No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2019
Is it joint democracy or state similarity that has a pacifying impact on interstate relations? This study explores the complementarity of the two propositions and demonstrates the potential of a particular kind of shared emancipative culture embracing values of autonomy, equality, choice, and voice to amplify the impact of joint democracy on interstate conflict. The data on cultural values, which comes from the World Values Survey, was integrated with the data from the Correlates of War Project to test the impact of joint democracy and cultural similarity on militarised interstate disputes (1981–2010). We find that culturally similar dyads are less likely to be involved in conflict with each other than culturally dissimilar dyads. Although, cultural similarity does not wash out the pacifying effect of democracy, it offers a complementary explanation to the democratic peace. We also find that states that are democratic and share higher than average scores on the emancipative values are less likely to engage in militarised interstate disputes than democratic states, which are culturally dissimilar or score low on the emancipative dimensions. This provides support for an additional normative/cultural impact on democratic peace.
1 Dixon, William J., ‘Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict’, American Political Science Review, 88:2 (1994), pp. 14–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maoz, Zeev, ‘The controversy over the democratic peace: Rearguard action or cracks in the wall?’, International Security, 22:1 (1997), pp. 162–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maoz, Zeev and Abdoladi, Nasrin, ‘Regime types and international conflict, 1816–1976’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33:1 (1989), pp. 3–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maoz, Zeev and Russett, Bruce, ‘Normative and structural causes of the democratic peace, 1946–1986’, American Political Science Review, 87:3 (1993), pp. 624–638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oneal, John R. and Lee Ray, James, ‘New tests of the democratic peace controlling for economic interdependence, 1950–1985’, Political Research Quarterly, 50:4 (1997), pp. 751–775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russett, Bruce and Oneal, John R., Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: Norton, 2001)Google Scholar; Small, Melvin and Singer, J. David, ‘The war proneness of democratic regimes, 1816–1965’, The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, 1:1 (1976), pp. 49–69 Google Scholar; Weart, Spencer, ‘Remarks on the ancient evidence for the democratic peace’, Journal of Peace Research, 38:5 (2001), pp. 609–613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weede, Erich, ‘Democracy and war involvement’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28 (1984), pp. 649–663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Katherine Barbieri, ‘International Trade and Conflict: The Debatable Relationship’, 35th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Minneapolis, MN, 18–21 March, 1998; Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan, and Tucker, Richard, ‘Taking time seriously in binary time-series-cross-section analysis’, American Journal of Political Science, 42:1 (1998), pp. 1260–1288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Choi, Seung-Whan, ‘Beyond Kantian liberalism: Peace through globalization?’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27:3 (2010), pp. 272–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gartzke, Erik, ‘The capitalist peace’, American Journal of Political Science, 51:1 (2007), pp. 166–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibler, Douglas M., The Territorial Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gleditsch, Nils Petter and Hegre, Håvard, ‘Peace and democracy: Three levels of analysis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:2 (1997), pp. 283–310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mousseau, Michael, ‘The democratic peace unraveled: It’s the economy’, International Studies Quarterly, 57:1 (2013), pp. 186–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Bennett, D. Scott, ‘Towards a continuous specification of the democracy-autocracy connection’, International Studies Quarterly, 50:2 (2006), pp. 513–537 Google Scholar; Gleditsch, and Hegre, , ‘Peace and democracy’; Errol Anthony Henderson, ‘The democratic peace through the lens of culture, 1820–1989’, International Studies Quarterly, 42:3 (1998), pp. 461–484 Google Scholar; Oren, Ido and Hays, Jude, ‘Democracies may rarely fight one another, but developed socialist states rarely fight at all’, Alternatives: Social Transformation and Humane Governance, 22:4 (1997), pp. 493–521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peceny, Mark, Beer, Caroline C., and Sanchez-Terry, Shannon, ‘Dictatorial peace?’, American Political Science Review, 96:1 (2002), pp. 15–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shaffer, Brenda (ed.), The Limits of Culture: Islam and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: the MIT Press, 2006)Google Scholar.
4 Bennett, ‘Towards a continuous specification’; Glenditsch and Hegre, ‘Peace and democracy’; Peceny, Beer, and Sanchez-Terry, ‘Dictatorial peace?’.
5 Bennett, ‘Towards a continuous specification’; Lacina, Bethany and Lee, Charlotte, ‘Cultural clash or democratic peace? Results of a survey experiment on the effect of religious culture and regime type on foreign policy opinion formation’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 9 (2013), p. 148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Welzel, Christian, Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Ragin, Charles C., The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar.
8 Pinker, Steven, The Better Angels of Our Nature (New York: Viking Penguin, 2011), p. 180 Google Scholar.
9 Palmer, Glenn, D’Orazio, Vito, Kenwick, Michael, and Lane, Matthew, ‘The Mid4 Dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules and description’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 32 (2015), pp. 222–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zeev Maoz, Paul L. Johnson, Jasper Kaplan, Fiona Ogunkoya, and Aaron Shreve, ‘The dyadic Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) Dataset Version 3.0: Logic, characteristics, and comparisons to alternative datasets’, Journal of Conflict Resolution (2018), available at: doi: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022002718784158.
10 Doyle, Michael W., ‘Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12:3 (1983), pp. 205–235 Google Scholar; Maoz and Russett, ‘Normative and structural causes’.
11 Rosato, Sabastian, ‘The flawed logic of democratic peace theory’, American Political Science Review, 97:4 (2003), pp. 585–602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Doyle, ‘Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs’.
13 Russett, Bruce, Antholis, William, Ember, Carol R., Ember, Melvin, and Maoz, Zeev, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Russett, Bruce and Starr, Harvey, ‘From democratic peace to Kantian peace: Democracy and conflict in the international system’, in Manus I. Midlarsky (ed.), Handbook of War Studies II (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 92–128 Google Scholar.
14 Russett et al., Grasping the Democratic Peace; Russett and Starr, ‘From democratic peace to Kantian peace’.
15 Weart, Spencer R., Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Werner, Suzanne, ‘The effects of political similarity on the onset of militarized disputes, 1816–1985’, Political Research Quarterly, 53:2 (2000), pp. 343–374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is also an argument that an increasing number of democracies in the international system may trigger a counter-reaction from autocratic regimes accompanied by the rise in militarised disputes between democracies and autocracies over the spread of democracy worldwide (James Lee Ray, ‘Democracy on the level(s): Does democracy correlate with peace?’, in John A. Vasquez (ed.), What Do We Know about War? (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), pp. 299–316; James Lee Ray, ‘Integrating levels of analysis in world politics’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13:4 (2001), pp. 355–88).
16 Risse-Kappen, Thomas, ‘Democratic peace – warlike democracies? A social constructivist interpretation of the liberal argument’, European Journal of International Relations, 1:4 (1995), p. 491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The phenomenon of democratic peace among warlike democracies has been traced to different strands of liberal theory that contributed to the ambivalence of liberal democratic norms. The latter, on the one hand, call for the protection of popular sovereignty, and, on the other, the global promotion of liberal norms, even by force (for further discussion, see Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and world politics’, American Political Science Review, 80:4 (1986), pp. 1151–69).
17 Werner, in ‘The effects of political similarity’, similarly, argues for complementarity of the similarity and shared norms propositions.
18 Welzel, Freedom Rising.
19 Suh, Eunkook, Diener, Ed, Oishi, Shigehiro, and Triandis, Harry C., ‘The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1998), pp. 494–512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Gelfand, Michele J., Lim, Beng-Chong, and Raver, Jana L., ‘Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures’, Human Resource Management Review, 14 (2004), pp. 135–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hofstede, Geert, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980)Google Scholar.
21 For further discussion, see Welzel, Christian, ‘Evolution, empowerment, and emancipation: How societies climb the freedom ladder’, World Development, 64 (2014), pp. 33–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Dalton, Russell J. and Welzel, Christian, ‘Political culture and value change’, in Russel J. Dalton and Christian Welzel (eds), The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 See also Katzenstein, Peter J., ‘Introduction: Alternative perspectives on national security’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), Cultural Norms and National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 1–32 Google Scholar.
24 Hudson, Valerie M., ‘Cultural expectations of one’s own and other nations’ foreign policy action templates’, Political Psychology, 20:4 (1999), pp. 767–801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 In a cross-national study of cooperation, Dorrough and Glöckner (2016) found that the participants from all nations expected most cooperation from the Japanese based on a strong stereotype of a group-orientated culture (Angela Dorrough and Andreas Glöckner, ‘Multi-national investigation of cross-societal cooperation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113:39 (2016), pp. 10836–841).
26 Lacina and Lee, ‘Cultural clash or democratic peace?’.
27 Ibid., pp. 143–70; Geva, Nehemia and Hanson, D. Christopher, ‘Cultural similarity, foreign policy actions, and regime perception: an experimental study of international cues and democratic peace’, Political Psychology, 20:4 (1999), pp. 803–827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Geva and Hanson, ‘Cultural similarity’.
29 Laura Neack, The New Foreign Policy: Complex Interactions, Competing Interests, New Millennium Books in International Studies (3rd edn, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2013), p. 98; Riek, Black M., Mania, Erik W., and Gaertner, Samuel L., ‘Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2006), pp. 336–353 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
30 Zajc, Marko, ‘The Slovenian-Croatian border: History, representations, inventions’, Acta Histriae, 23:3 (2015), pp. 499–510 Google Scholar.
31 Jović, Dejan, Yugoslavia: A State that Withered Away (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Lampe, John R., Yugoslavia as History: Twice There Was a Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Ramet, Sabrina P., The Disintegration of Yugoslavia From The Death of Tito To The Fall Of Milosevic (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002)Google Scholar.
32 Henderson, ‘The democratic peace’.
33 Henderson, ‘The democratic peace’; Martin Russett, Bruce, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.
34 Hunt, Michael H., Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.
35 Doyle, Michael W., ‘Three pillars of the liberal peace’, American Political Science Review, 99:3 (2005), pp. 463–466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Owen, John M., ‘How liberalism produces democratic peace’, International Security, 19:2 (1994), pp. 87–125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Johnston, Alastair I., ‘Thinking about strategic culture’, International Security, 19:4 (1995), pp. 32–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian, ‘Political culture and democracy: Analyzing cross-level linkages’, Comparative Politics, 36:1 (2003), pp. 61–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Zimelis, Andris, ‘Trust and normative democratic peace theory: Nexus between citizens and foreign policies?’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32:1/2 (2012), pp. 17–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Andersen, Robert and Fetner, Tina, ‘Economic inequality and intolerance: Attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies’, American Journal of Political Science, 52:4 (2008), pp. 942–958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, Amy C. and Welzel, Christian, ‘Empowering women’, Sociological Review, 27 (2010), pp. 364–384 Google Scholar.
41 Welzel, Christian and Deutsche, Franziska, ‘Emancipative values and non-violent protest: the importance of “ecological” effects’, British Journal of Political Science, 42:2 (2012), pp. 465–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inglehart, Ronald F., Puranen, Bi, and Welzel, Christian, ‘Declining willingness to fight for one’s country: the individual-level basis of the long peace’, Journal of Peace Research, 52:4 (2015), pp. 418–434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Welzel, Freedom Rising.
43 Inglehart, Bi Puranen, and Welzel, ‘Declining willingness to fight for one’s country’.
44 Welzel, Freedom Rising, p. 71. See also Inglehart, Puranen, and Welzel, ‘Declining willingness to fight for one’s country’.
45 Ragin, The Comparative Method.
46 For the sake of parsimony, other variables known to influence outcomes of interstate conflict such as contiguity are not modelled in this causal explanation, but are included in the empirical testing of these premises. Conjunctural causation mathematically allows for the inclusion of multiple independent variables with presumed additive effects on the dependent variable and can explain these probabilities in terms of marginal impact changes (Bear F. Braumoeller, ‘Causal complexity and the study of politics’, Political Analysis, 11:3 (2003), pp. 209–33.
47 Russett and Starr, ‘From democratic peace to Kantian peace’.
48 Russett, Bruce, Controlling the Sward (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maoz and Russett, ‘Normative and structural causes’.
49 Hermann, Margaret G. and Kegley, Charles W., ‘Rethinking democracy and international peace: Perspectives from political psychology’, International Studies Quarterly, 39:4 (1995), pp. 511–533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elman, Miriam Fendius (ed.), Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar.
50 Schwartz, Shalom H., ‘Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations’, in Roger Jowell, Caroline Roberts, Rory Fitzgerald, and Gillian Eva (eds), Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally (London: Sage, 2007), pp. 161–193 Google Scholar.
51 Welzel and Deutsche, ‘Emancipative values and non-violent protest’.
52 Fossum, John E., ‘Charters and constitution making: Comparing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights’, in Gerald Kernerman and Philip Resnick (eds), Insiders and Outsiders: Alan Cairns and the Reshaping of Canadian Citizenship (Toronto: University of British Columbia Press, 2005), pp. 148–164 Google Scholar.
53 Dukalskis, Alexander, The Authoritarian Public Sphere: Legitimation and Autocratic Power in North Korea, Burma, and China (London and New York: Routledge, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
54 Burnell, Peter, ‘Autocratic opening to democracy: Why legitimacy matters’, Third World Quarterly, 27:4 (2006), pp. 545–562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mayer, Robert, ‘Strategies of justification in authoritarian ideology’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 6:2 (2001), pp. 147–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Dukalskis, The Authoritarian Public Sphere; Omelicheva, Mariya Y., ‘Authoritarian legitimation: Assessing discourses of legitimacy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan’, Central Asian Survey, 15 (2016), pp. 481–500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 Sodaro, Michael, Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction (New York: McGraw Hill, 2004), p. 256 Google Scholar.
57 Johnson, Alistair I., ‘Thinking about strategic culture’, International Security, 19:4 (1995), pp. 32–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hudson, ‘Cultural expectations’.
58 Fewer than 50 per cent of population in these states embrace emancipative values.
59 Gelfand, Lim, and Raver, ‘Culture and accountability in organizations’; Suh et al., ‘The shifting basis’.
60 Sagiv, Lilach and Schwartz, Shalom H., ‘Cultural values in organization: Insights for Europe’, European Journal of International Management, 1:3 (2007), pp. 176–190 Google Scholar.
61 Gelfand, Michele, Raver, Jana L., Nishii, Lisa, Leslie, Lisa M., Lun, Janetta, Lim, …, Beng Chong Yamaguchi, Susumu, ‘Differences between tight and loose cultures’, Science, 332:6033 (2011), pp. 1100–1104 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
62 Welzel, Freedom Rising, pp. 83–4.
63 To ensure that the missing observations in our unbalanced panels are missed at random, we executed a Monte Carlo simulation that confirmed this assumption.
64 This technique was originally developed by Rubin (1987) and Schafer (1997). Rubin, D. B., Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys (New York, NY: Wiley, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schafer, J. L., Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data (Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 To measure people’s orientation toward autonomy, we relied on three items asking respondents to consider whether (1) independence and (2) imagination were desirable child qualities, and (3) obedience was undesirable as such a quality. To measure individuals orientation towards making free choices, we used three survey questions asking respondents whether they found (1) divorce; (2) abortion; and (3) homosexuality acceptable. We tap individuals orientation to equality through their attitudes toward gender equality measured by three questions asking respondents strongly agree or disagree with the statements that (1) ‘education is more important for a boy than a girl’; (2) ‘when jobs are scarce, men should have priority over women to get a job’; and (3) ‘men makes better political leaders than women’. Finally, to measure individual value of voice of the people as a source of influence in their society, we used three items asking respondents to assign first, second, or no priority to the goals of (1) ‘protecting freedom of speech’; (2) ‘giving people more say in important government decisions’; and (3) ‘giving people more say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities’.
66 For further discussion of the methodology, see Welzel, Freedom Rising, appendix.
67 Welzel, Freedom Rising; Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 One of the possible issues with the right-hand side logs in our specified model is the presence of undefined logarithmic observations when the two states within the dyad receive the same scores on a dimension of emancipatory values, thus producing the cultural difference of ‘zero’ in the state dyad. This issue, however, is not detrimental to our analysis. The decimal numbers on the sub-indices of cultural values have several places past the decimal making the probability of similar values very unlikely. In fact, less than 0.1 per cent of the dyadic observations (200 state dyads out of more than 200,000) result in undefined logarithms in this study. These undefined cases are dropped from our analysis. To ensure that this exclusion does not affect our results we added a 0.1 constant to all of the values of cultural differences in the dyad before taking their natural logs (this resulted in retaining all of the observations) and retested all models. The results received from these tests were identical to those received from a smaller sample.
69 Hudson, ‘Cultural expectations’.
70 Welzel, Freedon Rising, p. 85.
71 Bennett, D. Scott and Stam, Allan C. III, The Behavioral Origins of War (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Dafoe, Allan, Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce, ‘The democratic peace: Weighing the evidence and cautious inference’, International Studies Quarterly, 57 (2013), pp. 201–214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 Beck, Katz, and Tucker, ‘Taking time seriously’; Most of the criticisms of dyadic modeling are not unique to this method but apply to any statistical large-n techniques used in IR. For example, unobserved heterogeneity lurks in virtually any statistical analysis biasing standard errors. We estimate robust standard errors in order to counteract issues of heterogeneity or correlation between unobserved heterogeneity and our key causal variables (Gary King, ‘Proper nouns and methodological propriety: Pooling dyads in international relations data’, International Organization, 55:2 (2001), pp. 497–507).
73 Rousseau, David L., Gelpi, Christopher, Reite, Dan, and Huth, Paul, ‘Assessing the dyadic nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88’, American Political Science Review, 90:3 (1996), pp. 512–533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oneal, John R. and Russett, Bruce M., ‘The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950–1985’, International Studies Quarterly, 41:2 (1997), pp. 267–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
74 Monty G. Marshall, Ted Robert Gurr, and Keith Jaggers, ‘Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2013’, Dataset Users’ Manual, Center for Systemic Peace, available at: {http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2013.pdf} accessed 1 February 2015.
75 Bremer, Stuart A., ‘Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36:2 (1992), pp. 309–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farber, Henry S. and Gowa, Joanne, ‘Polities and peace’, International Security, 20:2 (1995), pp. 123–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mansfield, Edward D. and Snyder, Jack L., Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maoz and Russett, ‘Normative and structural causes’.
76 Gartzke, ‘The capitalist peace’.
77 J. David Singer and Melvi Small, ‘National Material Capabilities Data, 1816–1992’, Correlates of War Project, University of Michigan, Department of Political Science (1995).
78 Gibler, Douglas M. and Sarkees, Meredith Reid, ‘Measuring alliances: the Correlates of War formal interstate alliance dataset, 1816–2000’, Journal of Peace Research, 41:2 (2004), pp. 211–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Small, Melvin and Singer, J. David, ‘Formal alliances, 1816–1965’, in J. David Singer and Paul Diehl (ed.), Measuring the Correlates of War (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1990), pp. 159–190 Google Scholar.
79 Beck, Katz, and Tucker, ‘Taking time seriously’; Oneal, John R. and Russett, Bruce, ‘Clear and clean: the fixed effects of the liberal peace’, International Organization, 55 (2001), pp. 465–486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mousseau, ‘The democratic peace unraveled’.
80 Beck, Katz, and Tucker, ‘Taking time seriously’; Boehmer, Charles, Gartzke, Erik, and Nordstrom, Timothy, ‘Do international organizations promote peace?’, World Politics, 57:1 (2004), pp. 1–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carter, David B. and Signorino, Curtis S., ‘Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data’, Social Sciences Political Analysis, 18:3 (2010), pp. 271–292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
81 Bennett, ‘Towards a continuous specification’.
82 Lipsitz, Stuart R., Laird, Nan M., and Harrington, David P., ‘Generalized estimating equations for correlated binary data: Using the odds ratio as a measure of association’, Biometrika, 78 (1991), pp. 153–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zorn, C. J., ‘Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: a review with applications’, American Journal of Political Science (2001), pp. 470–490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldstone, Jack A., Bates, Robert H., Epstein, David L., Gurr, Ted R., Lustik, Michael B., Marshall, Monty G., Ulfelder, Jay, and Woodward, Mark, ‘A global model for forecasting political instability’, American Journal of Political Science, 54:1 (2010), pp. 190–208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 In the end, however, the presence of multicollinearity does not pose a problem for the interpretation of results. It does not distort the variables’ coefficients in the interactive model. Any change that takes place in the interactive models is due to the fact that they describe ‘conditional relationships rather than general relationships’. Friedrich, R. J., ‘In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations’, American Journal of Political Science, 26:4 (1982), pp. 797–833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 Leeds, Brett Ashley, ‘Alliance reliability in time of war: Explaining state decisions to violate treaties’, International Organization, 57:4 (2003), pp. 801–827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
85 Michael W. Simon and Erik Gartzke, ‘Political system similarity and the choice of allies: Do democracies flock together, or do opposites attract?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40:4 (1996), pp. 617–35; Doublas M. Gibler and Scott Wolford, ‘Alliances, then democracy: an examination of the relationship between regime type and alliance formation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50:1 (2006), pp. 129–53.
86 Alexis Heraclides, ‘The Essence of the Greek-Turkish Rivalry: National Narrative and Identity’, GreeSE Paper No. 51 (2011), pp. 1–36; Dimitris Triantaphyllou, ‘Greek-Turkish Relations and the Perceptions of their Elites’, The London School of Economics and Political Science, available at: {http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/greeceatlse/2017/01/31/greek-turkish-relations-and-the-perceptions-of-their-elites/} accessed 21 July 2018.
87 Francis Chan, ‘Indonesia blows up and sinks another 81 fishing boats for poaching’, The Straits Times (2 April 2017), available at: {https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-blows-up-and-sinks-another-81-fishing-boats-for-poaching} accessed 21 July 2018.
88 Jović, Yugoslavia.
89 Omelicheva, Mariya, Democracy in Central Asia? Competing Perspectives and Alternative Strategies (Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2014)Google Scholar.
90 Inglehart, Puranen, and Welzel, ‘Declining willingness to fight for one’s country’.
91 UNESCO, UNESCO and a Culture of Peace: Promoting a Global Movement (New York: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 1995)Google Scholar.