Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Spatial Effects in Dyadic Data

  • Eric Neumayer (a1) and Thomas Plümper (a2)

Political units often spatially depend in their policy choices on other units. This also holds in dyadic settings where, as in much of international relations research, analysis focuses on the interaction or relation between a pair or dyad of two political units. Yet, with few exceptions, social scientists have analyzed contagion in monadic datasets only, consisting of individual political units. This article categorizes all possible forms of spatial effect modeling in both undirected and directed dyadic data, where it is possible to distinguish the source and the target of interaction (for example, exporter/importer, aggressor/victim, and so on). This approach enables scholars to formulate and test novel mechanisms of contagion, thus ideally paving the way for studies analyzing spatial dependence between dyads of political units. To illustrate the modeling flexibility gained from an understanding of the full set of specification options for spatial effects in dyadic data, we examine the diffusion of bilateral investment treaties between developed and developing countries, building and extending on Elkins, Guzman, and Simmons's 2006 study. However, we come to different conclusions about the channels through which bilateral investment treaties diffuse. Rather than a capital-importing country being influenced by the total number of BITs signed by other capital importers, as modeled in their original article, we find that a capital-importing country is more likely to sign a BIT with a capital exporter only if other competing capital importers have signed BITs with this very same capital exporter. Similarly, other capital exporters' BITs with a specific capital importer influence an exporter's incentive to agree on a BIT with the very same capital importer.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Luc Anselin . 2003. Spatial Externalities, Spatial Multipliers, and Spatial Econometrics. International Regional Science Review 26 (2):153–66.

Nathaniel Beck , Kristian Skrede Gleditsch , and Kyle Beardsley . 2006. Space Is More than Geography: Using Spatial Econometrics in the Study of Political Economy. International Studies Quarterly 50 (1):2744.

Sarah M. Brooks 2007. When Does Diffusion Matter? Explaining the Spread of Structural Pension Reforms Across Nations. Journal of Politics 69 (3):701–15.

Wendy K. Tam Cho . 2003. Contagion Effects and Ethnic Contribution Networks. American Journal of Political Science 47 (2):368–87.

Zachary Elkins , and Beth A. Simmons . 2005. On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (1):3351.

Robert J. Franzese Jr., and Jude C. Hays . 2006. Strategic Interaction Among EU Governments in Active Labor Market Policy-Making: Subsidiarity and Policy Coordination under the European Employment Strategy. European Union Politics 7 (2):167–89.

Erik Gartzke , and Kristian S. Gleditsch . 2006. Identity and Conflict: Ties that Bind and Differences that Divide. European Journal of International Relations 12 (1):5387.

Philipp Genschel , and Thomas Plümper . 1997. Regulatory Competition and International Cooperation. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4):626–42.

Mark Hallerberg , and Scott Basinger . 1998. Internationalization and Changes in Tax Policy in OECD Countries: The Importance of Domestic Veto Players. Comparative Political Studies 31 (3):321–53.

David Levi-Faur . 2005. The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (1):1232.

Covadonga Meseguer . 2005. Policy Learning, Policy Diffusion, and the Making of a New Order. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (1):6782.

Christopher Z. Mooney 2001. Modelling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion. Political Research Quarterly 54 (1):103–24.

James C. Murdoch , and Todd Sandler . 2004. Civil Wars and Economic Growth: Spatial Dispersion. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1):138–51.

Eric Neumayer . 2006. Self-Interest, Foreign Need and Good Governance: Are Bilateral Investment Treaty Programs Similar to Aid Allocation? Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (3):245–67.

Eric Neumayer , and Laura Spess . 2005. Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Increase Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries? World Development 33 (10):1567–85.

Thomas Plümper , Vera E. Troeger , and Philip Manow . 2005. Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics. Linking Method to Theory. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2):327–54.

A. Porojan 2001. Trade Flows and Spatial Effects: The Gravity Model Revisited. Open Economies Review 12 (3):265–80.

Michael D. Ward , and Kristian Gleditsch . 2008. Spatial Regression Models. London: Sage.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 66 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 213 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.