Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:32:17.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistical Analysis of Strategic Interaction with Unobserved Player Actions: Introducing a Strategic Probit with Partial Observability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Mark David Nieman
Mark David Nieman*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The strategic nature of political interactions has long captured the attention of political scientists. A traditional statistical approach to modeling strategic interactions involves multi-stage estimation, which improves parameter estimates associated with one stage by using the information from other stages. The application of such multi-stage approaches, however, imposes rather strict demands on data availability: data on the dependent variable must be available for each strategic actor at each stage of the interaction. Limited or no data make such approaches difficult or impossible to implement. Political science data, however, especially in the fields of international relations and comparative politics, are not always structured in a manner that is conducive to these approaches. For example, we observe and have plentiful data on the onset of civil wars, but not the preceding stages, in which opposition groups decide to rebel or governments decide to repress them. In this article, I derive an estimator that probabilistically estimates unobserved actor choices related to earlier stages of strategic interactions. I demonstrate the advantages of the estimator over traditional and split-population binary estimators both using Monte Carlo simulations and a substantive example of the strategic rebel–government interaction associated with civil wars.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , Summer 2015 , pp. 429 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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

Author's note: Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2012 Society for Political Methodology Summer Meeting in Chapel Hill, NC; the 2013 St Louis Area Methods Meeting in Iowa City, IA; the 2013 Society for Political Methodology Summer Meeting in Charlottesville, VA; and the 2014 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, IL. The author would like to thank Fred Boehmke, Olga Chyzh, Curt Signorino, Laron Williams, Sara Mitchell, Cameron Thies, Scott Cook, Walter Mebane, John Freeman, Jay Goodliffe, Jude Hays, Doug Dion, Leah Windsor, Eleonora Mattiacci, Patrick Brandt, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Replication data are available on the Dataverse site for this article, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/28662.

References

Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. A. 2001. A theory of political transitions. American Economic Review 91(4): 938–63.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. A. 2006. Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Achen, C. H. 2005. Let's put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(4): 327–39.Google Scholar
Adams, J., and Somer-Topcu, Z. 2009. Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39(4): 825–46.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined communities. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, B. E., Hill, D. W., Moore, W. H., and Mukherjee, B. 2014. Modeling two types of peace: The zero-inflated ordered probit model in conflict research. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bas, M. A. 2012a. Democratic inefficiency? Regime type and suboptimal choices in international politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(5): 799–824.Google Scholar
Bas, M. A. 2012b. Measuring uncertainty in international relations: Heteroskedastic strategic models. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29(5): 490–520.Google Scholar
Bas, M. A., Signorino, C. S., and Walker, R. W. 2008. Statistical backwards induction: A simple method for estimating recursive strategic models. Political Analysis 16(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Boehmke, F. J., and Patty, J. W. 2007. The selection of policies for ballot initiatives: What voters can learn from legislative inaction. Economics and Politics 19(1): 97–121.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. M. 2000. Veto bargaining: Presidents and the politics of negative power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, C. J., Yuen, A., and Zorn, C. 2007. In defense of comparative statics: Specifying empirical tests of models of strategic interaction. Political Analysis 15(4): 465–82.Google Scholar
Carson, J. L. 2003. Strategic interaction and candidate competition in U.S. House elections: Empirical applications of probit and strategic probit models. Political Analysis 11(4): 368–80.Google Scholar
Carson, J. L. 2005. Strategy, selection, and candidate competition in U.S. House and Senate elections. Journal of Politics 67(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Carter, D. 2010. The strategy of territorial conflict. American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 969–87.Google Scholar
Chiba, D. 2011. The strength of cease-fire agreements and the duration of postwar peace. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Chyzh, O. 2014. Can you trust a dictator? A strategic model of authoritarian regimes’ signing and compliance with international treaties. Conflict Management and Peace Science 31(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. A. 2001. Testing nonnested models of international relations: Reevaluating realism. American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 724–44.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. A. 2003. Nonparametric model discrimination in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47(1): 72–93.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. A., and Signorino, C. S. 2010. Discriminating methods: Tests for non-nested discrete choice models. Political Studies 58:368–88.Google Scholar
Collier, P., and Hoeffler, A. 2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers 56(4): 663–95.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. E., Gleditsch, K. S., and Salehyan, I. 2009. It takes two: A dyadic analysis of civil war duration and outcome. Journal of Conflict Resolution 53(4): 570–97.Google Scholar
Cunningham, K. G. 2011. Divide and conquer or divide and concede: How do states respond to internally divided separatists? American Political Science Review 105(2): 275–97.Google Scholar
Cunningham, K. G. 2013. Actor fragmentation and civil war bargaining: How internal divisions generate civil conflict. American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 659–72.Google Scholar
Dion, D., Boehmke, F. J., MacMillan, W., and Shipan, C. R. 2011. War of words: The filibuster as a war of attrition. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Favretto, K. 2009. Should peacemakers take sides? Major power mediation, coercion, and bias. American Political Science Review 103(2): 248–63.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D. 2005. Primary commodity exports and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(4): 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J. D., and Laitin, D. D. 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review 97(1): 75–90.Google Scholar
Filson, D., and Werner, S. 2002. A bargaining model of war and peace: Anticipating the onset, duration, and outcome of war. American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 819–37.Google Scholar
Franzese, R. J. Jr., and Hays, J. C. 2008. Interdependence in comparative politics: Substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies 41(4/5): 742–80.Google Scholar
Gent, S. E., and Shannon, M. 2011. Decision control and the pursuit of binding conflict management: Choosing the ties that bind. Journal of Conflict Resolution 55(2): 710–34.Google Scholar
Gerber, E. R. 1996. Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 99–128.Google Scholar
Harris, M. N., and Zhao, X. 2007. A zero-inflated ordered probit model, with an application to modelling tobacco consumption. Journal of Econometrics 141(2): 1073–99.Google Scholar
Hays, J. C. 2009. Globalization and the new politics of embedded liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helmke, G. 2010. The origins of institutional crises in Latin America. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 737–50.Google Scholar
Holyoke, T. T. 2009. Interest group competition and coalition formation. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 360–75.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Kalyvas, S., and Kocher, M. 2007. How “free” is free-riding in civil war? Violence, insurgency, and the collective action problem. World Politics 59(2): 177–216.Google Scholar
Kenkel, B., and Signorino, C. S. 2011. Data mining for theorists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Political Methodology.Google Scholar
König, T., and Mäder, L. 2014. The strategic nature of compliance: An empirical evaluation of law implementation in the central monitoring system of the European union. American Journal of Political Science 58(1): 246–63.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. 1998. Pivotal politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kydd, A. H. 2006. When can mediators build trust? American Political Science Review 100(3): 449–62.Google Scholar
Leblang, D. 2003. To devalue or to defend? The political economy of exchange rate policy. International Studies Quarterly 47(3): 533–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, L. 2014. Strategy and sample selection: A strategic selection estimator. Political Analysis 22(3): 374–97.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. B., and Schultz, K. A. 2003. Revealing preferences: Empirical estimation of a crisis bargaining game with incomplete information. Poltical Analysis 11(4): 345–67.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. A. 1989. Veto threats: Rhetoric in a bargaining game. Quarterly Journal of Economics 104(2): 347–69.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D., and Palfrey, T. R. 1995. A statistical theory of equilibrium in games. Games and Economic Behavior 10:6–38.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D., and Palfrey, T. R. 1996. A statistical theory of equilibrium in games. Japanese Economic Review 47(2): 186–209.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D., and Palfrey, T. R. 1998. Quantal response equilibria for extensive form games. Experimental Economics 1(1): 9–41.Google Scholar
McLean, E. V., and Whang, T. 2010. Friends or foes? Major trading partners and the success of economic sanctions. International Studies Quarterly 54(2): 427–47.Google Scholar
Morton, R. 1999. Methods and models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nieman, M. N. 2015. Replication data for: Statistical analysis of strategic interaction with unobserved player actions: Introducing a strategic probit with partial observability. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/dvn/28662unf:5:8m7tqrotzepbi3khba9vxw==dataverse[distributor]v1[version].Google Scholar
Poirier, D. J. 1980. Partial observability in bivariate probit models. Journal of Econometrica 12(2): 209–17.Google Scholar
Ray, J. L. 2005. Explaining interstate conflict and war: What should be controlled for? Conflict Management and Peace Science 20(2): 1–31.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6(2): 461–64.Google Scholar
Signorino, C. S. 1999. Strategic interaction and the statistical analysis of international conflict. American Political Science Review 93(2): 279–97.Google Scholar
Signorino, C. S. 2002. Strategy and selection in international relations. International Interactions 28(1): 93–115.Google Scholar
Signorino, C. S. 2003. Structure and uncertainty in discrete choice models. Political Analysis 11(4): 316–44.Google Scholar
Signorino, C. S. 2007. On formal theory and statistical methods: A response to Carrubba, Yuen, and Zorn. Political Analysis 15(4): 483–501.Google Scholar
Signorino, C. S., and Tarar, A. 2006. A unified theory and test of extended immediate deterrence. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 585–605.Google Scholar
Signorino, C. S., and Yilmaz, K. 2003. Strategic misspecification in regression models. American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 551–66.Google Scholar
Singer, J. D. 1972. The “Correlates of War” project: Interim report and rationale. World Politics 24(2): 243–70.Google Scholar
Slantchev, B. L. 2005. Military coercion in interstate crises. American Political Science Review 99(4): 533–47.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 2003. Election timing in majoritarian parliaments. British Journal of Political Science 33(3): 397–418.Google Scholar
Thies, C. G., Chyzh, O., and Nieman, M. D. 2015. The spatial dimensions of state fiscal capacity: The mechanisms of international influence on domestic extractive efforts. Political Science Research and Methods. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Thyne, C. L., and Schroeder, R. D. 2012. Social constraints and civil war: Bridging the gap with criminological theory. Journal of Politics 1(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
von Stein, J. 2005. Treaties constrain or screen? Selection bias and treaty compliance. American Political Science Review 99(4): 611–22.Google Scholar
Vuong, Q. H. 1989. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57(2): 307–33.Google Scholar
Werner, S. 1999. The precarious nature of peace: Resolving the issues, enforcing the settlement, and renegotiating the terms. American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 912–34.Google Scholar
Williams, L. K., and Whitten, G. D. 2014. Don't stand so close to me: Spatial contagion effects and party competition. American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Xiang, J. 2010. Relevance as a latent variable in dyadic analysis of conflict. Journal of Politics 72(2): 484–98.Google Scholar