This essay examines the relationship between history and the quantitative study of international conflict. The usual distinction between these two pursuits does not hold up to close scrutiny. In fact, both research communities are in the business of using theory to explain social processes that occur within historical bounds. Making these historical bounds explicit is an appropriate response to the nature of our subject matter. Doing so also has some important advantages, including more precise theory, higher quality data, better model specification, and the potential to help explain important historical events.
BaackBRayE (1985) The political economy of the origins of the military–industrial complex in the United States. Journal of Economic History45(2): 369–375.
2.
BalcellsLSullivanCM (2018) New findings from conflict archives: An introduction and methodological framework. Journal of Peace Research55(2): 137–146.
3.
BerinskyA (2009) In Time of War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
DallekR (1982) National mood and American foreign policy: A suggestive essay. American Quarterly34(4): 339–361.
5.
ElmanCElmanMF (2000) Negotiating international history and politics. In: CElmanMFElman (eds), Bridges and Boundaries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–36.
6.
FazalT (2014) Dead wrong?: Battle deaths, military medicine, and exaggerated reports of war’s demise. International Security39(1): 95–125.
7.
FearonJ (1994) Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88(3): 577–592.
8.
FlynnMEFordhamBO (2017) Economic interests and threat assessment in the U.S. Congress, 1890–1914. International Interactions43(5): 744–770.
9.
FordhamBO (2018) More than mixed results: What we have learned from quantitative research on the diversionary hypothesis. In: Oxford Encyclopedia of Empirical International Relations Theory, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 549–564.
10.
FordhamBO (2019) The domestic politics of world power: Explaining debates over the United States battleship fleet, 1890–1900. International Organization73(2): 435–468.
11.
FukuyamaF (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press.
12.
GoemansHE (2000) War and Punishment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
GoldsteinJAGulottyR (2014) America and trade liberalization: The limits of institutional reform. International Organization68(2): 263–295.
14.
HartleyLP (1958) The Go-Between. New York: Penguin.
15.
HofstadterR (1966 [1951]) Cuba, the Philippines, and Manifest Destiny. In: RHofstadter (ed.), The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 145–187.
16.
HogansonKL (1998) Fighting for American Manhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
HuntMH (1987) Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
KennanGF (1984) American Diplomacy, expanded edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
KyddA (2005) Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
LaFeberW (1963) The New Empire. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
LakeDA (1999) Entangling Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
McDonaldPJ (2009) The Invisible Hand of Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
McDonaldPJ (2015) Great powers, hierarchy, and endogenous regimes: Rethinking the domestic causes of peace. International Organization69(2): 557–588.
24.
McLauchlinT (2014) Desertion, terrain, and control of the home front in civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution58(8): 1419–1444.
25.
MooreCD (2011) State building through partnership: Delegation, public–private partnerships, and the political development of American imperialism, 1898–1916. Studies in American Political Development25(1): 27–55.
26.
MunroDG (1964) Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the Caribbean, 1900–1921. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
NichollsNHHuthPKAppelBJ (2010) When is domestic political unrest related to international conflict? Diversionary theory and Japanese foreign policy, 1890–1941. International Studies Quarterly54(4): 915–937.
28.
PalenM-W (2016) The Conspiracy of Free Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
RosenbergES (1982) Spreading the American Dream. New York: Hill and Wang.
30.
RosenbergES (2003) Financial Missionaries to the World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
RuggieJG (1997) The past as prologue? Interests, identity, and American foreign policy. International Security21(4): 89–125.
32.
SamiiC (2016) Causal empiricism in quantitative research. Journal of Politics78(3): 941–955.
33.
Schonhardt-BaileyC (2006) From the Corn Laws to Free Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
SimmonsBA (1994) Who Adjusts?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
SlantchevB (2005) Territory and commitment: The concert of europe as self-enforcing equilibrium. Security Studies14(4): 565–606.
36.
SullivanCM (2012) Blood in the village: A local-level investigation of state massacres. Conflict Management and Peace Science29(4): 373–396.
37.
TrubowitzP (1998) Defining the National Interest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
