IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v47y2003i3p367-393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Measures of Political Similarity

Author

Listed:
  • D. Scott Bennett

    (Department of Political Science Pennsylvania State University)

  • Matthew C. Rupert

    (Department of Political Science Pennsylvania State University)

Abstract

Signorino and Ritter developed and advocated a new measure of the political similarity of states ( S ). They demonstrated logical flaws associated with the common Kendall's Ï„ b -based alliance similarity measure and showed that using S may yield quite different similarity estimates. But without a broader empirical comparison and analysis using S , the full empirical ramifications of this difference is not known. In this study, a comparison of S versus Ï„ b is conducted over a wide spatial and temporal domain, examining the relationship between S , Ï„ b , expected utility scores, and conflict. Despite significant positive correlations, important differences in the distribution of S and Ï„ b -based measures of alliance similarity are found. It should not be assumed that the measures are substitutable. Reanalysis of an important expected utility theory of war shows a stronger relationship between equilibrium predictions and conflict when S is used versus Ï„ b .

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:47:y:2003:i:3:p:367-393
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002703252370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002703252370
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002703252370?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. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, 1985. "The War Trap Revisited: A Revised Expected Utility Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(1), pages 156-177, March.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kevin J. Sweeney, 2003. "The Severity of Interstate Disputes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(6), pages 728-750, December.
    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. 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.
    6. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    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. Gary Goertz & Tony Hak & Jan Dul, 2013. "Ceilings and Floors," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-40, February.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Langlotz, Sarah & Potrafke, Niklas, 2019. "Does development aid increase military expenditure?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 735-757.
    15. 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.
    16. Patrick James, 1998. "Rational Choice? Crisis Bargaining Over the Meech Lake Accord," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 16(2), pages 149-184, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Luterbacher Urs, 2004. "Conflict and Irrevocable Decisions," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2023. "Quantifying Theory in Politics: Identification, Interpretation and the Role of Structural Methods," Papers 2302.01897, arXiv.org.
    20. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.

    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:47:y:2003:i:3:p:367-393. 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.