IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v22y2005i2p95-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dangerous Dyads Revisited: Democracies May Not Be That Peaceful After All

Author

Listed:
  • Halvard Buhaug

    (Department of Sociology and Political Science Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim, Norway, halvard.buhaug@svt.ntnu.no)

Abstract

In recent years, the quantitative international relations literature has increasingly paid attention to the potential problem of serially correlated observations in time-series cross-section (TSCS) data. Today, no study using TSCS data is published unless it manages to control for temporal dependence. Using Bremer's (1992) seminal “Dangerous Dyads†article as a starting point, this article has two ambitions. First, it seeks to explore whether the original results are replicable with new and updated data. Second, it aims to uncover whether Bremer's now unconventional choice of statistical model was decisive for his results. The analysis shows that despite clear evidence of serially correlated units, the alternative logit, GEE, and survival models yield relatively similar results. However, Bremer's finding of a monadic democratic peace is not robust to various operationalizations of democracy. His choice of democracy indicator thus seems to have had a significant influence on his conclusions, demonstrating that data selection can be as crucial as the choice of statistical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Halvard Buhaug, 2005. "Dangerous Dyads Revisited: Democracies May Not Be That Peaceful After All," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 95-111, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:22:y:2005:i:2:p:95-111
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940590948547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940590948547
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940590948547?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. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    2. Heagerty, Patrick & Ward, Michael D. & Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, 2002. "Windows of Opportunity: Window Subseries Empirical Variance Estimators in International Relations," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 304-317, July.
    3. Alt, James E. & King, Gary & Signorino, Curtis S., 2001. "Aggregation Among Binary, Count, and Duration Models: Estimating the Same Quantities from Different Levels of Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 21-44, January.
    4. Signorino, Curtis S., 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 279-297, June.
    5. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Morrow, James D. & Siverson, Randolph M. & Smith, Alastair, 1999. "An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 791-807, December.
    6. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Research Design and Estimator Choices in the Analysis of Interstate Dyads," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 653-685, October.
    7. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 2001. "Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 487-495, April.
    8. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paul K. Huth & Todd L. Allee, 2002. "Domestic Political Accountability and the Escalation and Settlement of International Disputes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(6), pages 754-790, December.
    2. 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.
    3. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    4. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    5. Conconi, Paola & Sahuguet, Nicolas & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2018. "Electoral incentives, term limits, and the sustainability of peace," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 15-26.
    6. Terrence L. Chapman, 2007. "International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics, and Institutional Legitimacy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 134-166, February.
    7. Alastair Smith, 2009. "Political Groups, Leader Change, and the Pattern of International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(6), pages 853-877, December.
    8. David H. Clark & Patrick M. Regan, 2003. "Opportunities to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 94-115, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    12. Gilat Levy & Ronny Razin, 2004. "It Takes Two: An Explanation for the Democratic Peace," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-29, March.
    13. H.E. Goemans, 2008. "Which Way Out?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 771-794, December.
    14. Susan Hannah Allen, 2007. "Time Bombs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 112-133, February.
    15. Vesperoni, Alberto & Wärneryd, Karl, 2016. "Democracy and International Conflict," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2016:1, Stockholm School of Economics.
    16. Johann Park, 2013. "Forward to the future? The democratic peace after the Cold War," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(2), pages 178-194, April.
    17. Nikolay Marinov, 2005. "Do Economic Sanctions Destabilize Country Leaders?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 564-576, July.
    18. Ely Ratner, 2009. "Reaping What You Sow," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(3), pages 390-418, June.
    19. Jeffry A. Frieden & David A. Lake, 2005. "International Relations as a Social Science: Rigor and Relevance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 600(1), pages 136-156, July.
    20. Benjamin E. Goldsmith, 2003. "Bearing the Defense Burden, 1886-1989," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(5), pages 551-573, October.

    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:22:y:2005:i:2:p:95-111. 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.