Azar, Edward E., (1980), The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) Project, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 143–152.Google Scholar
Bond, Doug, Joe Bond, Churl Oh, J. Craig Jenkins, Charles Lewis Taylor, (2003), Integrated Data for Events Analysis: An Event Typology for Automated Events Data Development, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 40, pp. 733–745.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F., Austin Carson, (2011), Political Irrelevance, Democracy, and the Limits of Militarized Conflict, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 292–320.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, (1981), The War Trap, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik, Halvard Buhaug, Jan Ketil Rød, (2009), Ethno-Nationalist Dyads and Civil War: A GIS-Based Analysis, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 496–525.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Clark, David H., Patrick M. Regan, (2003), Opportunities to Fight: A Statistical Technique for Modeling Unobservable Phenomena, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 47, pp. 94–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cline, Kirssa, Patrick Rhamey, Alexis Henshaw, Alesia Sedziaka, Aakriti Tandon, Thomas J. Volgy, (2011), Identifying Regional Powers and Their Status, in Thomas J. Volgy, Renato Corbetta, Keith A. Grant, Ryan G. Baird, (eds.), Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Corbetta, Renato, William J. Dixon, (2005), Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes, Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 39–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghosn, Faten, Glenn Palmer, Stuart A. Bremer. 2004. The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description, Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 133–154.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua, (1991), A Conflict-Cooperation Scale for WEIS Events Data, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 36, pp. 369–385.Google Scholar
Jones, David M., Stuart A. Bremer, J. D. Singer, (1996), Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns, Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol. 15, pp. 163–213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Will Lowe, (2003), An Automated Information Extraction Tool for International Conflict Data with Performance as Good as Human Coders: A Rare Events Evaluation Design, International Organization, vol. 57, pp. 617–642.Google Scholar
Kisangani, Emizet F., Jeffrey Pickering, (2008), International Military Intervention, 1989–2005. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Data Collection No. 21282, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch, Alexei Shevchenko, (2003), Shortcut to Greatness: The New Thinking and the Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy, International Organization, vol. 57, pp. 77–109.Google Scholar
Lemke, Douglas, (2002), Regions of War and Peace, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S, (1983), War in the Modern Great Power System, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev and Bruce M. Russett, (1993), Normative and Structural Causes of the Democratic Peace: 1946–1986, American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 624–638.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, (1996), Domestic Sources of Global Change, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, (2010), Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816–2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., Keith Jaggers, Ted Robert Gurr, (2010), Polity IV Project: Political Regimes Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2010. Typescript. Available at http://www.systemicpeace.org (last visited on 3/18/2013).
Mercer, Jonathan, (1996), Reputation and International Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Most, Benjamin, Harvey Starr, (1989), Inquiry, Logic and International Politics, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
Pearson, Frederic S., Robert A. Baumann, (1993), International Military Intervention, 1946–1988. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Data Collection No 6035, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Ray, James Lee, (2003), Explaining Interstate Conflict and War: What Should be Controlled For? Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Sarkees, Meredith Reid, Frank Wayman, (2010), Resort to War: 1816–2007, CQ Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Savun, Burcu, (2008), Mediator Types and the Effectiveness of Information Provision Strategies in the Resolution of International Conflict, in Jacob Bercovitch, Scott Sigmund Gartner, (eds.), International Conflict Mediation: New Approaches and Findings. Routledge, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Stuart Bremer, John Stuckey, (1972), Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965, in Bruce Russett, (ed.), Sage, Peace, War, and Numbers, Beverly Hills, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
Small Melvin and J. David Singer, (1982), Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980, SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
Sylvan, David, Corinne Graff, Elisabetta Pugliese, (1998), Status and Prestige in International Relations, Presented at the Third Pan-European International Relations Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 16–19.Google Scholar
Volgy, Thomas J., Renato Corbetta, Keith A. Grant, Ryan G. Baird, (2011), Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics: Global and Regional Perspectives, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
Weede, E., (1976), Overwhelming Preponderance as a Pacifying Condition among Contiguous Asian Dyads, 1950–1969, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 20, pp. 395–411.Google Scholar
Wohlforth, William, David C. Kang, (2009), Hypotheses on Status Competition, Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2013-12-17
Published in Print: 2013-12-01
An unwanted consequence is that researchers drop dyads that experience conflict even if states are neither major powers nor geographically proximate. Some scholars have tweaked the defining traits of political relevance in order to make the concept more flexible (e.g., Bennett 2006; Quackenbush 2006).
For instance, COW considers the People’s Republic of China as having major power status starting in 1950 and through a period of enormous weakness in Chinese capabilities and a lack of assertiveness outside its immediate neighborhood. The same is true of Italy prior to the Second World War (Singer 1988).
The COW measure of major power status is only twice briefly defined (Singer 1988; Small and Singer 1982) and the methodology used in its operationalization remains vague.
Similar to the COW indicator, this approach rests on the assumption that members of the international system observe the same attributes as researchers when they consider which states should be attributed major power status. It differs however in specifying those attributes systematically.
We look at military size, military reach (spending for uniformed unit), size of the economy (GDP), and economic reach (trade as a proportion of global trade). The values of the four capability indicators and the following willingness measures should exceed a threshold of one standard deviation above the annual mean for all states.
We use events data are from COPDAB (Azar 1980), WEIS (Goldstein 1991), and IDEA (Bond et al. 2003; King and Lowe 2003), separated into dimensions of conflict and cooperation using Goldstein’s scale.
Diplomatic contacts data are from COW’s diplomatic exchange data (http://www.correlatesofwar.org/), updated in the DIPCON data (http://www.arizona.edu/~volgy/data.html). State visits are extracted from the three events data sources previously noted.
We again refer readers to Volgy et al. (2011) for further examples and discussion of issues concerning the validity of SAM compared to COW.
MID joining refers to third parties becoming actively involved in an ongoing militarized dispute between two states with the intent to aid one side in the dispute. Foreign interventions apply to outside states’ intervention into a target state’s territory in the absence of an ongoing interstate conflict (Kisangani and Pickering 2008).
The data frame and control variables were produced with EUGene software (Bennett and Stam 2000). Capability ratio refers to the weakest-to-strongest ratio in a dyad and is based on the Correlates of War’s Composite National Capability Index (CINC) (Singer 1988; Singer, Bremer, and Stuckey 1972). Shared alliance is a dichotomous variable capturing whether the two members of a dyad share any alliance pact. Shared democratic ties is a dummy variable coded 1 if both members of a dyad are considered mature democracies, scoring 6 or higher on the Polity Index (see Marshall, Jaggers, and Gurr 2010).
Data on dispute onset are from the COW Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID) project (Ghosn, Palmer, and Bremer 2004; Jones, Bremer, and Singer 1996); data on war onset are from COW’s Inter-State War data set (Sarkees and Wayman 2010); data on MID joining are from Corbetta and Dixon (2005); and data on foreign interventions are from Kisangani and Pickering (2008) and Pearson and Baumann (1993).
As contiguity is operationalized identically in either population of politically relevant dyads, differences between the two groups in the models are due to differences in the operationalization of status. We are mindful that the limited number of controls yields some degree of under specification bias, but our goal is to identify a minimum set of explanatory variables that are commonly associated with all of conflict events under consideration in order to improve comparability across models. Due to space limitations, we refrain from commenting on individual results from Tables 3–6. A more extensive discussion in included in the full version of the paper available from the authors on request.
In this case politically relevant dyads with a major power overachiever are more likely to experience foreign intervention than those containing an underachieving major power across all values of capability ratio. Recall, however, such a difference is not statistically significant.