Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:47:52.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

[no title]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Patrick J. McGowan
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Robert M. Rood
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1976

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

1 We made these data available to Mr. Lawson at his request, a fact he fails to acknowledge.

2 Moul, William B., “The Level of Analysis Problem Revisited,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 6 (09, 1973), 494513CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ibid., pp. 501–502.

4 The errors are: (1) our alliances number 55, not 54; (2) the Austria-Prussia pair has 21, not 20 alliances, and (3) the Austria-Great Britain pair has 12, not 13. These correct figures are used in the new analysis we report in this communication.

5 Rood, Robert M., “Agreement in the International System” (Ph.D. dissertation in Political Science, Syracuse University, 1973), 88, 183201Google Scholar.

6 Kuh, Edwin, “The Validity of Cross-Sectionally Estimated Behavior Equations in Time Series Applications,” Econometrica, 27 (1959), 197214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 McGowan, Patrick J. and Rood, Robert M., “Alliance Behavior in Balance of Power Systems: Applying a Poisson Model to Nineteenth-Century Europe,” American Political Science Review, 69 (09, 1975), 863CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Kaplan, Morton A., System and Process in International Politics (New York: Wiley Science Editions, 1964)Google Scholar, Preface.

9 Rood, , “Agreement in the International System,” pp. 159163Google Scholar; Brams, Steven J. and O'Leary, Michael K., “An Axiomatic Model of Voting Bodies,” American Political Science Review, 64 (June, 1970), 449470CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Rood, Robert M., “The Dyadic Distribution of Alliance Commitments,” Columbia: Department of Government and International Studies, University of South Carolina, mimeo, 1975Google Scholar.

11 That is, the patterned relationships of international conflict (magnitude of war within dyads) certainly are “specific interests which divide nations.”

12 Feller, William, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, 3rd ed. (New York: Wiley, 1968), 160161Google Scholar.

13 Feller, , Probability Theory, p. 161Google Scholar.

14 Kaplan, Morton A., “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations,” in Knorr, K. and Rosenau, J. N., eds., Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 3861Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.