The concept of international affinity—albeit under different names—captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. The authors discuss different types of affinities as these appear in the realist and liberal paradigms. They offer a social networks conception of structural affinity—the concept of structural equivalence—which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. They test the hypotheses derived from these paradigms, using both existing measures of affinity and their own structural equivalence measures. Their findings suggest that (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict, (2) trade-related affinity does consistently affect the probability of dyadic conflict, and (3) intergovernmental organization-related affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the twentieth century.
Axelrod, Robert, and Robert O. Keohane.1986. Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. In Cooperation under anarchy, edited by Kenneth A. Oye. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Barbieri, Katherine. 1996. Economic interdependence: A path to peace or a source of interstate conflict? Journal of Peace Research33(1): 29-50.
3.
Barbieri, Katherine. 2002. The liberal illusion: Does trade promote peace?Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
Barbieri, Katherine, Omar Keshk, and Brian Pollins. 2004. BKP trade data codebook. http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/bpollins/data/bkp_trade_0.9_readme.pdf.
5.
Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1998. Taking time seriously: Time-series cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science42(4): 1260-1288.
6.
Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan Stam. 2000. EUGene: A conceptual manual. International Interactions26(2): 179-204.
7.
Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan Stam. 2002. EUGENE manual, V 2.40. http://www.eugenesoftware.org.
8.
Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 2004. Persistent parochialism: Trust and exclusion in ethnic networks. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization55(1): 1-23.
9.
Brams, Steven J.1966. Transaction flows in the international system. American Political Science Review60(4): 880-898.
10.
Brams, Steven J.1969. The structure of influence relationships in the international system. In International politics and foreign policy, 2nd ed., edited by James N. Rosenau, 583-599. New York: Free Press.
11.
Bremer, Stuart. 2000. Who fights whom, when, and why? In What do we know about war? edited by John A. Vasquez, 23-36. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The war trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David Lalman. 1992. War and reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
Burt, Ronald S., and Ilan Talmud. 1993. Market niche. Social Networks15(2): 133-149.
15.
Christensen, Thomas J., and Jack Snyder. 1990. Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization51(1): 65-98.
16.
Crescenzi, Mark J. C.2003. Economic exit, interdependence, and conflict. Journal of Politics65(3): 809-832.
17.
Crescenzi, Mark J. C.2005. Economic interdependence and conflict in world politics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
18.
Farber, Henry, and Joanne Gowa. 1995. Polities and peace. International Security20(2): 123-146.
19.
Farber, Henry, and Joanne Gowa. 1997. Common interests or common polities? Reinterpreting the democratic peace. Journal of Politics59(3): 393-417.
20.
Gaffié, Bernard, Pascal Marchand, and Jean-Michel Cassagne. 1997. Effect of political position on group perception. European Journal of Social Psychology27(2): 177-187.
21.
Gibler, Douglas M., and Meredith Sarkees. 2004. Measuring alliances: The Correlates of War formal interstate alliance data set, 1816-2000. Journal of Peace Research41(2): 211-222.
22.
Gleditsch, Kristian S.2002. Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(5): 712-724. Data set available at http://weber.ucsd.edu/%7Ekgledits/exptradegdp.html.
23.
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Michael D. Ward. 2001. Measuring space: A minimum distance dataset. Journal of Peace Research38(4): 749-768.
24.
Gochman, Charles S.1991. Interstate metrics: Conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring the geographic proximity of states since the Congress of Vienna. International Interactions17(1): 93-112.
25.
Gochman, Charles S., and Zeev Maoz. 1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures, patterns, and insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution28(4): 585-615.
26.
Gowa, Joanne. 1999. Ballots and bullets: The elusive democratic peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Henderson, Errol A.1998. The democratic peace through the lens of culture. International Studies Quarterly42(3): 461-484.
28.
Henderson, Errol A.2004. Mistaken identity: Testing the clash of civilization thesis in light of democratic peace claims. British Journal of Political Science34(2): 539-563.
29.
Henderson, Errol A., and Richard Tucker. 2001. Clear and present strangers: The clash of civilizations and international conflict. International Studies Quarterly45(2): 317-338.
30.
Hoff, Peter D., and Michael D. Ward. 2004. Modeling dependencies in international relations networks. Political Analysis12(2): 160-175.
31.
Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul E. Johnson, and John Sprague. 2004. Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communications networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Huntington, Samuel. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
33.
Jaggers, Keith, and Ted Robert Gurr. 1995. Tracking democracy’s third wave with the POLITY III data. Journal of Peace Research32(4): 453-468.
34.
Jones, Daniel M., Stuart Bremer, and J. David Singer. 1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 163-213.
35.
Kadera, Kelly M., and Gerald L. Sorokin. 2004. Measuring national power. International Interactions30: 211-230.
36.
Keohane, Robert O., and Lisa L. Martin. 1995. The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security20(1): 39-51.
37.
Knoke, David. 1994. Political networks: The structural perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Knoke, David, Franz Urban Pappi, Jeffrey Broadbent, and Yutaka Tsujinaka. 1996. Comparing policy networks: Labor policy in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Lee, S. C., Robert G. Muncaster, and Dina A. Zinnes. 1994. The friend of my enemy is my enemy: Modeling triadic international relationships. Synthese100(3): 333-358.
40.
Leeds, Brett Ashley. 2003. Alliance reliability in times of war: Explaining state decisions to violate treaties. International Organization57: 801-827.
41.
Maoz, Zeev. 1990. Paradoxes of war: On the art of national self-entrapment. Boston: Unwin Hymann.
42.
Maoz, Zeev. 1996. Domestic sources of global change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Maoz, Zeev. 1998. Realist and cultural critiques of the democratic peace: A theoretical and empirical reassessment. International Interactions24 (1): 3-89.
44.
Maoz, Zeev. 2005. Dyadic MID dataset, version 2.0. http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/dyadmid.html.
45.
Maoz, Zeev. 2006. Systemic polarization, interdependence, and international conflict, 1816-2002. Journal of Peace Research43(4): 391-411.
46.
Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. 1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review87(3): 624-638.
47.
Maoz, Zeev, Lesley G. Terris, Ranan D. Kuperman, and Ilan Talmud. 2003a. Network centrality and international conflict, 1816-2002: Does it pay to be important? Paper presented at the annual meeting of Peace Science Society (International), November 14-16, Ann Arbor, MI.
48.
Maoz, Zeev, Lesley G. Terris, Ranan D. Kuperman, and Ilan Talmud. 2003b. The evolution of international politics: A network analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central and Eastern European International Studies Association, June 26-28, Budapest.
49.
Maoz, Zeev, Lesley G. Terris, Ranan D. Kuperman, and Ilan Talmud. 2005. International networks and international politics. In New directions in international relations research, edited by Alex Mintz and Bruce Russett, 35-64. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
50.
Maoz, Zeev, Lesley G. Terris, Ranan D. Kuperman, and Ilan Talmud. Forthcoming. What is the enemy of my enemy? Causes and consequences of imbalanced international relations, 1816-2001. Journal of Politics.
51.
Mearsheimer, John J.1994-1995. The false promise of international institutions. International Security19(1): 5-49.
52.
Morrow, James D.1997. A rational choice approach to international conflict. In Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate, edited by Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz, 11-31. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
53.
Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. 2005. Rule of three, let it be: When more really is better. Conflict Management and Peace Science22(4): 293-310. Data are available at http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ebrusset/ (item no. 221).
54.
Pevenhouse, Jon, Timothy Nordstrom, and Kevin Warnke. 2004. Intergovernmental organizations, 1815- 2000: A new Correlates of War data set. Available at http://cow2.la.psu.edu/.
55.
Russett, Bruce, and John Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organization. New York: Norton.
56.
Russett, Bruce, John Oneal, and David R. Davis.1998. The third leg of the Kantian tripod for peace: International organizations and militarized disputes, 1950-1985. International Organization52(3): 441-467.
57.
Russett, Bruce M., John R. Oneal, and Michaelene Cox. 2000. Clash of civilizations, or realism and liberalism déjà vu? Some evidence. Journal of Peace Research37(5): 583-608.
58.
Saperstein, Alvin M.2004. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is the enemy: Dealing with the war-provoking rules of intent. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(4): 287-296.
59.
Signorino, Curtis S., and Jeffery M. Ritter. 1999. Tau-b or not Tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115-144.
60.
Singer, J. David. 1990. Reconstructing the Correlates of War data set on material capabilities of states, 1816-1985. In Measuring the Correlates of War, edited by J. David Singer and Paul F. Diehl, 53-68. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
61.
Siverson, Randolph, and Harvey Starr. 1991. The diffusion of war: A study of opportunity and willingness. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
62.
Snyder, Glenn H.1997. Alliance politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
63.
Stinnett, Douglas M., Jaroslav Tir, Philip Schafer, Paul F. Diehl, and Charles Gochman. 2002. The Correlates of War project direct contiguity data, version 3. Conflict Management and Peace Science19(2): 58-66.
64.
Swift, Jonathan S.1999. Cultural closeness as a facet of cultural affinity. International Marketing Review16(3): 182-201.
65.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1997. Social networks analysis: Methods and applications. 2nd ed.New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Watts, Duncan J.2003. Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
