Detected Communities and Structure in the NGO Co-funding Networks of PDAF Releases from 2007-2009
Gabriel Dominik Sison*, Pamela Anne Pasion, and Giovanni Alarkon Tapang
National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Using network theory, the researchers visualize and analyze relationships that can be found in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocation from the released 2012 report of the Commission of Audit (COA). Strong community structure was seen in the legislator-legislator co-funding network and NGO-NGO co-funding network as indicated by the high values of modularity, 0.5 and 0.4 respectively. Also, communities in the legislator-legislator network do not correspond to parties but they do try to incorporate members of the ruling party.
Various systems in nature are driven by mechanisms with non-trivial interactions. From language (Roxas & Tapang 2010) to politics (Zhang et al. 2008), these systems are highly complex with behaviors that are hard to predict. However, these systems are still of interest to us, so their analysis has driven the development of new methods. One possible method is to study the small-scale interactions between the individual elements along with their patterns and structure. The researchers want to see if these patterns and structures reflect real properties of the system. This is the basis of using network science to analyze systems.
A network is a simple way to represent a set of objects or nodes that have relationships with each other. These objects are called nodes or vertices, while call the relationship between them is called an edge (Barrat et al. 2008). Depending on the data set, edges could represent different kinds of relationships. In a social network, these could be friendship relations (Wang & Wellman 2010) or co-authorships in a congressional setting (Fowler 2006). Edges in networks can have values attached to them (weighted networks) or be set to have a uniform weight of one for unweighted networks (Barrat et al. 2008). . . . . read more
BARRAT A, BARTHELEMY M, VESPIGIANI A. 2008. Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BASTIAN M, HEYMANN S, JACOMY M. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
BLONDEL VD, GUILLAUME JL, LAMBIOTTE R, LEFEBVRE E. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. Theor. Exp. Oct 9; 2008(10): P10008.
CABATBAT JJT, MONSANTO JP, TAPANG GA. 2014. Preserved Network Metrics Across Translated Texts. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 25(2): 1350092.
CABATBAT JJT, TAPANG GA. 2013. Texting Styles and Information Change of SMS Text Messages in Filipino. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 24(2).
[COA SAO] Commission on Audit Special Audits Office. 2013. Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP). 2013 Report No. 2012-03 Government-wide Performance Audit. Retrieved from http://coa.gov.ph/GWSPA/2012/SAO_Report2012-03_PDAF.pdf on 2013.
DANNON L, DIAZ-GUILERA A, DUCH J, ARENAS A. 2005. Comparing Community Structure Identification. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp 2005( 9): P09008.
FORTUNATO S. 2010. Community detection in graphs. Phys. Reports 486(3-5: 75-174.
FOWLER JH. 2006. Connecting the congress: A study of co-sponsorship networks. Political Anal.: 14(4): 456-487.
LANDE CH. 1968. Parties and Politics in the Philippines. Asian Surv. 8(9): 725-47.
LATAPY M, MAGNIEN C, DEL VECCHIO N. 2008. Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks. Soc. Networks 30(1): 31-48.
LESKOVEC J, LANG K, DASGUPTA A, MAHONEY M. 2008. Statistical Properties of Community Structure in Large Social and Information Networks. ACM. p. 695-704.
MANACSA RC, TAN AC. 2005. Manufacturing parties: Re-examining the transient nature of Philippine political parties. Party Politics 11(6): 748-65.
MARCELO E. 2018. DBM exec in PDAF scam flees. PhilStar Global.
MONTINOLA GR. 1999. Politicians, parties, and the persistence of weak states: Lessons from the Philippines. Dev Change 30(4): 739-74.
NEWMAN ME. 2006. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 6 Jun 2006, 103(23).
NEWMAN ME, GIRVAN M. 2004. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks Phys. Rev. E. 69: 026113.
NEWMAN ME, STROGATZ SH, WATTS DJ. 2001. Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Phys. Rev. E. 64(2): 026118.
NOGRALES P, LAGMAN E. 2012. Understanding the “Pork Barrel.” Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20120417145905/http://www.congress.gov.ph/pdaf/news/pork_barrel.pdf
ROXAS RM, TAPANG G. 2012. Prose and Poetry Classification and Boundary Detection Using Word Adjacency Network Analysis. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 21(4): 503-512.
PASION PA. 2017. Development of the Co-authorship Networks within the Philippine Congress, [MS thesis]. Diliman, Quezon City: UP Diliman. (Available at the College of Science Library)
PALLA G, BARABASI AL, VICSEK T. 2007. Community Dynamics in Social Networks. Fluc Noise Lett. 7(3): L273-L287.
ROXAS-VILLANUEVA RM, NAMBATAC MK, TAPANG GA. 2013. Characterizing English poetic style using complex networks. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 23(2).
SARACCO F, DI CLEMENTE R, GABRIELLI A, SQUARTINI T. 2015. Randomizing bipartite networks: the case of the World Trade Web. Sci. Rep. 10595(2015).
SISON GD. 2013. Edge-weight distributions in dense small node co-authorship networks, [BS thesis]. Diliman, Quezon City: UP Diliman. (Available at the College of Science Library)
WANG H, WELLMAN B. 2010. Social connectivity in America: Changes in adult friendship network size from 2002 to 2007. Am. Behav. Sci: 53(8): 1148-69.
ZHANG Y, FRIEND AJ, TRAUD AL, PORTER MA, FOWLER JH, MUCHA PJ. 2008. Community structure in congressional co-sponsorship networks. Physica A: 387(7): 1705-12.