Polarization of coalitions in an agent-based model of political discourse
Tóm tắt
Political discourse is the verbal interaction between political actors in a policy domain. This article explains the formation of polarized advocacy or discourse coalitions in this complex phenomenon by presenting a dynamic, stochastic, and discrete agent-based model based on graph theory and local optimization. In a series of thought experiments, actors compute their utility of contributing a specific statement to the discourse by following ideological criteria, preferential attachment, agenda-setting strategies, governmental coherence, or other mechanisms. The evolving macro-level discourse is represented as a dynamic network and evaluated against arguments from the literature on the policy process. A simple combination of four theoretical mechanisms is already able to produce artificial policy debates with theoretically plausible properties. Any sufficiently realistic configuration must entail innovative and path-dependent elements as well as a blend of exogenous preferences and endogenous opinion formation mechanisms.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Leifeld P, Haunss S: Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. Eur. J. Pol. Res 2012,53(3):382–409. doi:10.1111/j.1475–6765.2011.02003.x 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02003.x
Leifeld P: Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework. a discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Stud. J 2013,41(1):169–198. doi:10.1111/psj.12007 10.1111/psj.12007
Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations. Springer, Berlin; 2005.
Wasserman S, Faust K: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1994.
Ward MD, Stovel K, Sacks A: Application of network analysis to political problems. Ann. Rev. Pol. Sci 2011,14(1):245–264. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.040907.115949
Heclo, H: Issue networks and the executive establishment. In: King, A (ed.) The New American Political System, pp. 87–124. American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C. (1978).
Fairclough N: Language and Power. Longman, London; 1989.
Pierson P: Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev 2000,94(2):251–267. 10.2307/2586011
Sabatier PA: An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 1988,21(2):129–168. 10.1007/BF00136406
Ingold KM: Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Stud. J 2011,39(3):435–459. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x
Hajer MA: The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1995.
Marvel SA, Kleinberg J, Kleinberg RD, Strogatz SH: Continuous-time model of structural balance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 2011,108(5):1771–1776. 10.1073/pnas.1013213108
Traag VA, van Dooren P, de Leenheer P: Dynamical models explaining social balance and evolution of cooperation. PLOSone 2013,8(4):60063. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060063 10.1371/journal.pone.0060063
Miller D: Deliberative democracy and social choice. Pol. Stud 2007,40(s1):54–67.
Epstein JM: Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity 1999,4(5):41–60. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199905/06)4:5<41::AID-CPLX9>3.0.CO;2-F
Baldassarri D, Bearman P: Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev 2007,72(5):784–811. 10.1177/000312240707200507
Bhavnani R, Findley MG, Kuklinski JH: Rumor dynamics in ethnic violence. J. Pol 2009,71(03):876–892. 10.1017/S002238160909077X
Bray, D, Shackley, S: The social simulation of the public perception of weather events and their effect upon the development of belief in anthropogenic climate change. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich (2004).
Henry, AD: Simulating the evolution of policy-relevant beliefs: can rational learning lead to advocacy coalitions?. In: Ostrom, E, Schlüter, A (eds.) The Challenge of Self-Governance in Complex, Globalizing Economies. Collection of revised papers of a PhD seminar; 17th to the 26th of April 2007 in Freiburg. Arbeitsbericht, pp. 135–160. Institut für Forstökonomie, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg (2007).
Lustick I, Miodownik D: Deliberative democracy and public discourse: the agent-based argument repertoire model. Complexity 2000,5(4):13–30. 10.1002/1099-0526(200003/04)5:4<13::AID-CPLX3>3.0.CO;2-G
Cederman LE: Agent-based modeling in political science. Pol. Methodologist 2001,10(1):16–22.
Johnson PE: Simulation modeling in political science. Am. Behav. Scientist 1999,42(10):1509–1530. 10.1177/00027649921957865
Krackhardt D, Stern RN: Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Soc. Psychol. Q 1988,51(2):123–140. 10.2307/2786835
Hinich MJ, Munger MC: Analytical Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1997.
Wolfsfeld G, Sheafer T: Competing actors and the construction of political news: the contest over waves in Israel. Pol. Commun 2006,23(3):333–354. 10.1080/10584600600808927
Downs A: Up and down with ecology: the issue attention cycle. Public Interest 1972,28(1):38–50.
Barabási AL, Albert R: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 1999, 286: 509–512. 10.1126/science.286.5439.509
Baumgartner FR, Jones BD: Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. J. Pol 1991,53(4):1044–1074. 10.2307/2131866
Aronson, E: Dissonance theory: progress and problems. In: Abelson, RP, Aronson, E, McGuire, WJ, Newcomb, TM, Rosenberg, MJ, Tannenbaum, PH (eds.) Theories of Cognitive Consistency. A Sourcebook, pp. 5–27. Rand McNally, Chicago (1968).
Hall PA: Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Pol 1993,25(3):275–296. 10.2307/422246
Abelson RP, Aronson E, McGuire WJ, Newcomb TM, Rosenberg MJ, Tannenbaum PH: Theories of Cognitive Consistency. A Sourcebook. Rand McNally, Chicago; 1968.
Festinger L: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Redwood City; 1957.
Cialdini RB, Trost MR, Newsom JT: Preference for consistency: the development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 1995,69(2):318–328. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318
Lijphart A: Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press, London; 1999.
Fisher DR, Leifeld P, Iwaki Y: Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change 2013,116(1):523–545. doi:10.1007/s10584–012–0512–7 10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P: Where does political polarization come from? locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. Am. Behav. Sci 2013,57(1):70–92. doi:10.1177/0002764212463360 10.1177/0002764212463360
Freeman LC: Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw 1979,1(3):215–239. 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
Newman MEJ: Mixing patterns in networks. Phys. Rev. E 2003,67(2):026126. 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH: Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature 1998,393(6684):440–442. 10.1038/30918
Ingold KM, Varone F: Treating policy brokers seriously: evidence from the climate policy. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2012,22(2):319–346. 10.1093/jopart/mur035
Lerner J, Bussmann M, Snijders TAB, Brandes U: Modeling frequency and type of interaction in event networks. Corvinus J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2013,4(1):3–32.