There exists no consensus as to what indicates state satisfaction with the systemic status quo even though it has been a widely used concept in the empirical literature on conflict. This is surprising because satisfaction is not a new concept in International Relations and has been accorded a central role in many theories of war. In this article, we present a measure of satisfaction based on the cost of money for sovereign borrowers and compare that measure to several leading indicators of satisfaction. We find little correlation among the existing indicators and similar variation in their ability to predict conflict. Overall, our results suggest that the cost of money may serve as a useful indicator of satisfaction as it: (1) best predicts behaviors consistent with satisfied (dissatisfied) states; (2) is least likely to obscure the impact of other common independent variables; and (3) can also be included with measures of dyadic preferences in multivariate models of conflict.
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
2.
ArcherCCBiglaiserGDeRouenKJr (2007) Sovereign bonds and the ‘democratic advantage’: Does regime type affect credit rating agency ratings in the developing world?International Organization61(2): 341–365.
3.
Bueno de MesquitaB (1975) Measuring systemic polarity. Journal of Conflict Resolution19(2): 187–216.
4.
Bueno de MesquitaB (1981) The War Trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Bueno de MesquitaB (1990) Pride of place: The origins of German hegemony. World Politics43(1): 28–52.
6.
Bueno de MesquitaBSmithASiversonRM. (2003) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
ClagueCKeeferPKnackS. (1999) Contract-intensive money: Contract enforcement, property rights, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Growth4(2): 185–211.
8.
Correlates of War Project (2008) State System Membership List, v2008.1. Available at: http://correlatesofwar.org.
9.
de SoysaIOnealJParkY-P (1997) Testing power transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(4): 509–528.
10.
FergusonN (2006) Political risk and the international bond market between the 1848 revolution and the outbreak of the First World War. Economic History Review59(1): 70–112.
11.
GartzkeE (1998) Kant we all just get along?American Journal of Political Science42(1): 1–27.
12.
GartzkeE (2000) Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly44(2): 191–212.
13.
GellerD (2000) Status quo orientation, capabilities, and patterns of war initiation in dyadic rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science18(1): 73–96.
14.
GholzEPressD (2001) The effects of wars on neutral countries: Why it doesn’t pay to preserve the peace. Security Studies13(4): 1–57.
15.
GhosnFPalmerGBremerS (2004) The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science21: 133–154.
16.
GiblerDMSarkeesMR (2004) Measuring alliances: The Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance Dataset, 1816–2000. Journal of Peace Research41(2): 211–222.
17.
GiblerDMWolfordS (2006) Alliances, then democracy: An examination of the relationship between regime type and alliance formation. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(1): 129–153.
18.
GleditschKS (2002) Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(5): 712–724.
19.
GrossmanRSDeLongJB (1996) The British Stock Market and British economic growth, 1870–1914. Working Paper. Wesleyan University and the University of California-Berkeley.
20.
HomerSSyllaR (1991) A History of Interest Rates. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
21.
KimW (1991) Alliance transitions and great power war. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 833–850.
22.
LangerWL (1968) An Encyclopedia of World History, 4th edn.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
23.
LemkeDReedW (1996) Regime types and status quo evaluations: Power transition theory and the democratic peace. International Interactions22(2): 143–164.
24.
LemkeDReedW (1998) Power is not satisfaction: A comment on de Soysa, Oneal, and Park. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(4): 511–516.
MarshallMGJaggersK (2002) Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2002, Dataset User’s Manual. Available at: http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/Polity.
27.
MishkinF (1992) Money, Banking, and Financial Markets. New York: HarperCollins.
28.
OnealJRussettB (1999) Is the liberal peace just an artifact of Cold War interests? Assessing recent critiques. International Interactions25(3): 213–241.
29.
OrganskiAFK (1958) World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
30.
OrganskiAFKKuglerJ (1980) The War Ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
PalmerGMorganTC (2006) A Theory of Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
PayneJ (1970) The American Threat. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.
33.
SaieghSM (2005) Do countries have a ‘democratic advantage’? Political institutions, multilateral agencies, and sovereign borrowing. Comparative Political Studies38(4): 366–387.
34.
SchultzKAWeingastBR (2003) The democratic advantage: Institutional foundations of financial power in international competition. International Organization57(1): 3–42.
35.
SenesePD (2005) Territory, contiguity, and international conflict: Assessing a new joint explanation. American Journal of Political Science49(4): 769–779.
36.
SenesePDVasquezJA (2008) The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
SignorinoCSRitterJM (1999) Tau-b or not Tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115–144.
38.
SimonMGartzkeE (1996) Political system similarity and the choice of allies: Do democracies flock together, or do opposites attract?Journal of Conflict Resolution40(4): 617–635.
39.
SingerJD (1987) Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions14: 115–132.
40.
SingerJDBremerSStuckeyJ (1972) Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–1965. In: RussettB (ed.) Peace, War, and Numbers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 19–48.
41.
SiversonREmmonsJ (1991) Birds of a feather: Democratic politics and alliance choices in the twentieth century. Journal of Conflict Resolution35(2): 285–306.
42.
SiversonRMMillerRA (1996) The power transition: Problems and prospects. In: KuglerJLemkeD (eds) Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 57–73.
43.
StinnettDMTirJSchaferP.(2002) The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3. Conflict Management and Peace Science19(2): 58–66.
44.
VoetenE (2000) Clashes in the assembly. International Organization54(2): 185–215.
45.
VolgyTJMayhallS (1995) Status inconsistency and international war: Exploring the effects of systemic change. International Studies Quarterly39(1): 67–84.
46.
WallaceMD (1982) Armaments and escalation: Two competing hypotheses. International Studies Quarterly26(1): 37–56.
47.
WernerSKuglerJ (1996) Power transitions and military buildups: Resolving the relationship between arms buildups and war. In: KuglerJLemkeD (eds) Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 187–207.
