Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Caruso, Raul

Ed. by Bove, Vincenzo / Kibris, Arzu / Sekeris, Petros

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2017: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.304
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.540

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 24, Issue 2


Volume 17 (2011)

Volume 4 (1996)

Volume 3 (1995)

Volume 2 (1994)

Volume 1 (1993)

A Note on Borders, Dyads and the Distribution of Democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa

Nicola Pontarollo / Roberto Ricciuti
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Economics, University of Verona and CESifo, Via Cantarane 24, 37129 Verona, Italy
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-05-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2018-0010


In this note we use dyadic data to address the issue of the spread of political regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1977 to 2014. Dyadic data are binary relationship between countries and provide a data-rich environment for the study of international relations. We address the issue of correlation between these dyadic observations, which generates a cluster of dependent observations associated with that country. We find that borders matter, since often the effect of home- and foreign-grown variables have differentiated effects on democracy in one country.

Keywords: democracy; dyadic data; Africa

JEL Classification: C22; D74


  • Albert, A., & Anderson, J. A. (1984). On the existence of maximum likelihood estimates in logistic regression models. Biometrika, 71, 1–10.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Aronow, P., Samii, C., & Assenova, V. (2015). Cluster–robust variance estimation for dyadic data. Political Analysis, 23, 564–577.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Birmingham, D. (1995). The decolonization of Africa. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar

  • Brinks, D., & Coppedge, M. (2006). Diffusion Is No Illusion. Neighbor Emulation in the Third Wave of Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 463–489.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bryson, M. C., & Johnson, M. E. (1981). The incidence of monotone likelihood in the Cox model. Technometrics, 23, 381–383.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Caruso, R., Costa, J., & Ricciuti, R. (2014). The Probability of Military Rule, Africa 1970-2007. In K. Warneryd (Ed.), The economics of conflict: Theory and empirical evidence (pp. 105–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Doorenspleet, R. (2004). The Structural Context of Recent Transitions to Democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 309–335.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Erikson, R., Pinto, P., & Rader, K. (2014). Dyadic analysis in international relations: A cautionary tale. Political Analysis, 22, 457–463.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer M. P. (2015). The Next Generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150–3182. Available for download at www.ggdc.net/pwt.CrossrefWeb of Science

  • Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80, 27–38.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heinze, G., & Schemper, M. (2002). A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2409–2419.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 39, 1–38.Google Scholar

  • DeRouen Jr., K. R., & Bercovitch, J. (2008). Enduring internal rivalries: A new framework for the study of civil war. Journal of Peace Research, 45, 55–74.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gelman, A., Jakulin A., Pittau M. G., & Su, Y. S. (2009). A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 1360–1383.Google Scholar

  • Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18, 143–156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9, 137–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Leeson, P. T., & Dean, A. (2009). The Democratic Domino Theory: An Empirical Investigation. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 533–551.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lesaffre, E., & Albert, A. (1989). Partial separation in logistic discrimination. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 51, 109–116.Google Scholar

  • Most, B. A., & Starr, H. (1990). Theoretical and Logical Issues in the Study of Diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 391–412.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Starr, H. (1991). Democratic dominoes. Diffusion approaches to the spread of democracy in the international system. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 356–381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Starr, H., & Lindborg, C. (2003). Democratic Dominoes Revisited: the Hazards of Governmental Transitions, 1974–1996. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47, 490–519.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Starr, H., & Most, B. A. (1976). The substance and study of borders in international relations research. International Studies Quarterly, 20, 581–620.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Starr, H., & Most, B. A. (1983). Contagion and border effects on contemporary African conflict. Comparative Political Studies, 16, 92–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Starr, H., & Most, B. A. (1985). The forms and processes of war diffusion: Research update on contagion in African conflict. Comparative Political Studies, 18, 206–227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(Supplement), 234–240.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Venzon, D. J., & Moolgavkar, A. H. (1988). A method for computing profile-likelihood based confidence intervals. Applied Statistics, 37, 87–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

aThe views expressed are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Published Online: 2018-05-05

Citation Information: Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, Volume 24, Issue 2, 20180010, ISSN (Online) 1554-8597, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2018-0010.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in