Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference

Gilligan, Michael J.; Sergenti, Ernest

doi:10.1561/100.00007051

Cited by 214 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authors1 4 find that UN missions reduce mistrust between belligerents conditional on the size of the mission and the balance of power between rebels and government forces. Sambanis and Doyle 2007;Fortna 2008;Gilligan and Sergenti 2008;Hegre et al 2011. 3 Authors3 2015Braithwaite 2005.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Winning the Peace Locally: UN Peacekeeping and Local Conflict

Ruggeri¹,

Dorussen²,

Gizelis³

2016

Int Org

152

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It remains contested whether peacekeeping works. The impact of peacekeepers' actions at the local (or subnational) level for overall mission success has lately received critical attention. Local peacekeeping is expected to matter because it re-assures local actors, deters resumption of armed hostilities, coerces parties to halt fighting, and makes commitment to agreements credible. Thus peacekeepers affect the relations between central and local elites and avoid the emergence of local power vacuums and areas of lawlessness. This study uses new subnational data on the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers. It uses matching and recursive bivariate probit models with exogenous variables for temporal and spatial variation to deal with possible non-random assignment of the treatment. It is demonstrated that conflict episodes last shorter when peacekeepers are deployed to conflict-prone locations inside a country, even with comparatively modest deployment. The effect of peacekeeping on the onset of local conflict is, however, less clear-cut.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Winning the Peace Locally: UN Peacekeeping and Local Conflict

Ruggeri¹,

Dorussen²,

Gizelis³

2016

Int Org

152

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is perhaps not surprising, then, that practitioners have turned to matching methods to estimate causal effects (Simmons and Hopkins, 2005;Gilligan and Sergenti, 2008;Hill, 2010;Lupu, 2013).…”

Section: Existing Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Causal Inference for Political Science

Braumoeller¹,

Marra

Radice

et al. 2018

Polit. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring the causal impact of state behavior on outcomes is one of the biggest methodological challenges in the field of political science, for two reasons: behavior is generally endogenous, and the threat of unobserved variables that confound the relationship between behavior and outcomes is pervasive. Matching methods, widely considered to be the state of the art in causal inference in political science, are generally ill-suited to inference in the presence of unobserved confounders.Heckman-style multiple-equation models offer a solution to this problem; however, they rely on functional form assumptions that can produce substantial bias in estimates of average treatment effects. We describe a category of models, flexible simultaneous likelihood models, that account for both features of the data while avoiding reliance on rigid functional form assumptions. We then assess these models' performance in a series of neutral simulations, in which they produce substantial (55% to >90%) reduction in bias relative to competing models. Finally, we demonstrate their utility in a reanalysis of Simmons' (2000) classic study of the impact of Article VIII commitment on compliance with the IMF's currency-restriction regime.

show abstract

“…32 An imperfect but still important example comes from the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). It lacks strongly institutionalized enforcement regimes, and there is no agreed mechanism for reliable 27 For examples of such positive studies, see Fortna, 2004aFortna, , 2004bGilligan and Sergenti, 2008;Sambanis, 2008;andParis, 2010, 2014. 28 Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon, 2013. 29 Doyle and Sambanis, 2000. See also Doyle and Sambanis, 2006;and Beardsley, 2012. 30 Beardsley, 2011. 31 Ruggie, 1996, pp.…”

Section: Nonproliferation Norms and Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Value of the Postwar International Order

Mazarr¹,

Rhoades²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.ISBN: 978-0-8330-9977-8 For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2226Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.iii PrefaceThis project was sponsored by the Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. For more information on the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, see www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/isdp or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page). SummarySince 1945, the United States has pursued its interests in part through the creation and maintenance of international economic institutions, global organizations including the United Nations and G-7, bilateral and regional security organizations including alliances, and liberal political norms that collectively are often referred to as the "international order." In recent years, rising powers have begun to challenge aspects of this order. This report is based on a RAND project, entitled "Building a Sustainable International Order," that aims to understand the existing order, assess its status and current challenges, and recommend future U.S. policies. The study has produced multiple reports and essays. 1 Other analyses in the study have defined the order, assessed its current status, and pointed to alternative structures for future world orders, as well as evaluating the approaches of specific countries to the order. The purpose of this report is very specific: to evaluate the order's value-to assess its role in promoting U.S. goals and interests, a...

show abstract

Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference

Cited by 214 publications

References 54 publications

Winning the Peace Locally: UN Peacekeeping and Local Conflict

Winning the Peace Locally: UN Peacekeeping and Local Conflict

Flexible Causal Inference for Political Science

Testing the Value of the Postwar International Order

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About