IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v20y2003i2p1-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Interstate Conflict and War: What Should Be Controlled for?

Author

Listed:
  • James Lee Ray

    (Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

Most multivariate models designed by analysts of intemational conflict focus on one key explanatory factor and include several control variables. There are prominent norms or customs in the subfield of international politics regarding the construction of multivariate models and the selection of control variables. Several of these norms or customs may make the results of multivariate analyses confusing and difficult to interpret. Analysts typically do not, for example, distinguish between confounding and intervening variables even though the implications and impacts of such variables are substantially different. Most researchers also fail to distinguish between confounding variables and variables that have an impact on interstate conflict that is complementary to that of the key explanatory factor. Commonly, control variables are included in a model for no other reason than that they also have an impact on interstate conflict or some other outcome variable. In some recent analyses, "independent" variables are included that are related by definition to the key explanatory variable, or to each other. This practice introduces into multivariate models artifactual, misleading degrees of statistical association between variables related to each other by definition with tautological relationships masquerading as empirical causal connections that complicate the interpretation of results. Finally, the construction of pooled cross-sectional, time series analyses is consistently based on the assumption that the key explanatory factor, as well as the control variables, have essentially identical impacts on interstate conflict across space, and over time. Substantial evidence, some of which is provided in this paper, suggests that this assumption is unwarranted. This paper provides five guidelines for the construction of multivariate models that address these issues in a manner aimed at making the results of multivariate analyses more intelligible and credible.

Suggested Citation

  • James Lee Ray, 2003. "Explaining Interstate Conflict and War: What Should Be Controlled for?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(2), pages 1-31, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:20:y:2003:i:2:p:1-31
    DOI: 10.1177/073889420302000201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/073889420302000201
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/073889420302000201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    2. Russett, Bruce & Oneal, John R. & Davis, David R., 1998. "The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950–85," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 441-467, July.
    3. Christopher Zorn, 2001. "Estimating between‐ and within‐cluster covariate effects, with an application to models of international disputes," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 433-445, June.
    4. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 69-105, March.
    5. King, Gary, 2001. "Proper Nouns and Methodological Propriety: Pooling Dyads in International Relations Data," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 497-507, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wegenast, Tim, 2013. "The Impact of Fuel Ownership on Intrastate Violence," GIGA Working Papers 225, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    2. Epstein, Graham, 2017. "Local rulemaking, enforcement and compliance in state-owned forest commons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 312-321.
    3. Haaß, Felix & Kurtenbach, Sabine & Strasheim, Julia, 2016. "Fleeing the Peace? Determinants of Outward Migration after Civil War," GIGA Working Papers 289, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    4. Epstein, Graham & Vogt, Jessica & Cox, Michael & Shimek, Luke, 2014. "Confronting problems of method in the study of sustainability," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 42-50.
    5. Abb, Pascal, 2013. "What Drives Interstate Balancing? Estimations of Domestic and Systemic Factors," GIGA Working Papers 238, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    6. 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.
    7. Corbetta Renato & Volgy Thomas J. & Rhamey J. Patrick, 2013. "Major Power Status (In)Consistency and Political Relevance in International Relations Studies," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(3), pages 291-307, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    2. Megan Shannon, 2009. "Preventing War and Providing the Peace?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 144-163, April.
    3. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.
    4. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    5. Aaronson Susan Ariel & Abouharb M. Rodwan & Daniel Wang K., 2015. "The Liberal Illusion Is Not a Complete Delusion: The WTO Helps Member States Keep the Peace Only When It Increases Trade," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 455-484, December.
    6. Aysegul Aydin, 2010. "The deterrent effects of economic integration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 47(5), pages 523-533, September.
    7. Jun Xiang, 2017. "Dyadic Effects, Relevance, and the Empirical Assessment of the Kantian Peace," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 248-271, March.
    8. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2008. "Power or Plenty," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 213-242, April.
    9. Michael Mousseau, 2000. "Market Prosperity, Democratic Consolidation, and Democratic Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(4), pages 472-507, August.
    10. Andrew J. Enterline & J. Michael Greig, 2008. "Perfect Storms?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 880-915, December.
    11. John R. Oneal & Bruce Russett, 2005. "Rule of Three, Let It Be? When More Really Is Better," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 293-310, September.
    12. Robert MacCulloch & Silvia Pezzini, 2010. "The Roles of Freedom, Growth, and Religion in the Taste for Revolution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 329-358, May.
    13. Jessica M. Mc Lay & Roy Lay-Yee & Barry J. Milne & Peter Davis, 2015. "Regression-Style Models for Parameter Estimation in Dynamic Microsimulation: An Empirical Performance Assessment," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 8(2), pages 83-127.
    14. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    15. Lewkowicz, Jacek & Woźniak, Michał & Wrzesiński, Michał, 2022. "COVID-19 and erosion of democracy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    16. Cali Mortenson Ellis & Michael C. Horowitz & Allan C. Stam, 2015. "Introducing the LEAD Data Set," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 718-741, August.
    17. Jian-Guang Shen, 2002. "Democracy and growth: An alternative empirical approach," Development and Comp Systems 0212002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Johannes W. Fedderke & John M. Luiz, 2005. "Does Human Generate Social and Institutional Capital? Exploring Evidence From Time Series Data in a Middle Income Country," Working Papers 029, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    19. Seghezza, Elena & Pittaluga, Giovanni B., 2018. "Resource rents and populism in resource-dependent economies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 83-88.
    20. Marianna Belloc & Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati, 2016. "Earthquakes, Religion, and Transition to Self-Government in ItalianCities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1875-1926.

    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:sae:compsc:v:20:y:2003:i:2:p:1-31. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.