IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v45y2001i1p126-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas Lemke

    (Department of Political Science, University of Michigan)

  • William Reed

    (Department of Political Science, Michigan State University)

Abstract

Relevant dyads are pairs of contiguous states or pairs of states including at least one major power. They are argued to be the population of dyads at risk of international conflict and are increasingly commonly used as the cases analyzed by conflict researchers. Does reliance on relevant dyads (a nonrandom sample of all dyads) introduce threats to valid inference? The authors argue that relevant dyad usage might introduce related problems of measurement error and selection bias and investigate whether there is evidence of such potential problems existing in actual relevant dyad data sets. Results show evidence for both types of potential problems, but neither problem substantively affects estimates of conflict relationships. Therefore, relevant dyad usage is not especially objectionable due to either of these problems, and retrospective sampling might be an even more profitable course for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas Lemke & William Reed, 2001. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 126-144, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:45:y:2001:i:1:p:126-144
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002701045001006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002701045001006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002701045001006?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. 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.
    2. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    3. Kristian S. Gleditsch & Michael D. Ward, 1999. "A revised list of independent states since the congress of Vienna," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 393-413, October.
    4. Timpone, Richard J., 1998. "Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(1), pages 145-158, March.
    5. Douglas Lemke, 1995. "The tyranny of distance: Redefining relevant dyads," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 23-38.
    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. 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.
    2. Reuven Glick & Alan M. Taylor, 2010. "Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 102-127, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Petersen Karen K., 2008. "There is More to the Story than 'Us-Versus-Them': Expanding the Study of Interstate Conflict and Regime Type Beyond a Dichotomy," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-37, April.
    5. Jacob Ausderan, 2015. "Following an Experienced Shepherd: How a Leader’s Tenure Affects the Outcome of International Crises," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 26-45, January.
    6. Reuven Glick & Alan M. Taylor, 2010. "Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 102-127, February.
    7. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.
    8. Bernauer, Thomas & Sattler, Thomas, 2010. "Gravitation or Discrimination? Determinants of Litigation in the World Trade Organization," Papers 116, World Trade Institute.
    9. Carlson Lisa J. & Dacey Raymond, 2016. "A Note on a Methodological Issue Pertaining to the Empirical Specification of the Probability of Crisis Initiation," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 97-104, January.
    10. 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. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Clayton L. Thyne, 2010. "Contentious Issues as Opportunities for Diversionary Behavior," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(5), pages 461-485, November.
    2. 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.
    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. Renato Corbetta & William J. Dixon, 2005. "Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 39-61, February.
    5. Andrew Shaver & David B. Carter & Tsering Wangyal Shawa, 2019. "Terrain ruggedness and land cover: Improved data for most research designs," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(2), pages 191-218, March.
    6. D. Scott Bennett & Matthew C. Rupert, 2003. "Comparing Measures of Political Similarity," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(3), pages 367-393, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. John R. Freeman & Jude C. Hays & Helmut Stix, 1999. "Democracy and Markets: The Case of Exchange Rates," Working Papers 39, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    10. 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.
    11. Agustín Goenaga & Oriol Sabaté & Jan Teorell, 2023. "The state does not live by warfare alone: War and revenue in the long nineteenth century," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 393-418, April.
    12. Elisabeth Gilmore & Nils Petter Gleditsch & Päivi Lujala & Jan Ketil Rod, 2005. "Conflict Diamonds: A New Dataset," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(3), pages 257-272, July.
    13. Martin Gassebner & Jerg Gutmann & Stefan Voigt, 2016. "When to expect a coup d’état? An extreme bounds analysis of coup determinants," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 293-313, December.
    14. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    15. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2023. "Quantifying Theory in Politics: Identification, Interpretation and the Role of Structural Methods," Papers 2302.01897, arXiv.org.
    16. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    17. Matthew Fuhrmann & Jaroslav Tir, 2009. "Territorial Dimensions of Enduring Internal Rivalries," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 307-329, September.
    18. Michael Horowitz & Rose McDermott & Allan C. Stam, 2005. "Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 661-685, October.
    19. J. Joseph Hewitt, 2003. "Dyadic Processes and International Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(5), pages 669-692, October.
    20. Kyle Haynes, 2017. "Diversionary conflict: Demonizing enemies or demonstrating competence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 337-358, July.

    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:jocore:v:45:y:2001:i:1:p:126-144. 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.