IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v35y2018i5p451-473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reassessing the democratic advantage in interstate wars using k-adic datasets

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob Ausderan

Abstract

Numerous studies have used monadic or dyadic data to show that democracies are more likely to win wars. Poast (2010; Political Analysis 18(4): 403–425) demonstrates that the use of dyadic data to model events that are really multilateral (or k -adic) can bias the statistical results. In this article, I discuss the potential consequences of that bias for previous studies on democracy and war outcomes. Then I replicate some of those studies using modified, k -adic versions of the original datasets. Finally, I conduct an original analysis using the updated dataset on wars by Reiter et al. (2014a; Journal of Conflict Resolution ; doi: 10.1177/0022002714553107). Overall, I find several changes when using k -adic data. Most significantly, the relationship between democracy and war outcomes appears to be strongest for states that join the war effort after it has already started.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:35:y:2018:i:5:p:451-473
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894216653601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894216653601
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894216653601?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. Reiter, Dan & Stam, Allan C., 1998. "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 377-389, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Lake, David A., 1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 24-37, March.
    4. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    5. Rosato, Sebastian, 2003. "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 585-602, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Kinsella, David, 2005. "No Rest for the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 453-457, August.
    10. 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.
    11. 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. Gerald L. McCallister, 2016. "Beyond Dyads: Regional Democratic Strength’s Influence on Dyadic Conflict," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 295-321, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Michelle R. Garfinkel, 2010. "Political Institutions and War Initiation: The Democratic Peace Hypothesis Revisited," Working Papers 101107, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    6. Brian Lai & Dan Reiter, 2000. "Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 203-227, April.
    7. David H. Bearce & Eric O'N. Fisher, 2002. "Economic Geography, Trade, and War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 365-393, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    10. Fabrizio Gilardi, 2010. "Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 650-666, July.
    11. Strüver, Georg & Wegenast, Tim, 2011. "Ex oleo bellare? The Impact of Oil on the Outbreak of Militarized Interstate Disputes," GIGA Working Papers 162, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    12. Vesperoni, Alberto & Wärneryd, Karl, 2016. "Democracy and International Conflict," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2016:1, Stockholm School of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Luo, Shali & Miller, J. Isaac, 2014. "On the spatial correlation of international conflict initiation and other binary and dyadic dependent variables," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 107-118.
    15. Kevin A. Clarke & Curtis S. Signorino, 2010. "Discriminating Methods: Tests for Non‐nested Discrete Choice Models," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 368-388, March.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. David Altman & Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta & Francisco Urdinez, 2021. "An interactive model of democratic peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 384-398, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Brian Lai, 2007. "“Draining the Swamp†: An Empirical Examination of the Production of International Terrorism, 1968—1998," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(4), pages 297-310, September.

    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:35:y:2018:i:5:p:451-473. 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.