The MID3 Data Set,1993—2001: Procedures,Coding Rules,and Description

Abstract

Dealing with questions of war and peace and understanding the causes of interstate conflict is a primary goal of the field of international relations. In order to study interstate conflict in a rigorous manner, scholars have relied on established rules and procedures for gathering information into coherent data sets. Among those data sets is the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) data. In this paper we first outline the data-collection process for the MID3 data. Second, we introduce two new data sets emerging from the project, “MID-I” and “MID-IP.” Third, we present relatively small changes in coding rules for the new MID3 data and some descriptive statistics. The statistics indicate that the MID3 data are remarkably similar to the MID2.1 version, varying in some minor and predictable ways.

Keywords

MID militarized interstate dispute conflict data set

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bolks, S.M. , and R.J. Stoll. 2003. Examining conflict escalation within the civilization context. Conflict Management and Peace Science 20(2): 85-110.

Diehl, P.F. , B. Pollins , G. Palmer , P. Hensel , D. Gibler , P. Regan , R. Stoll , J.L. Ray , D. Geller , C. Gochman , and S. Bremer. 1999. Collaborative research on updating the militarized dispute data set. Proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation.

Enterline, A. 1998. Regime changes, neighborhoods, and interstate conflict, 1816-1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(6): 804-829.

Gochman, C.S. , and Z. Maoz. 1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures, patterns, and insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution 28(4): 585-615.

Henderson, E.A. 1997. Culture or contiguity: Ethnic conflict, the similarity of states, and the onset of war, 1820-1989. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(5): 649-668.

Hensel, P.R. 1996. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15(1): 43-73.

Huntington, S.P. 1993. The clash of civilization. Foreign Affairs 72(3): 22-49.

Jones, D. , S. Bremer , and J.D. Singer. 1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15(2): 163- 213.

Mansfield, E.D. , and J. Snyder. 1995. Democratization and the danger of war . International Security 20(1): 5-38.

10.

Palmer, G. , T.R. London , and P.M. Regan. 2004. What's stopping you? The sources of political constraints on international conflict behavior in parliamentary democracies. International Interactions 30(1): 1-24.

11.

Russett, B.M. , J.R. Oneal , and M. Cox. 2000. Clash of civilizations, or realism and liberalism déjà vu? Some evidence. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 583-608.

12.

Senese, P. 1996. Geographical proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15: 133-161.

13.

Senese, P. , and J. Vasquez. 2003. A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919-1992. International Studies Quarterly 47(2): 275-298.

14.

Vasquez, J. 1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Vasquez, J. , and M.T. Henehan. 2001. Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816-1992. Journal of Peace Research 38(2): 123-138.

16.

Ward, M.D. , and K.S. Gleditsch. 1998. Democratizing for peace. American Political Science Review 92(1): 51-61.