Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace

Slantchev, Branislav L.; Alexandrova, Anna; Gartzke, Erik

doi:10.1017/s0003055405051786

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each of the critiques has been addressed, and the robust finding that democracies are less likely to fight each other than other regime types has not been seriously shaken (Doyle, 2005;Kinsella, 2005;Slantchev, Alexandrova & Gartzke, 2005). For example, Maoz (1998) convincingly argues that none of the realist and cultural criticisms damages the basic fact of the democratic peace.…”

Section: Democratic Peace Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Letting Go Without a Fight: Decolonization, Democracy and War, 1900—94

Goldsmith

2008

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the type of regime really make no difference to the likelihood of violent conflict over basic issues of stateness such as separatism and decolonization? Can democratic peace theory be successfully applied when dealing with the national identity or stateness question? This article extends the application of the democratic peace to the process of decolonization. It examines conflict between imperial states and their colonies during the process of decolonization and investigates the question of whether democracy affects the likelihood of conflict. The central finding is that, contrary to the implications of some prominent theories of state formation and democracy, democratic imperial states are significantly less likely to go to war with their colonial possessions in the process of achieving independence. Further, the authors find only a monadic, not dyadic, democratic peace effect. The regime type of the colony does not have a significant effect on the likelihood of war. It is the nature of the regime of imperial states, rather than that of colonies, that is a significant factor. In addition, the predominant source of this effect appears to be the institutional constraints placed on executive action within democracies, rather than the influence of mass politics or the effects of political competition. Regarding powerrelated factors, power parity between sovereign and colony makes conflict more likely (a colonial powertransition effect), but imperial decline actually makes war with colonies less likely. Sensitivity analysis reveals that a number of other hypothesized effects cannot find robust support. Simulations are used to assess the magnitude of the effect of regime type pre-and post-independence. Overall, the article contributes to theory development by investigating different institutional aspects of democracy and by distinguishing monadic and dyadic effects.

show abstract

Section: Democratic Peace Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Letting Go Without a Fight: Decolonization, Democracy and War, 1900—94

Goldsmith

2008

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But if the theory is instead rather vague and abstract, and the predictions are probabilistic, meaning that multiple predictions are generated by the theory but none are sufficient to falsify it or to provide strong corroboration (Lakatos, 1978), and if the mechanisms are plural and may be combined in many different ways, then the results of a mechanismsbased investigation are unlikely to be conclusive. This dynamic can be seen in the ongoing controversy over the democratic peace hypothesis, where scholars dispute the implications of evidence about causal mechanisms (Doyle, 2005;Kinsella, 2005;Rosato, 2005;Slantchev, Alexandrova, & Gartzke, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…

Gerring

2010

Comparative Political Studies

178

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the importance of mechanism-centered explanation has become an article of faith within the social sciences, uniting researchers from a wide variety of methodological traditions—quantitative and qualitative, experimental and nonexperimental, nomothetic and idiographic, formal models and narrative prose. Despite its many virtues, there are reasons to be skeptical of social science’s newfound infatuation with causal mechanisms. First, the concept of a mechanism-centered (“mechanismic”) explanation is fundamentally ambiguous, meaning different things to different people. Second, the minimal objectives associated with the turn to mechanisms—to specify causal mechanisms and engage in detailed causal reasoning—are not at variance with traditional practices in the social sciences and thus hardly qualify as a distinct approach to causal assessment. Finally, the more demanding goal of rigorously testing causal mechanisms in causal arguments is admirable but often unrealistic. To clarify, this is not a polemic against mechanisms. It is a polemic against a dogmatic interpretation of the mechanismic mission. Causal mechanisms are rightly regarded as an important, but secondary, element of causal assessment—by no means a necessary condition.

show abstract

“…This ontological and explanatory dichotomy has marked the theorisation of the democratic peace since its inception. Recent contributions have reaffirmed the theoretically dichotomous positions formerly upheld (see e.g., Rosato, 2003;Doyle, 2005;Slantchev et al 2005;Kinsella, 2005). It is this ontological and explanatory variance that informs the divergent causal arguments postulated by liberal and (neo)realist theories of the democratic peace, and which affords a narrow base from which to examine the historical record.…”

Section: Liberalism Democracy and The Democratic Peacementioning

confidence: 92%

Democratic Peace Theory and the Realist-Liberal Dichotomy: the Promise of Neoclassical Realism?

Coetzee¹,

Hudson²

2012

Politikon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of a separate (dyadic) peace among (liberal) democracies remains an alluring proposition for Western intellectuals and policy makers, despite criticism from non-Western circles. We contend that explanations of the democratic peace have degenerated into theoretical stalemate, with the structuralist bias depicted in (neo)realist theories and, conversely, the individualist nature of liberal theories of the democratic peace, providing little room for alternative conceptions. As a distinct theory of foreign policy in which the relationship between agents and structures, and their intersection across differing levels of analysis, is more fully explored, neoclassical realism could hold potential for transcending the explanatory dichotomies plaguing the theorisation of the democratic peace. Moreover, it could open up room for an alternative theoretical framework for theorising the dyadic peace and its implications for how peace-building initiatives are approached.

show abstract

Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

Letting Go Without a Fight: Decolonization, Democracy and War, 1900—94

Letting Go Without a Fight: Decolonization, Democracy and War, 1900—94

Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…

Democratic Peace Theory and the Realist-Liberal Dichotomy: the Promise of Neoclassical Realism?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About