IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v90y1996i03p512-533_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88

Author

Listed:
  • Rousseau, David L.
  • Gelpi, Christopher
  • Reiter, Dan
  • Huth, Paul K.

Abstract

The literature on the democratic peace has emerged from two empirical claims: (1) Democracies are unlikely to conflict with one another, and (2) democracies are as prone to conflict with nondemocracies as nondemocracies are with one another. Together these assertions imply that the democratic peace is a dyadic phenomenon. There is strong support for the first observation, but much recent scholarship contravenes the second. This paper assesses whether the democratic peace is a purely dyadic, a monadic, or perhaps a mixed dyadic and monadic effect. Our analysis offers two important advances. First, our model directly compares the dyadic and monadic explanations by using the state as the unit of analysis rather than the potentially problematic dyad. Second, our model controls for an important but overlooked confounding variable: satisfaction with the status quo. Our results indicate that the initiation of violence within crises is predominantly a dyadic phenomenon, but we also find evidence suggesting a strong monadic effect regarding the emergence of crises.

Suggested Citation

  • Rousseau, David L. & Gelpi, Christopher & Reiter, Dan & Huth, Paul K., 1996. "Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 512-533, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:03:p:512-533_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400207120/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zsombor Z. M'eder & Carsten K. W. de Dreu & Jorg Gross, 2022. "Equilibria of Attacker-Defender Games," Papers 2202.10072, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    2. Jesse C. Johnson & Brett Ashley Leeds & Ahra Wu, 2015. "Capability, Credibility, and Extended General Deterrence," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 309-336, March.
    3. Jacob Ausderan, 2018. "Reassessing the democratic advantage in interstate wars using k-adic datasets," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 451-473, September.
    4. Todd S. Sechser, 2004. "Are Soldiers Less War-Prone than Statesmen?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(5), pages 746-774, October.
    5. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    6. Nils Petter Gleditsch & HÃ…vard Hegre, 1997. "Peace and Democracy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(2), pages 283-310, April.
    7. Lee, Hiro & Woodall, Brian, 1998. "Political feasibility and empirical assessments of a Pacific free trade area," MPRA Paper 82340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. James Lee Ray & Allan Dafoe, 2018. "Democratic peace versus contractualism," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 193-203, March.
    9. Santiago López-Cariboni & Xun Cao, 2019. "When do authoritarian rulers educate: Trade competition and human capital investment in Non-Democracies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 367-405, September.
    10. Dan Reiter, 1999. "Military Strategy and the Outbreak of International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(3), pages 366-387, June.
    11. Stephen L. Quackenbush & Michael Rudy, 2009. "Evaluating the Monadic Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(3), pages 268-285, July.
    12. Yasemin Akbaba & Patrick James & Zeynep Taydas, 2006. "One-Sided Crises in World Politics: A Study of Oxymoron, Violence and Outcomes," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 229-260, September.
    13. Spence, Tyler B. & Leib, Steven M., 2024. "Negotiating international aviation: Analyzing the contribution of politics to the United States' open skies agreements through democratic peace theory," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Robert A. Hart & William Reed, 1999. "Selection effects and dispute escalation: Democracy and status quo evaluations," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 243-263, March.
    15. Christopher Gelpi, 1997. "Democratic Diversions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(2), pages 255-282, April.
    16. David Sobek, 2003. "Regime Type, Preferences, and War in Renaissance Italy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(2), pages 204-225, April.
    17. Sebastian Rosato, 2011. "On the Democratic Peace," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Brian Lai, 2004. "The Effects of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 211-229, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:03:p:512-533_20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.