Interest in processes has become increasingly pronounced in international conflict research in recent years, especially how these processes unfold across time “dynamics”. We focus in particular on “stage conceptions” of dynamics: processes that unfold over a series of sequential, and possibly recurrent, stages. We suggest that stage conceptions have two key properties: plurisectality and conditional covariate effects. We propose a novel econometric application to quantitatively assess claims regarding stage conceptions of dynamics: survival modeling. Specifically, we use multistate models to examine how a process evolves through its individual stages, and also whether covariate effects differ across these stages. We use Huth and Allee’s territorial dispute data to demonstrate the importance of conceptualizing conflict as a dynamic process, as well as empirically modeling it as such. We show democracy has different effects on dispute resolution, depending on the dispute’s stage, but that these different effects disappear after time passes.
AndersenPer KraghBorganOrnulfGillRichard D.KeidingNiels. 1993. Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes. New York: Springer.
2.
BeckNathaniel. 1991. “Comparing Dynamic Specifications: The Case of Presidential Approval.” Political Analysis3 (1): 51–87.
3.
BeckNathaniel. 2001. “Time-series-cross-section Data: What Have We Learned in the Past Few Years?” Annual Review of Political Science4 (1): 271–93.
4.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan. 2011. “Dynamics in Time Series Cross Section Data.” Annual Review of Political Science14 (1): 331–52.
5.
BloomfieldLincoln P.LeissAmelia C.. 1969. Controlling Small Wars: A Strategy for the 1970’s. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.JonesBradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.ReiterDanZornChristopher J. W.. 2003. “Nonproportional Hazards and Event History Analysis in International Relations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution47 (1): 33–53.
8.
BrandtPatrick T.FreemanJohn R.SchrodtPhilip A.. 2011. “Real Time, Time Series Forecasting of Inter- and Intra-state Political Conflict.” Conflict Management and Peace Science28 (1): 41–64.
9.
BrandtPatrick T.FreemanJohn R.SchrodtPhilip A.. 2014. “Evaluating Forecasts of Political Conflict Dynamics.” International Journal of Forecasting30 (4): 944–62.
10.
BraumoellerBear F.2003. “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics.” Political Analysis11 (3): 209–33.
11.
BraumoellerBear F.2012. The Great Powers and the International System: Systemic Theory in Empirical Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceKochMichael T.SiversonRandolph M.. 2004. “Testing Competing Institutional Explanations of the Democratic Peace: The Case of Dispute Duration.” Conflict Management and Peace Science21 (4): 255–67.
13.
CasperGretchenWilsonMatthew. 2015. “Using Sequences to Model Crises.” Political Science Research and Methods3 (2): 381–97.
14.
ChibaDainaMetternichNils W.WardMichael D.. 2015. “Every Story Has a Beginning, Middle, and an End (but Not Always in That Order): Predicting Duration Dynamics in a Unified Framework.” Political Science Research and Methods3 (3): 515–41.
15.
DeBoefSuzannaKeeleLuke. 2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science52 (1): 184–200.
16.
DiehlPaul F.2006. “Just a Phase?: Integrating Conflict Dynamics over Time.” Conflict Management and Peace Science23 (3): 199–210.
17.
DiehlPaul F.GoertzGary. 2000. War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18.
DownsGeorge W.RockeDavid M.. 1994. “Conflict, Agency, and Gambling for Resurrection: The Principal-Agent Problem Goes to War.” American Journal of Political Science38 (2): 362–80.
19.
EsareyJustinDeMerittJacqueline H. R.. 2014. “Defining and Modeling State-dependent Dynamic Systems.” Political Analysis22 (1): 61–85.
20.
FearonJames D.1998. “Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation.” International Organization52 (2): 269–305.
21.
FilsonDarrenWernerSuzanne. 2002. “A Bargaining Model of War and Peace: Anticipating the Onset, Duration, and Outcome of War.” American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 819–37.
22.
FindleyMichael G.2013. “Bargaining and the Interdependent Stages of Civil War Resolution.” Journal of Conflict Resolution57 (5): 905–32.
23.
FreemanJohn R.JacksonJohn E.. 2012. “Symposium on Models of Path Dependence.” Political Analysis20 (2): 137–45.
24.
Frühwirth-SchnatterSylvia. 2006. Finite Mixture and Markov Switching Models. New York: Springer.
25.
GeskusRonald B.2015. Data Analysis with Competing Risks and Intermediate States. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
26.
GochmanCharles S.1993. “The Evolution of Militarized Disputes.” International Interactions19 (1-2): 49–76.
27.
GoemansH. E.2000. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
GoertzGary. 1994. Contexts of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HansenHolley E.MitchellSara McLaughlinNemethStephen C.. 2008. “IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Moving Beyond the Global versus Regional Dichotomy.” Journal of Conflict Resolution52 (2): 295–325.
30.
HenselPaul R.1999. “An Evolutionary Approach to the Study of Interstate Rivalry.” Conflict Management and Peace Science17 (2): 175–206.
31.
HenselPaul R.2001. “Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816-1992.” International Studies Quarterly45 (1): 81–109.
32.
HenselPaul R.MitchellSara McLaughlinSowersThomas E.ThyneClayton L.. 2008. “Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues.” Journal of Conflict Resolution52 (1): 117–43.
33.
HuthPaul K.AlleeTodd L.. 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HuthPaul K.AlleeTodd L.. 2009. “Codebook for Huth and Allee Status Quo Data.” Accessed April 9, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/10636.
35.
JervisRobert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
JonesBenjamin T.2013. “The Past Is Ever-present: Civil War as a Dynamic Process.” PhD diss., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
KaderaKelly M.CrescenziMark J. C.ShannonMegan L.. 2003. “Democratic Survival, Peace, and War in the International System.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 234–47.
39.
KaderaKelly M.MoreyDaniel S.. 2008. “The Trade-offs of Fighting and Investing: A Model of the Evolution of War and Peace.” Conflict Management and Peace Science25 (2): 152–70.
40.
KirschnerShanna A.2010. “Knowing Your Enemy: Information and Commitment Problems in Civil Wars.” Journal of Conflict Resolution54 (5): 745–70.
41.
LeventoğluBaharSlantchevBranislav L.. 2007. “The Armed Peace: A Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of War.” American Journal of Political Science51 (4): 755–71.
42.
LevyJack S.1995. “On the Evolution of Militarized Interstate Conflicts.” In The Process of War: Advancing the Scientific Study of Wars, edited by BremerStuart A.CusakThomas R., 219. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Overseas Publishers Association.
43.
LichtAmanda A.2011. “Change Comes with Time: Substantive Interpretation of Nonproportional Hazards in Event History Analysis.” Political Analysis19 (2): 227–43.
MaozZeevRussettBruce. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review87 (3): 624–38.
46.
MetzgerShawna K.2013. “Conflict Dynamics in Militarized Interstate Disputes.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
47.
MetzgerShawna K.Forthcoming. “Time Is on My Side? The Impact of Timing and Dispute Type on Militarized Conflict Duration.” Conflict Management and Peace Science.
MillsMelinda. 2004. “Stability and Change: The Structuration of Partnership Histories in Canada, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation.” European Journal of Population20 (2): 141–75.
50.
MoreyDaniel S.2011. “When War Brings Peace: A Dynamic Model of the Rivalry Process.” American Journal of Political Science55 (2): 263–75.
51.
NiemanMark David. 2016. “Moments in Time: Temporal Patterns in the Effect of Democracy and Trade on Conflict.” Conflict Management and Peace Science33 (3): 273–93.
52.
“No. 74 Finland-USSR Boundary.”1967. International Boundary Study. Washington, DC: Office of the Geographer.
53.
OwsiakAndrew P.2014. “Conflict Management Trajectories in Militarized Interstate Disputes: A Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations.” International Studies Review16 (1): 50–78.
54.
PageScott E.2006. “Path Dependence.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science1 (1): 87–115.
55.
PiersonPaul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
PowellRobert. 2004. “Bargaining and Learning While Fighting.” American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 344–61.
57.
PutterH.FioccoM.GeskusR. B.. 2007. “Tutorial in Biostatistics: Competing Risks and Multi-state Models.” Statistics in Medicine26 (11): 2389–430.
58.
ReedWilliam. 2000. “A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation.” American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 84–93.
59.
RummelR. J.1976. Understanding Conflict and War. Vol. 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
60.
RussettBruceOnealJohn R.. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W. W. Norton.
SchrodtPhilip A.2000. “Pattern Recognition of International Crises Using Hidden Markov Models.” In Political Complexity: Nonlinear Models of Politics, edited by RichardsDiana, 296–328. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
63.
SenesePaul D.1997. “Between Dispute and War: The Effect of Joint Democracy on Interstate Conflict Escalation.” Journal of Politics59 (1): 1–27.
64.
SenesePaul D.VasquezJohn A.. 2008. The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
SlantchevBranislav L.2004. “How Initiators End Their Wars: The Duration of Warfare and the Terms of Peace.” American Journal of Political Science48 (4): 813–29.
66.
SlantchevBranislav L.2011. Military Threats: The Costs of Coercion and the Price of Peace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SmithAlastairStamAllan C.. 2004. “Bargaining and the Nature of War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution48 (6): 783–813.
68.
StanleyElizabeth A.SawyerJohn P.. 2009. “The Equifinality of War Termination.” Journal of Conflict Resolution53 (5): 651–76.
69.
TherneauTerry M.GrambschPatricia M.. 2000. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. New York: Springer.
70.
VasquezJohn A.2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
VollsetStein EmilTverdalAageGjessingHåkon K.. 2006. “Smoking and Deaths between 40 and 70 Years of Age in Women and Men.” Annals of Internal Medicine144 (6): 381–89.
WilliamsJohn T.McGinnisMichael D.. 1988. “Sophisticated Reaction in the U.S.-Soviet Arms Race: Evidence of Rational Expectations.” American Journal of Political Science32 (4): 968–95.
74.
WilsonSven E.ButlerDaniel M.. 2007. “A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-series Cross-section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications.” Political Analysis15 (2): 101–23.
75.
WreedeLiesbeth C. deFioccoMartaPutterHein. 2010. “The mstate Package for Estimation and Prediction in Non- and Semi-parametric Multi-state and Competing Risks Models.” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine99 (3): 261–74.
76.
WreedeLiesbeth C. deFioccoMartaPutterHein. 2011. “mstate: An R Package for the Analysis of Competing Risks and Multi-State Models.” Journal of Statistical Software38 (7): 1–30.
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.
