{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01730103806228374, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004152249134948097, 'mean_word_length': 5.8530805687203795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Communities and Brokers: How the Transnational Advocacy Network Simultaneously Provides Social Power and Exacerbates Global Inequalities


 Transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are the most common example of networks in international relations. Despite their familiarity, we know little about how advocacy networks of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are structured. Drawing on the cross-disciplinary concepts of emergent communities and distinct brokerage roles, we argue that the network may reinforce power disparities and inequalities at the very same time that it provides social power. TANs are similar to emergent communities of practice, with some organizations acting as various types of brokers within and between communities. Preexisting resources are more likely to lead global North organizations to occupy brokerage roles that provide additional agenda-setting and resource-allocating power. We build a dataset of the 3,903 NGOs connected through 1.3 million ties occurring through meetings and conferences for NGOs put on or coordinated by the United Nations. Using community detection methods, we identify four distinct communities in the overall NGO network, with differences in distributions of brokerage roles across communities. Examining the communities, brokerage role distributions, and preexisting power disparities can help us better understand the divergent findings in previous literature and conceptualize TANs.