Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:21:54.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

David L. Rousseau ,
Christopher Gelpi ,
Dan Reiter  and
Paul K. Huth
David L. Rousseau
Affiliation:
State University of New Yorkat Buffalo
Christopher Gelpi
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Dan Reiter
Affiliation:
Emory University
Paul K. Huth
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on the democratic peace has emerged from two empirical claims: (1) Democracies are unlikely to conflict with one another, and (2) democracies are as prone to conflict with nondemocracies as nondemocracies are with one another. Together these assertions imply that the democratic peace is a dyadic phenomenon. There is strong support for the first observation, but much recent scholarship contravenes the second. This paper assesses whether the democratic peace is a purely dyadic, a monadic, or perhaps a mixed dyadic and monadic effect. Our analysis offers two important advances. First, our model directly compares the dyadic and monadic explanations by using the state as the unit of analysis rather than the potentially problematic dyad. Second, our model controls for an important but overlooked confounding variable: satisfaction with the status quo. Our results indicate that the initiation of violence within crises is predominantly a dyadic phenomenon, but we also find evidence suggesting a strong monadic effect regarding the emergence of crises.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 512 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beasley, William G. 1990. The Rise of Modern Japan. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth. 1994. “Reexaraining Democracy and War Involvement: Democracies Really Are More Pacific.” Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. Working Paper 94–5.Google Scholar
Brecher, Michael, Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, and Moser, Sheila. 1988. Crises in the Twentieth Century: Vol. I. Handbook of International Crises. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Berger, Gordon M. 1988. “Politics and Mobilization in Japan, 1931–1945.” In The Cambridge History of Japan, ed. Duus, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bremer, Stuart A. 1992. “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816–1965.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (06):309–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, Stuart A. 1993. “Democracy and Militarized Interstate Conflict, 1816–1965.” International Interactions 18:231–49.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Siverson, Randolph. 1995. “War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Analysis of Regime Type and Accountability.” American Political Science Review 89 (12):841–55.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Siverson, Randolph, and Woller, Gary. 1992. “War and the Fate of Regimes.” American Political Science Review 86 (09):638–46.Google Scholar
Carment, David, and James, Patrick. 1995. “Internal Constraints and Interstate Ethnic Conflict: Toward a Crisis-Based Assessment of Irredentism.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 39 (03):82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, Steve. 1984. “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall … Are the Freer Countries More Pacific?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (12):617–48.Google Scholar
Cohen, Raymond. 1995. “Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that Democracies Do Not Go to War with Each Other.” Review of International Studies 20 (07):207–23.Google Scholar
Degenhardt, Henry W. 1986. Treaties and Alliances of the World. Essex, UK: Longman Group.Google Scholar
Dixon, William J. 1993. “Democracy and the Management of International Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (03):42–68.Google Scholar
Dixon, William J. 1994. “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 88 (03):14–32.Google Scholar
Domke, William. 1988. War and the Changing Global System. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review 80 (12):1151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farber, Henry S., and Gowa, Joanne. 1995. “Common Interests or Common Polities? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5005. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88 (09):577–92.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. N.d. “Selection Effects and Deterrence.” In Deterrence Debates, ed. Oye, Kenneth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Geller, Daniel. 1985. Domestic Factors in Foreign Policy: A Cross-National Statistical Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Shenkman Books.Google Scholar
Goldgeier, James. 1994. Leadership and Soviet Foreign Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1990. Econometric Analysis. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Gurr, Ted Robert, Jaggers, Keith, and Moore, Will H.. 1989. “Polity II Codebook.” Center for Comparative Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Hanushek, Eric A., and Jackson, John E.. 1977. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. San Diego: San Diego Academic Press.Google Scholar
Head, Richard G., Short, Frisco W., and McFarlane, Robert C.. 1978. Crisis Resolution: Presidential Decision Making in the Mayaguez and Korean Confrontations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hewitt, J. Joseph, and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 1995. “Democracies in International Crisis.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K. 1996. Standing Your Ground. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1795] 1971. “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay.” In Kant: Political Writings, 2d ed., ed. Reiss, Hans. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kegley, Charles W., and Skinner, Richard A.. 1976. “The Case-for-Analysis Problem.” In In Search of Global Patterns, ed. Rosenau, James N.. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Layne, Christopher. 1994. “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace.” International Security 19 (Fall):5–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, Brett A., and Davis, David R.. 1995. “Beneath the Surface: Regime Type and International Interactions, 1953–1978.” Emory University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Leng, Russell. 1993. “Reciprocating Influence Strategies in Interstate Crisis Bargaining.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (03):3–41.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Abdolali, Nasrin. 1989. “Regime Type and International Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (03):3–35.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce M.. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986.” American Political Science Review 87 (09):624–38.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. 1994/1995. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19 (Winter):5–49.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. Clifton, and Schwebach, Valerie L.. 1992. “Take Two Democracies and Call Me in the Morning: A Prescription for Peace?” International Interactions 17 (4):305–20.Google Scholar
Oren, Ido. 1990. “The War Proneness of Alliances.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (06):208–33.Google Scholar
Owen, John M. 1994. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” International Security 19 (Fall):87–125.Google Scholar
Ray, James L. 1995. Democracy and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ray, James L., and Wang, Kevin. 1995. “Democracy, Disputes, and Crises: The Impact of Regime Type on Conflict Escalation.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Raymond, Gregory A. 1994. “Democracies, Disputes, and Third-Party Intermediaries.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38 (03):24–42.Google Scholar
Reiter, Dan. 1995. “Exploding the Powderkeg Myth: Preemptive Wars Almost Never Happen.” International Security 20 (Fall):5–34.Google Scholar
Ritcher, James. 1994. Khrushchev's Double Bind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Thomas W. 1981. “The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict.” In Diplomacy and Power: Soviet Armed Forces as a Political Instrument, ed. Kaplan, Stephen S.. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Roeder, Philip. 1984. “Soviet Politics and Kremlin Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 28 (06):171–93.Google Scholar
Rummel, R. J. 1983. “Libertarianism and International Violence.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (03):27–72.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. 1995. “‘And Yet It Moves.’” International Security 19 (Spring):164–75.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M., and Graham, Thomas. 1989. “Public Opinion and National Security Policy.” In Handbook of War Studies, ed. Midlarsky, Manus. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1992. “Domestic Structure and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific?” World Politics 44 (01):235–69.Google Scholar
Small, Melvin, and Singer, J. David. 1976. “The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes.” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1 (1):50–69.Google Scholar
Small, Melvin, and Singer, J. David. 1982. Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Small, Melvin, and Singer, J. David. 1990. “Formal Alliances, 1816–1965: An Extension of the Basic Data.” In Measuring the Correlates of War, ed. Diehl, Paul F.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack, and Mansfield, Edward. 1995. “Democratization and War.” Foreign Affairs 74 (May-June):79–97.Google Scholar
Spiro, David E. 1994. “The Insignificance of the Democratic Peace.” International Security 19 (Fall):50–86.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar