryA. D.DietzT.SweeneyR. L. (2021). Coevolution of networks and beliefs in U.S. environmental risk Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 49(3), 675–702.
23.
HoffmanM. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford University Press.
24.
JasnyL.LubellM. (2015). Two-mode brokerage in policy networks. Social Networks, 41(1), 36–47.
25.
JasnyL.WaggleJ.FisherD. (2015). An empirical examination of echo chambers in U.S. climate policy networks. Nature Climate Change, 5(8), 435–459.
26.
JohnsonE.PrakashA. (2005). NGO research program: A collective action perspective. Policy Sciences, 40(3), 221–240.
27.
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.
28.
LazarsfeldP.MertonR. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In BergerM.AbelT.CharlesH. (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). Van Nostrand.
29.
LichtermanP. (1995). Piecing together multicultural community: Cultural differences in community building among grassroots environmentalists. Social Problems, 42(4), 513–534.
30.
LubellM. (2007). Familiarity breeds trust: Collective action in a policy domain. Journal of Politics, 69(1), 237–250.
31.
LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. (2012). Exponential random graph models for social networks. Cambridge University Press.
32.
McAdamD. (1999). Political process and the development of Black insurgency. University of Chicago Press.
33.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. D. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.
34.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
35.
MurdieA. (2014a). Scrambling for contact: The determinants of inter-NGO cooperation in non-Western countries. Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 309–331.
36.
MurdieA. (2014b). The ties that bind: A network analysis of human rights international nongovernmental organizations. British Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 177–202.
37.
MurdieA.DavisD. R. (2012). Looking in the mirror: Comparing INGO networks across issue areas. Review of International Organizations, 7(2), 177–202.
38.
NooteboomB.BergerH.NoorderhavenN. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 308–338.
39.
OlzakS.RyoE. (2007). Organizational diversity, vitality and outcomes in the civil rights movement. Social Forces, 85(4), 1561–1591.
40.
PadgettJ. F.PowellW. W. (2004). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton University Press.
41.
PageS. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.
42.
PoldonyJ. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 458–483.
43.
PrakashA.GugertyM. K. (2010). Advocacy organizations and collective action. Cambridge University Press.
44.
PriceR. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606.
45.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
46.
RisseT. (2010). Rethinking advocacy organizations? A critical comment. In PrakashA.GugertyM. K. (Eds.), Advocacy organizations and collective action (pp. 283–294). Cambridge University Press.
47.
RisseT.RoppS.SikkinkK. (1999). The power of human rights. Cambridge University Press.
48.
SapatA.EsnardA.-M.KolpakovA. (2019). Understanding collaboration in disaster assistance networks: Organizational homophily or resource dependency?American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 957–972.
49.
SmithJ.WiestD. (2012). Social movements in the world-system: The politics of crisis and transformation. Russell Sage Foundation.
50.
StaggenborgS. (1986). Coalition work in the pro-choice movement: Organizational and environmental opportunities and obstacles. Social Problems, 33(2), 374–390.
51.
StroupS. S. (2012). Borders among activists: International NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France. Cornell University Press.
52.
TarrowS. (2011). Power in movement. Cambridge University Press.
53.
Van DykeN. (2003). Crossing movement boundaries: Factors that facilitate coalition protest by American college students, 1930-1990. Social Problems, 50(2), 226–250.
54.
Van DykeN.McCammonH. J. (2010). Strategic alliances: Coalition building and social movements. University of Minnesota Press.
55.
WangD. J.SouleS. A. (2012). Social movement organizational collaboration: Networks of learning and the diffusion of protest tactics, 1960-1995. American Journal of Sociology, 117(6), 1674–1722.
56.
WardM. D.StovelK.StacksA. (2011). Network analysis and political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 245–264.
57.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
