@Inbook{Christenson:2017,
  author = 	 {Christenson, Dino P. and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier},
  title = 	 {Why Amicus Curiae Cosigners Come and Go: A Dynamic Model of Interest Group Networks},
  OPTcrossref =  {},
  OPTkey = 	 {},
  booktitle =    {Complex Networks {\&} Their Applications V: Proceedings of  the 5th International Workshop on Complex Networks and their Applications},
  year = 	 {2017},
  editor = 	 {Cherifi, Hocine and Gaito, Sabrina and Quattrociocchi, Walter and Sala, Alessandra},
  OPTvolume = 	 {},
  OPTnumber = 	 {},
  series = 	 {Studies in Computational Intelligence},
  pages = 	 {349--360},
  OPTmonth = 	 {},
  OPTaddress = 	 {},
  OPTorganization = {},
  publisher =    {Springer International Publishing},
  OPTnote = 	 {},
  OPTannote = 	 {},
  isbn =         {978-3-319-50901-3},
  doi =          {\url{10.1007/978-3-319-50901-3_28}},
  url =          {\url{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50901-3_28}},
  abstract =     {Interest groups use coalition strategies to exert influence, yet, like other
political actors, they also withdraw from partnerships in the pursuit of other pol-
icy  goals.  We  explore  how  interest  group  coalition  strategies  have  changed  over
time and which factors determine whether interest groups relationships form and
dissolve.  Utilizing  dynamic  networks  of  a  panel  of  interest  groups  derived  from
cosigner status to United States Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs, we illuminate
the evolution of the social networks of frequent signers from the 1970s to the present
day. A separable temporal exponential random graph model (STERGM) shows that
the number of partners is important for formation but not dissolution, while indus-
trial homophily helps both to make and maintain connections. In addition, statistical
trends suggest that while networks change, a few players have acted continuously
as coordination hubs for the bulk of the decades. However, a number of other key
players in particular decades would be missed without a dynamic perspective.}
}