IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v42y2025i6p713-725.html

Politically active dyads revisited: An update through 2014

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen L Quackenbush

Abstract

Empirical identification of opportunity is important since states cannot fight without the opportunity to do so. Various concepts have been developed over the years to measure opportunity—particularly politically relevant dyads, the politically relevant international environment, and regional dyads—but they have struggled to adequately do so. Quackenbush developed a new measure of opportunity, politically active dyad, using contiguity, power status, and alliances as defining characteristics, and demonstrated that it outperformed previous measures. In this research note I present version 2 of the politically active dyads data, with two options: one using Correlates of War data to identify alliances and covering 1816–2012, and the other covering 1816–2014 based on Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions data. I find that active dyads remain the only measure able to capture opportunity as a necessary condition for international conflict and illustrate the impact of these options for quantitative analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen L Quackenbush, 2025. "Politically active dyads revisited: An update through 2014," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 713-725, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:42:y:2025:i:6:p:713-725
    DOI: 10.1177/07388942241286311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07388942241286311
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/07388942241286311?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. 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.
    2. Dorff, Cassy & Ward, Michael D., 2013. "Networks, Dyads, and the Social Relations Model," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 159-178, December.
    3. Minhas, Shahryar & Dorff, Cassy & Gallop, Max B. & Foster, Margaret & Liu, Howard & Tellez, Juan & Ward, Michael D., 2022. "Taking dyads seriously," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 703-721, October.
    4. Stephen L. Quackenbush, 2010. "General Deterrence and International Conflict: Testing Perfect Deterrence Theory," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 60-85, February.
    5. Brett Leeds & Jeffrey Ritter & Sara Mitchell & Andrew Long, 2002. "Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 237-260, July.
    6. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    7. A. Cooper Drury & Patrick James & Dursun Peksen, 2014. "Neo-Kantianism and Coercive Diplomacy: The Complex Case of Economic Sanctions," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 25-51, January.
    8. Poast, Paul, 2010. "(Mis)Using Dyadic Data to Analyze Multilateral Events," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 403-425.
    9. repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:03:p:624-638_27 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    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. Tsintsaris, Dimitris & Ioannidis, Evangelos, 2025. "Modeling structural power in hypergraphs: An application to the interstate alliances network," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 674(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Morgan, T. Clifton & Kobayashi, Yoshiharu, 2021. "Talking to the hand: Bargaining, strategic interaction, and economic sanctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    10. William R. Thompson & Richard Tucker, 1997. "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(3), pages 462-477, June.
    11. Hannah Smidt & Constantin Ruhe & Sabine Otto, 2025. "Many hurdles to take: Explaining peacekeepers’ ability to engage in human rights activities," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(4), pages 1095-1111, July.
    12. Langlotz, Sarah & Potrafke, Niklas, 2019. "Does development aid increase military expenditure?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 735-757.
    13. Atahan Demirkol, 2022. "Why Is There No Third World War Yet?," Medzinarodne vztahy (Journal of International Relations), Ekonomická univerzita, Fakulta medzinárodných vzťahov, vol. 20(3), pages 277-290.
    14. Molly M. Melin & Scott Sigmund Gartner & Jacob Bercovitch, 2013. "Fear of rejection: The puzzle of unaccepted mediation offers in international conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 354-368, September.
    15. Stephen L. Quackenbush, 2023. "The problem with accidental war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(6), pages 675-691, November.
    16. James Lee Ray, 2005. "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 277-292, September.
    17. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    18. Jin Mun Jeong & Dursun Peksen, 2019. "Domestic Institutional Constraints, Veto Players, and Sanction Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 194-217, January.
    19. HÃ¥vard Hegre, 2009. "Trade Dependence or Size Dependence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(1), pages 26-45, February.
    20. Zhiyuan Wang & Hyunjin Youn, 2018. "Locating the External Source of Enforceability: Alliances, Bilateral Investment Treaties, and Foreign Direct Investment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(1), pages 80-96, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:compsc:v:42:y:2025:i:6:p:713-725. 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.