Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-jk8t6 Total loading time: 0.151 Render date: 2022-07-06T16:44:15.473Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue

Heterogeneity in the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs), 1816–2001: What Fatal MIDs Cannot Fix*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Abstract

We examine a major source of heterogeneity across cases in the Correlates of War Militarized Interstate Dispute Dataset, 1816–2001, and demonstrate that this variation across cases biases most analyses of conflict. Disputes are coded using two logics—the familiar state-to-state militarized action represents one case while the second relies on sponsor governments to protest state targeting of private citizens. We show that the latter introduces additional measurement bias and does not match well the original conceptualization of what constituted a dispute. The protest-dependent cases are caused by different processes, and omitting them from analyses provides truer estimates of the effects of most conflict predictors. We find that previous controls for heterogeneity in the dispute data—such as using fatal militarized interstate disputes only—substantially underestimates the dangerous effects of contiguity and the pacifying effects of regime similarity. We also show that governments are seldom willing to risk militarized conflict for private citizens during these unique cases. We provide a list of the protest-dependent cases for future conflict analyses.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Douglas M. Gibler is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama, Box 870213, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 (dmgibler@ua.edu). Erin K. Little is a PhD Candidate at the Department Political Science, University of Alabama, Box 870213, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 (eklittle@bama.ua.edu). The authors thank Zeev Maoz, Glenn Palmer, Scott Bennett, Faten Ghosn, Vito D’Orazio, Michael Kenwick, Matthew Lane, Aaron Shreve, Shareefa Al-Adwani, Tracy Quo Lin, and participants at a MID conference hosted by UC-Davis, January 24–25, 2014; they also thank Paul Hensel for additional help locating South American disputes. Thanks to Thorin Wright and participants at a UA workshop for comments on an earlier draft. Finally, Doug Gibler thanks the National Science Foundation for their generous support of this project (Award nos 0923406 and 1260492).

References

Bayer, Reşat. 2006. ‘Diplomatic Exchange Data Set, v. 2006. 1’. Available at http://correlatesofwar.org, accessed 16 March 2015.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. ‘Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable’. American Journal of Political Science 42(4):12601288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correlates of War Project. 2011. ‘State System Membership List, v. 2011’. Available at http://correlatesofwar.org, accessed 21 March 2015.Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. 2009. International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M., Miller, Steven V., and Little, Erin K.. N.d. ‘An Analysis of the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) Dataset, 1816–2001’. Working Paper, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.Google Scholar
Gochman, Charles S., and Maoz, Zeev. 1984. ‘Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1976 Procedures, Patterns, and Insights’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 28(4):585616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegre, Havard. 2000. ‘Development and the Liberal Peace: What Does It Take To Be A Trading State?’. Journal of Peace Research 37(1):530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Daniel M., Bremer, Stuart A., and Singer, J. David. 1996. ‘Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15(2):163213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith. 2002. ‘Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–1999’. University of Maryland, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart A., and Stuckey, John. 1972. ‘Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965’. In Bruce Russett (ed.), Peace, War and Numbers, 1948. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Stinnett, Douglas M., Tir, Jaroslav, Schafer, Philip, Diehl, Paul F., and Gochman, Charles. 2002. ‘The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19(2):5866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Heterogeneity in the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs), 1816–2001: What Fatal MIDs Cannot Fix*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Heterogeneity in the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs), 1816–2001: What Fatal MIDs Cannot Fix*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Heterogeneity in the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs), 1816–2001: What Fatal MIDs Cannot Fix*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *