Members of Congress, pundits, and scholars alike have emphasized the importance of personal connections in developing policy. Yet, in the modern era of leader-led lawmaking, there are few opportunities for rank-and-file members to develop meaningful connections, particularly bipartisan ones. As a result, the dearth of personal connections has made sources of collaboration difficult to study. This research note examines a seemingly simple—yet effective—source of congressional collaboration: the Annual Congressional Baseball Game. We apply a novel dataset of baseball rosters from the 114th through the 117th Congress to a network analysis of cosponsorship between all members, and find that membership on the Congressional Baseball Team increases the likelihood of intra-party and bipartisan collaboration at higher rates than other common areas of social connection. This research contributes to work on social connections in Congress, using novel data collection and network analysis.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.ChristensonD. P. (2015). Comparing membership interest group networks across space and time, size, issue and industry. Network Science, 3(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2015.6
2.
CraigA. W. (2023). The collaborative congress: Reaching common ground in a polarized House. Cambridge University Press.
3.
CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq037
4.
CurryJ. M.LeeF. E. (2020). What is regular order worth? Partisan lawmaking and congressional processes. The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1086/706893
5.
CurryJ. M.RobertsJ. M. (2023). Interpersonal relationships and legislative collaboration in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 333–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12381
6.
DesmaraisB. A.MoscardelliV. G.SchaffnerB. F.KowalM. S. (2015). Measuring legislative collaboration: The Senate press events network. Social Networks, 40, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.07.006
7.
DittmarK. (2019). United States: Gendered institutions, processes, and outcomes (pp. 437–453). The Palgrave Handbook of Women’s Political Rights.
8.
FennoR. F. (1977). US House members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 883–917. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960097
9.
FowlerJ. H. (2006). Connecting the congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis, 14(4), 456–487. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl002
10.
GaynorS. W. (2021). The (financial) ties that bind: Social networks of intraparty caucuses. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 47(4), 885–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12360
11.
GoodliffeJ.RothenbergL. S.SandersM. S.InteractiveH. (2005). From goals to actions: The dynamics of cosponsorship reconsidered. Brigham Young University.
12.
GreenM. (2019). Legislative Hardball: The House Freedom Caucus and the power of threat-making in Congress. Cambridge University Press.
13.
Harbridge-YongL.VoldenC.WisemanA. E. (2023). The bipartisan path to effective lawmaking. The Journal of Politics, 85(3), 1048–1063. https://doi.org/10.1086/723805
14.
LaPiraT. M.DrutmanL.KosarK. R. (Eds.), (2020). Congress overwhelmed: The decline in congressional capacity and prospects for reform. University of Chicago Press.
15.
LeeF. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.
16.
LewallenJ. (2020). Committees and the decline of lawmaking in congress. University of Michigan Press.
MayhewD. R. (2004). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale university press.
19.
ReingoldB. (1996). Conflict and cooperation: Legislative strategies and concepts of power among female and male state legislators. The Journal of Politics, 58(2), 464–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960235
20.
ReynoldsM. E. (2021). “Making Congress a Better Place to Work” in Brookings Blueprints for American Renewal & Prosperity. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
21.
RubinR. B. (2017). Building the bloc: Intraparty organization in the US congress. Cambridge University Press.
22.
SinclairB. (2016). Partisan polarization and congressional policy making. In Congress and policy making in the 21st century (pp. 48–72). Cambridge University Press.
23.
SwersM. L. (1998). Are women more likely to vote for women's issue bills than their male colleagues?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.2307/440362
24.
SwersM. L. (2005). Connecting descriptive and substantive representation: An analysis of sex differences in cosponsorship activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(3), 407–433. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298005x201617
25.
SwersM. L.LarsonC. (2005). Women in congress (pp. 110–128). Women and elective office.
26.
TheriaultS. M. (2005). Party polarization in congress. In Annual meeting of the American political science association. Cambridge University Press.
27.
ThomsenD. M. (2014). Ideological moderates won’t run: How party fit matters for partisan polarization in Congress. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 786–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381614000243
28.
VoldenC.WisemanA. E. (2018). Legislative effectiveness in the United States senate. The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1086/697121
29.
VoldenC.WisemanA. E.WittmerD. E. (2013). When are women more effective lawmakers than men?American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12010
30.
ZhangY.FriendA. J.TraudA. L.PorterM. A.FowlerJ. H.MuchaP. J. (2008). Community structure in Congressional cosponsorship networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 387(7), 1705–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2007.11.004
