The operationalization of democracy and the strength of the democratic peace: A test of the relative utility of scalar and dichotomous measures

Conflict Management and Peace Science

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 85-101

  Bayer, Reşat ^a   Bernhard, Michael ^b  

^a KOÇ UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conflict; Democracy measures; Democratic peace; Regimes

Indexed keywords

EID: 75849146519     PISSN: 07388942     EISSN: 15499219     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0738894209352133     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alvarez, Michael, José Antonio Cheibub, Fernando Limongi, and Adam Przeworski. 1996. Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development 31(2): 1-37.
2. Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1998. Taking time seriously: Timeseries-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science 42: 1260-1288.
3. Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan C. Stam. 2000. EUGene: A conceptual manual. International Interactions 26: 179-204 (http://www.eugenesoftware.org).
4. Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan C. Stam. 2004. The behavioral origins of war. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Bernhard, Michael, Timothy Nordstrom, and Christopher Reenock. 2001. Economic performance, institutional intermediation, and democratic survival. Journal of Politics 63: 775-803.
6. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy. American Sociological Review 44: 572-587.
7. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1991. Political democracy: Conceptual and measurement traps. In On measuring democracy, ed. Alex Inkeles, pp. 3-20. New Brunswick: Transaction.
8. Boix, Carles. 2003. Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bremer, Stuart A. 1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36: 309-341.
10. Caprioli, Mary, and Mark Boyer. 2001. Gender, violence, and international crisis. Journal of Conflict Resolution 45: 503-518.
11. Buhaug, Halvard. 2005. Dangerous dyads revisited: Democracies may not be that peaceful after all. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 95-111.
12. Chan, Steve. 1984. Mirror, mirror on the wall... Are the free countries more pacific? Journal of Conflict Resolution 28: 617-648.
13. Chan, Steve. 1997. In search of democratic peace: Problems and promise. Mershon International Studies Review 41(2): 59-91.
14. Cheibub, José Antonio, and Jennifer Gandhi. 2004. Classifying political regimes: A six-fold measure of democracies and dictatorships. Prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September.
15. Collier, David, and Robert Adcock. 1999. Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 537-565.
16. Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17. Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review 80: 1151-1169.
18. Doyle, Michael W. 2002. Ideologies and polities: Liberal democracy and national dictatorship in peace and war. In War and peace in the 20th century and beyond, eds Geir Lundestad and Olav Njolstad, pp. 40-70. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
19. Eckstein, Harry. 1973. Authority patterns: A structural basis for political inquiry. American Political Science Review 67: 1142-1161.
20. Eckstein, Harry, and Ted Robert Gurr. 1975. Patterns of authority: A structural basis for political inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
21. Elkins, Zachary. 2000. Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science 44: 293-300.
22. Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1995. Economic crisis and political regime change: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review 89: 882-897.
23. Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24. Ghosn, Faten, Glenn Palmer, and Stuart A. Bremer. 2004. The MID3 data set, 1993-2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science 21: 133-154.
25. Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Michael D. Ward. 1997. Double take: A reexamination of democracy and autocracy in modern polities. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 361-83.
26. Goertz, Gary. 2005. Social science concepts: A users' guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Gurr, Ted Robert, Keith Jaggers, and Will Moore. 1991. The transformation of the Western state, the growth of democracy, autocracy, and state power since 1800. In On measuring democracy, ed. Alex Inkeles, pp. 69-104. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
28. Henderson, Errol. 1995. Afrocentrism and world politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
29. Johnson, Ollie A., III. 1999. Pluralist authoritarianism in comparative perspective: White supremacy, male supremacy, and regime classification. National Political Science Review 7: 116-136.
30. Jones, Daniel M., Stuart A. Bremer, and J. David Singer. 1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rational, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15: 163-212.
31. Linz, Juan J. 1975. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. In Handbook of political science, Vol. 3, eds Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, pp. 175-411. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
32. Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. 1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review 87: 624-638.
33. Marshall, Monty, and Keith Jaggers. 2002. Polity IV data set users' manual (www.cidcm.umd. edu/inscr/polity), accessed 23 December 2005.
34. Munck, Gerardo L., and Jay Verkuilan. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy. Comparative Political Studies 35: 5-34.
35. Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. 1997. The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985. International Studies Quarterly 41: 267-293.
36. Oneal, John R., and James Lee Ray. 1997. New tests of the democratic peace: Controlling for interdependence, 1950-85. Political Research Quarterly 50: 751-775.
37. Paxton, Pamela. 2000. Women's suffrage in the measurement of democracy: Problems of operationalization. Studies in Comparative International Development 35: 92-110.
38. Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and development, political institutions and the well-being of the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Ray, James Lee. 1995. Democracy and international conflict: An evaluation of the democratic peace proposition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
40. Ray, James Lee. 2005. Constructing multivariate analyses (of dangerous dyads). Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 277-292.
41. Rioux, Jean-Sebastien. 1998. A crisis-based evaluation of the democratic peace proposition. Canadian Journal of Political Science 31: 263-283.
42. Rousseau, David L., Christopher Gelpi, Dan Reiter, and Paul K. Huth. 1996. Assessing the dyadic nature of the democratic peace, 1918-88. American Political Science Review 90: 512-533.
43. Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: W. W. Norton.
44. Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 64: 1033-1053.
45. Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. The theory of democracy revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
46. Singer, J. David, Stuart A. Bremer, and John Stuckey. 1972. Capability distribution, uncertainty and major power war, 1820-1965. In Peace, war and numbers, ed. B. M. Russett, pp. 19-48. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
47. Small, Melvin, and J. David Singer. 1982. Resort to arms: International and civil wars, 1816- 1980. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.