IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v22y2016i1p97-104n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on a Methodological Issue Pertaining to the Empirical Specification of the Probability of Crisis Initiation

Author

Listed:
  • Carlson Lisa J.

    (Department of Political Science, University of Idaho, ID, USA)

  • Dacey Raymond

    (College of Business and Economics, University of Idaho, ID, USA)

Abstract

This note examines a methodological issue pertaining to the empirical specification of the probability of crisis initiation. We show that the empirical specification of the probability of crisis initiation encounters an insurmountable methodological problem, and, by example, that the problem leads empirical researchers to incorrect conclusions regarding the relationship between regime type and crisis initiation, in particular.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:22:y:2016:i:1:p:97-104:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/peps-2015-0039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2015-0039
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/peps-2015-0039?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weeks, Jessica L., 2012. "Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 326-347, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Mahoney, James & Goertz, Gary, 2004. "The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 653-669, November.
    4. Raymond Dacey & Lisa J. Carlson, 2004. "Traditional Decision Analysis and the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 38-55, February.
    5. Stephen E. Gent, 2009. "Scapegoating Strategically: Reselection, Strategic Interaction, and the Diversionary Theory of War," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 1-29, March.
    6. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    7. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Brandon C. Prins, 2004. "Rivalry and Diversionary Uses of Force," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(6), pages 937-961, December.
    8. Stephen L. Quackenbush, 2006. "Identifying Opportunity for Conflict: Politically Active Dyads," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(1), pages 37-51, February.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Matthew Wilson & Carla Martinez Machain, 2018. "Militarism and Dual-Conflict Capacity," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 156-172, January.
    4. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    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. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    7. Kyungwon Suh, 2023. "Nuclear balance and the initiation of nuclear crises: Does superiority matter?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(2), pages 337-351, March.
    8. Michael C. Horowitz & Philip Potter & Todd S. Sechser & Allan Stam, 2018. "Sizing Up the Adversary," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2180-2204, November.
    9. Shawn L. Ramirez, 2018. "Mediation in the shadow of an audience: How third parties use secrecy and agenda-setting to broker settlements," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 119-146, January.
    10. Dawud Ansari & Mariza Montes de Oca Leon & Helen Schlüter, 2021. "What Drives Saudi Airstrikes in Yemen? An Empirical Analysis of the Dynamics of Coalition Airstrikes, Houthi Attacks, and the Oil Market," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1959, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Eryan Ramadhani, 2019. "Is Assertiveness Paying the Bill? China’s Domestic Audience Costs in the South China Sea Disputes," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(1), pages 30-54, April.
    12. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    13. Diego Esparza & Jessica Lucas & Enrique Martinez & James Meernik & Ignacio Molinero & Victoria Nevarez, 2020. "Movement of the people: Violence and internal displacement," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 23(3), pages 233-250, September.
    14. Phillip Y. Lipscy, 2020. "How Do States Renegotiate International Institutions? Japan’s Renegotiation Diplomacy Since World War II," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 17-27, October.
    15. Rana, Arslan Tariq & Kebewar, Mazen, 2014. "The Political Economy of FDI flows into Developing Countries: Does the depth of International Trade Agreements Matter?," EconStor Preprints 91501, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    16. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Londregan, John & Vindigni, Andrea, 2006. "Voting as a Credible Threat," Papers 10-04-2006, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    19. Beth A. Simmons, 2002. "Capacity, Commitment, and Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(6), pages 829-856, December.
    20. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.

    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:bpj:pepspp:v:22:y:2016:i:1:p:97-104:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.