IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v28y2011i4p315-330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is EUGene a Collective Bad?

Author

Listed:
  • D. Scott Bennett

Abstract

The EUGene software program has become widely used in quantitative international relations. Originally planned to develop expected utility data, over time it has become a general-purpose tool for constructing data sets for use in the study of international conflict, particularly data sets with the dyad-year as the unit of analysis. However, the way in which EUGene has made data set construction easier has also led to some criticism of the program. In this article, I address some of these criticisms and argue that EUGene is still a valuable tool. I also present data suggesting that the use of statistical methods in quantitative studies of international relations has changed, with the use of more, and more sophisticated, methods in published articles over time. The use of more sophisticated methods make tools such as EUGene particularly valuable, as they make it quicker to perform routine data preparation tasks, leaving more time for analysis and data interpretation.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Scott Bennett, 2011. "Is EUGene a Collective Bad?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(4), pages 315-330, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:28:y:2011:i:4:p:315-330
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894211413055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894211413055
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894211413055?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. 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.
    3. Beck, Nathaniel & King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2000. "Improving Quantitative Studies of International Conflict: A Conjecture," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 21-35, March.
    4. Poast, Paul, 2010. "(Mis)Using Dyadic Data to Analyze Multilateral Events," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 403-425.
    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. Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2011. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and International Conflict," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2006. "Power Positions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 3-27, February.
    4. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Stephen L. Quackenbush, 2016. "Centers of gravity and war outcomes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(4), pages 361-380, September.
    7. Christopher Gelpi & Nazli Avdan, 2018. "Democracies at risk? A forecasting analysis of regime type and the risk of terrorist attack," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 18-42, January.
    8. Talya Bobick & Alastair Smith, 2013. "The impact of leader turnover on the onset and the resolution of WTO disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 423-445, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Idean Salehyan & Kenneth Schultz, 2008. "Fighting at Home, Fighting Abroad," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(4), pages 479-506, August.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
    15. Langlotz, Sarah & Potrafke, Niklas, 2019. "Does development aid increase military expenditure?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 735-757.
    16. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    17. James Lee Ray, 2005. "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 277-292, September.
    18. HÃ¥vard Hegre, 2009. "Trade Dependence or Size Dependence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(1), pages 26-45, February.
    19. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    20. 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.

    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:28:y:2011:i:4:p:315-330. 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.