Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T13:43:45.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Addressing Endogeneity in Actor-Specific Network Measures*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Frederick J. Boehmke ,
Olga Chyzh  and
Cameron G. Thies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of international relations (IR), and political science more broadly, has derived great benefits from the recent growth of conceptualizing and modeling political phenomena within their broader network contexts. More than just a novel approach to evaluating old puzzles, network analysis provides a whole new way of theoretical thinking. Challenging the traditional dyad-driven approach to the study of IR, networks highlight actor interdependence that goes beyond dyads and emphasizes that many traditional IR variables, such as conflict, trade, alliances, or international organization memberships must be treated and studied as networks. Properties of these networks (e.g., polarization, density), and of actor positions within them (e.g., similarity, centrality), will then reveal important insights about international events. Network analysis, however, is not yet fully adapted to account for important methodological issues common to IR research, specifically the issue of endogeneity or possible nonindependence between actors’ position within international networks and the outcomes of interest: for example, alliance network may be nonindependent from the conflict or trade network. We adopt an instrumental variable approach to explore and address the issue of endogeneity in network context. We illustrate the issue and the advantages of our approach with Monte Carlo analysis, as well as with several empirical examples from IR literature.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 123 - 149
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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

*

Frederick J. Boehmke, Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa, 341 Schaeffer Hall Iowa City, IA 52242 ([email protected]); Olga Chyzh, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Statistics, Iowa State University, 555 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50011 ([email protected]); Cameron G. Thies, Professor and Director, School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Lattie F. Coor Hall, Room 6748, Tempe, AZ 85287-3902 ([email protected]). To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.34

References

Bailey, Michael, Strezhnev, Anton, and Voeten, Erik. 2013. ‘Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data’. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2330913, accessed 13 December 2013.Google Scholar
Barbieri, Katherine, Keshk, Omar M.G., and Pollins, Brian M.. 2009. ‘Trading Data: Evaluating our Assumptions and Coding Rules’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(5):471–491.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan. 2000. ‘EUGene: A Conceptual Manual’. International Interactions 26(2):179–204.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan C.. 2004. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. ‘Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures’. American Journal of Sociology 92(5):1170–1182.Google Scholar
Boorman, Scott A., and White, Harrison C.. 1976. ‘Social Structure from Multiple Networks. II. Role Structures’. American Journal of Sociology 81(6):1384–1446.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J. 1966. ‘Transaction Flows in the International System’. The American Political Science Review 60(4):880–898.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1975. ‘Measuring Systemic Polarity’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 19(2):187–216.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1976. ‘Positions in Networks’. Social Forces 55(1):93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, R. Charli. 2011. ‘Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms’. International Organization 65(1):69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, David B., and Signorino, Curtis S.. 2010. ‘Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data’. Political Analysis 18(3):271–292.Google Scholar
Chyzh, Olga. 2013. ‘Tell Me Who Your Friends Are: An Endogenous Model of International Trade Network Formation and Effect on Domestic Political Outcomes’. PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
Cranmer, Skyler J., and Desmarais, Bruce A.. 2011. ‘Inferential Network Analysis with Exponential Random Graph Models’. Political Analysis 19(1):66–86.Google Scholar
Cranmer, Skyler J., Desmarais, Bruce A., and Menninga, Elizabeth J.. 2012. ‘Complex Dependencies in the Alliance Network’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29(3):279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorussen, Han, and Ward, Hugh. 2008. ‘Intergovernmental Organizations and the Kantian Peace’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(2):189–212.Google Scholar
Engle, Robert F., Hendry, David F., and Richard, Jean-Francois. 1983. ‘Exogeneity’. Econometrica 51(2):277–304.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. ‘Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks’. Political Analysis 14(4):456–487.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J., Hays, Jude C., and Kachi, Aya. 2012. ‘Modeling History Dependence in Network-Behavior Coevolution’. Political Analysis 20(2):175–190.Google Scholar
Gartzke, Eric A. 2007. ‘The Capitalist Peace’. American Journal of Political Science 51(1):166–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartzke, Erik, and Hewitt, J. Joseph. 2010. ‘International Crises and the Capitalist Peace’. International Interactions 36(2):115–145.Google Scholar
Gawande, Kishore, and Li, Hui. 2009. ‘Dealing with Weak Instruments: An Application to the Protection for Sale Model’. Political Analysis 17(3):236–260.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede. 2002. ‘Expanded Trade and GDP Data’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(5):712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 1995. Allies, Adversaries, and International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Granato, Jim. 1991. ‘An Agenda for Econometric Model Building’. Political Analysis 3(1):123–154.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2006. ‘Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(1):3–27.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2008. ‘Power or Plenty: How Do International Trade Institutions Affect Economic Sanctions?’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(2):213–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2012. ‘War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29(3):257–278.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2009. ‘Network Analysis for International Relations’. International Organization 63(3):559–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häge, Frank M. 2011. ‘Choice or Circumstance? Adjusting Measures of Foreign Policy Similarity for Chance Agreement’. Political Analysis 19(3):287–305.Google Scholar
Hays, Jude C., Kachi, Aya, and Franzese, Robert J. Jr. 2010. ‘A Spatial Model Incorporating Dynamic, Endogenous Network Interdependence: A Political Science Application’. Statistical Methodology 7(3):406–428.Google Scholar
Hegre, Havard. 2009. ‘Trade Dependence or Size Dependence?’ Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(1):26–45.Google Scholar
Hegre, Havard, Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2010. ‘Trade Does Promote Peace: New Simultaneous Estimates of the Reciprocal Effects of Trade and Conflict’. Journal of Peace Research 47(6):763–774.Google Scholar
Hoff, Peter D., Raftery, Adrian E., and Handcock, Mark S.. 2002. ‘Latent Space Approaches to Social Network Analysis’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97(460):1090–1098.Google Scholar
Hoff, Peter D., and Ward, Michael. 2004. ‘Modeling Dependencies in International Relations Networks’. Political Analysis 12(2):160–175.Google Scholar
Ingram, Paul, Robinson, Jeffrey, and Busch, Marc L.. 2005. ‘The Intergovernmental Network of World Trade: IGO Connectedness, Governance, and Embeddedness’. American Journal of Sociology 111(3):824–858.Google Scholar
Jackson, Matthew O. 2008. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kadera, Kelly M., and Morey, Daniel S.. 2008. ‘The Trade-Offs of Fighting and Investing: A Model of the Evolution of War and Peace’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25(2):152–170.Google Scholar
Kelejian, Harry H. 1971. ‘Two-Stage Least Squares and Econometric Systems Linear in Parameters but Nonlinear in the Endogenous Variables’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 66(334):373–374.Google Scholar
Keshk, Omar M.G., Pollins, Brian M., and Reuveny, Rafael. 2004. ‘Trade Still Follows the Flag: The Primacy of Politics in a Simultaneous Model of Interdependence and Armed Conflict’. Journal of Politics 66(4):1155–1179.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. ‘Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation’. The American Political Science Review 95(1):49–69.Google Scholar
Kinne, Brandon J. 2012. ‘Multilateral Trade and Militarized Conflict: Centrality, Openness, and Asymmetry in the Global Trade Network’. Journal of Politics 74(1):308–322.Google Scholar
Lai, Brian, and Reiter, Dan. 2000. ‘Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816–1992’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(2):203–227.Google Scholar
Lake, David A., and Wong, Wendy. 2009. ‘The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power, and Human Rights Norms’. In Miles Kahler (ed.), Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance, 127–50. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett, Ritter, Jeffrey, Mitchell, Sara, and Long, Andrew. 2002. ‘Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815–1944’. International Interactions 28(3):237–260.Google Scholar
Lin, Tracy K., and Shreve, Aaron. 2013. ‘Buying Prestige: Status Inconsistency and Foreign Aid Allocation’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Peace Science Society, October 24, 2013, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
Little, Roderick J.A., and Rubin, Donald B.. 2002. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, Andrew G. 2008. ‘Bilateral Trade in the Shadow of Armed Conflict’. International Studies Quarterly 52(1):81–101.Google Scholar
Long, Andrew G., Nordstrom, Timothy, and Baek, Kyeonghi. 2007. ‘Allying for Peace: Treaty Obligations and Conflict Between Allies’. Journal of Politics 69(4):1103–1117.Google Scholar
Lu, Lingyu, and Thies, Cameron G.. 2010. ‘Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict: Exploring a Boundary Condition of Pacific Interstate Relations’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 27(4):347–368.Google Scholar
Magee, Christopher S. 2003. ‘Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements: An Empirical Analysis’. Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy 2(1):1538–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manger, Mark S., Pickup, Mark A., and Snijders, Tom A.B.. 2012. ‘A Hierarchy of Preferences: A Longitudinal Network Analysis Approach to PTA Formation’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(5):853–878.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1993. ‘Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem’. The Review of Economic Studies 60(3):531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev. 2010. Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816–2001. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, Kuperman, Ranan D., Terris, Lesley, and Talmud, Ilan. 2006. ‘Structural Equivalence and International Conflict’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5):664–689.Google Scholar
McDonald, Patrick J. 2010. ‘Capitalism, Commitment, and Peace’. International Interactions 36(2):146–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, Hirotaka. 2012. ‘Stata Graph Library for Network Analysis’. The Stata Journal 12(1):94–129.Google Scholar
Moore, Spencer, Eng, Eugenia, and Daniel, Mark. 2003. ‘International NGOs and the Role of Network Centrality in Humanitarian Aid Operations: A Case Study of Coordination During the 2000 Mozambique Floods’. Disasters 27(4):305–318.Google Scholar
Morrow, James. 1991. ‘Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliances’. American Journal of Political Science 35(4):904–933.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 2010. ‘Capitalism, Peace, and the Historical Movement of Ideas’. International Interactions 36(2):169–184.Google Scholar
Murdie, Amanda. 2014. ‘The Ties that Bind: A Network Analysis of Human Rights International Nongovernmental Organizations’. British Journal of Political Science 44(1):1–27.Google Scholar
Murdie, Amanda, and Davis, David R.. 2012. ‘Looking in the Mirror: Comparing INGO Networks Across Issue Areas’. The Review of International Organizations 7(2):177–202.Google Scholar
Padgett, John F., and Ansell, Christopher K.. 1993. ‘Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434’. American Journal of Sociology 98(6):1259–1319.Google Scholar
Peterson, Timothy, and Thies, Cameron G.. 2012. ‘Beyond Ricardo: The Link Between Intraindustry Trade and Peace’. British Journal of Political Science 42(4):747–767.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002a. Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization’. International Organization 56(3):515–549.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002b. With a Little Help from My Friends? Regional Organizations and the Consolidation of Democracy’. American Journal of Political Science 46(3):611–626.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1993. ‘Guns, Butter, and Anarchy’. American Political Science Review 87(1):115–132.Google Scholar
Reuveny, Rafael, and Kang, Heejoon. 1996. ‘International Trade, Political Conflict/Cooperation, and Granger Causality’. American Journal of Political Science 40(3):943–970.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C., and Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. ‘Estimating the Causal Effects of Social Interaction with Endogenous Networks’. Political Analysis 20(3):316–328.Google Scholar
Ross, Michael L. 2011. ‘Replication Data For: Oil and Gas Production and Value, 1932–2009’. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/15828 UNF:5:Hwe3jAjxG7fgOMzpGQXOxw==V4, accessed 15 January 2015.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce, and Oneal, John R.. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organization. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sachs, Jeffrey D., and Warner, Andrew M.. 2001. ‘The Curse of Natural Resources’. European Economic Review 45(46):827–838.Google Scholar
Sailer, Lee Douglas. 1979. ‘Structural Equivalence: Meaning and Definition, Computation and Application’. Social Networks 1(1):73–90.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S., and Ritter, Jeffrey M.. 2002. ‘Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions’. International Studies Quarterly 43(1):115–144.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David. 1987. ‘Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985’. International Interactions 14(2):115–132.Google Scholar
Snijders, Tom A.B., Steglich, Christian E.G., and Schweinberger, Michael. 2007. ‘Modeling the Co-Evolution of Networks and Behavior’. In K. van Montfort, H. Oud and A. Satorra (eds), Longitudinal Models in the Behavioral and Related Sciences. 41–71. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Snyder, David, and Kick, Edward L.. 1979. ‘Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, 1955–1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions’. American Journal of Sociology 84(5):1096–1126.Google Scholar
Steglich, C., Snijders, Tom A.B., and Pearson, Michael. 2010. ‘Dynamic Networks and Behavior: Separating Selection from Influence’. Sociological Methodology 40:329–392.Google Scholar
Stone, Randall W. 2002. Lending Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Post-Communist Transition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, Kevin, and Keshk, Omar M.G.. 2005. ‘The Similarity of States: Using S to Compute Dyadic Interest Similarity’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(2):165–187.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Hugh. 2006. ‘International Linkages and Environmental Sustainability: The Effectiveness of the Regime Network’. Journal of Peace Research 43(2):149–166.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael D., Hoff, Peter D., and Lofdhall, Corey L.. 2003. ‘Identifying International Networks: Latent Spaces and Imputations’. In Kathleen M. Carley, Philippa E. Pattison and Ronald L. Breiger (eds), Dynamic Social Network: Modeling and Analysis. 345–363. Washington, DC: Committee on Human Values.Google Scholar
Wilson, Sven E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2007. ‘A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications’. Political Analysis 15(2):101–123.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Boehmke et al Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BKPIEV
Link
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 1

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 112.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 2

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 69.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 3

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 32.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 4

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 552 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 5

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 552 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 6

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 573 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 7

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 573 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 8

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 552 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 9

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 552 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 10

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 573 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 11

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 573 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 12

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 552 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 13

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 552 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 14

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 573 Bytes
Supplementary material: File

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material 15

Download Boehmke supplementary material(File)
File 573 Bytes