Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:40:29.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robustness of Empirical Evidence for the Democratic Peace: A Nonparametric Sensitivity Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2021

Kosuke Imai Open the ORCID record for Kosuke Imai [Opens in a new window]  and
James Lo
Get access

Abstract

The democratic peace—the idea that democracies rarely fight one another—has been called “the closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of international relations.” Yet, some contend that this relationship is spurious and suggest alternative explanations. Unfortunately, in the absence of randomized experiments, we can never rule out the possible existence of such confounding biases. Rather than commonly used regression-based approaches, we apply a nonparametric sensitivity analysis. We show that overturning the negative association between democracy and conflict would require a confounder that is forty-seven times more prevalent in democratic dyads than in other dyads. To put this number in context, the relationship between democracy and peace is at least five times as robust as that between smoking and lung cancer. To explain away the democratic peace, therefore, scholars would have to find far more powerful confounders than those already identified in the literature.

Keywords

Causal inferenceCornfield conditionobservational studiesunobserved confounding
Type
Research Note
Information
International Organization , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , Summer 2021 , pp. 901 - 919
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2021

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

Altonji, Joseph G., Elder, Todd E., and Taber, Christopher R.. 2005. Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools. Journal of Political Economy 113 (1):151–84.CrossRefGoogle 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):1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Matthew. 2013. A Framework for Dynamic Causal Inference in Political Science. American Journal of Political Science 57 (2):504–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles, Miller, Michael, and Rosato, Sebastian. 2013. A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies 46 (12):1523–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, Stuart A. 1993. Democracy and Militarized Interstate Conflict, 1816–1965. International Interactions 18 (3):231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik. 2001. Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Macrohistorical Learning Process. American Political Science Review 95 (1):15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudoin, Stephen, Hays, Jude, and Hicks, Raymond. 2018. Do We Really Know the WTO Cures Cancer? British Journal of Political Science 48 (4):903–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2010. Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice 143 (1–2):67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinelli, Carlos, and Hazlett, Chad. 2020. Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 82 (1):39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornfield, Jerome, Haenszel, William, Hammond, E. Cuyler, Lilienfeld, Abraham M., Shimkin, Michael B, and Wynder, Ernst L.. 1959. Smoking and Lung Cancer: Recent Evidence and a Discussion of Some Questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22 (1):173–203.Google Scholar
Dafoe, Allan. 2011. Statistical Critiques of the Democratic Peace: Caveat Emptor. American Journal of Political Science 55 (2):247–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dafoe, Allan, Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2013. The Democratic Peace: Weighing the Evidence and Cautious Inference. International Studies Quarterly 57 (1):201–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Christina L., and Shirato, Yuki. 2007. Firms, Governments, and WTO Adjudication: Japan's Selection of WTO Disputes. World Politics 59 (2):274–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Peng, and VanderWeele, Tyler J.. 2014. Generalized Cornfield Conditions for the Risk Difference. Biometrika 101 (4):971–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Peng, and VanderWeele, Tyler J.. 2016. Sensitivity Analysis Without Assumptions. Epidemiology 27 (3):368–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farber, Henry S., and Gowa, Joanne. 1997. Common Interests or Common Polities? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2):393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, W. Dana, and Khoury, Muin J.. 1990. Indirect Assessment of Confounding: Graphic Description and Limits on Effect of Adjusting for Covariates. Epidemiology 1 (3):239–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gartzke, Erik. 2007. The Capitalist Peace. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):166–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher, and Griesdorf, Michael. 2001. Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94. American Political Science Review 95 (3):633–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. 2012. The Territorial Peace: Borders, State Development, and International Conflict. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, and Hegre, Håvard. 1997. Peace and Democracy: Three Levels of Analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (2):283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 2000. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne, and Pratt, Tyler. 2019. The Democratic Peace Debate. In The Causes of Peace: What We Know Now. edited by Toje, Asle and Steen, Bard Nikolas Vik, 221–48. Nobel Symposium Proceedings. Norwegian Nobel Institute.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P, Kim, Soo Yeon, and Yoon, David H.. 2001. Dirty Pool. International Organization 55 (2):441–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegre, Håvard, and Sambanis, Nicholas. 2006. Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (4):508–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, Paul R., Goertz, Gary, and Diehl, Paul F.. 2000. The Democratic Peace and Rivalries. Journal of Politics 62 (4):1173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15 (3):199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2012. Causal Inference Without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching. Political Analysis 20 (1):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies. American Political Science Review 105 (4):765–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2010. Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects. Statistical Science 25 (1):51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2010. Causal Inference with Differential Measurement Error: Nonparametric Identification and Sensitivity Analysis. American Journal of Political Science 54 (2):543–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, Guido W. 2003. Sensitivity to Exogeneity Assumptions in Program Evaluation. American Economic Review 93 (2):126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 1995. Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data. Journal of Peace Research 32 (4):469–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadera, Kelly M., and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2005. Heeding Ray's Advice: An Exegesis on Control Variables in Systemic Democratic Peace Research. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (4):311–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Perpetual Peace. In Kant's Political Writings, edited by Reiss, Hans, 93–130. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1983. Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics. American Economic Review 73 (1):31–43.Google Scholar
Lee, Wen-Chung. 2011. Bounding the Bias of Unmeasured Factors with Confounding and Effect-Modifying Potentials. Statistics in Medicine 30 (9):1007–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, Jack. 1989. The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (4):653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Weiwei, Kuramoto, S. Janet, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2013. An Introduction to Sensitivity Analysis for Unobserved Confounding in Nonexperimental Prevention Research. Prevention Science 14 (6):570–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansfield, Edward D., and Snyder, Jack. 1995. Democratization and the Danger of War. International Security 20 (1):5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Abdolali, Nasrin. 1989. Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976. Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (1):3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1992. Alliance, Contiguity, Wealth, and Political Stability: Is the Lack of Conflict Among Democracies a Statistical Artifact? International Interactions 17 (3):245–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1993. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review 87 (3):624–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathur, Maya B., Ding, Peng, Smith, Louisa H., and VaderWeele, Tyler J.. 2019. EValue: Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding or Selection Bias in Observational Studies and Meta-Analyses. Available at <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=EValue>..>Google Scholar
McDonald, Patrick J. 2015. Great Powers, Hierarchy, and Endogenous Regimes: Rethinking the Domestic Causes of Peace. International Organization 69 (3):557–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T. Clifton, and Campbell, Sally Howard. 1991. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight? Journal of Conflict Resolution 35 (2):187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousseau, Michael. 2009. The Social Market Roots of Democratic Peace. International Security 33 (4):52–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousseau, Michael. 2013. The Democratic Peace Unraveled: It's the Economy. International Studies Quarterly 57 (1):186–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousseau, Michael. 2018. Grasping the Scientific Evidence: The Contractualist Peace Supersedes the Democratic Peace. Conflict Management and Peace Science 35 (2):175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., Oneal, Frances H., Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce M.. 1996. The Liberal Peace: Interdependence, Democracy, and International Conflict, 1950–85. Journal of Peace Research 33 (1):11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 1997. The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985. International Studies Quarterly 41 (2):267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 1999. Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict. Journal of Peace Research 36 (4):423–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ray, James Lee. 1993. Wars Between Democracies: Rare, or Nonexistent? International Interactions 18 (3):251–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, James Lee. 2005. Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads). Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (4):277–92.Google Scholar
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2002. Observational Studies. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rummel, Rudolph J. 1983. Libertarianism and International Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (1):27–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1994. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce, and Oneal, John R.. 1999. The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. World Politics 52 (1):1–37.Google Scholar
Sala-i-Martin, Xavier X. 1997. I Just Ran Two Million Regressions. American Economic Review 87 (2):178–83.Google Scholar
Schlesselman, James J. 1978. Assessing Effects of Confounding Variables. American Journal of Epidemiology 108 (1):3–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Senese, Paul D. 1997. Between Dispute and War: The Effect of Joint Democracy on Interstate Conflict Escalation. Journal of Politics 59 (1):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, Melvin, and Singer, J. David. 1976. The War-Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–1965. Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1 (4):50–69.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R. 1996. Democracy and Peace: Putting the Cart Before the Horse? International Organization 50 (1):141–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Technical report. Centers for Disease Control et al.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael D., and Gleditsch, Kristian S. 1998. Democratizing for Peace. American Political Science Review 92 (1):51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weede, Erich. 1992. Some Simple Calculations on Democracy and War Involvement. Journal of Peace Research 26 (4):377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Imai and Lo supplementary material

Imai and Lo supplementary material

Download Imai and Lo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 191.1 KB