Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [188]
92
Maoz and Russett, “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace,” pp. 624-638; and Dixon, “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict.”
93
For similar assessments of where the consensus lies on these issues, see Ray, Democracies and International Conflict; Bear F. Braumoeller, “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics,” Political Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 3 (2003), pp. 209-233; Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman, War and Reason; and Elman, ed., Paths to Peace.
94
Rousseau et al., “Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace.”
95
For an account that uses statistical methods to question the existence of an interdemocratic peace, see David E. Spiro, “The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994), pp. 50-86. In subsequent published correspondence, Bruce Russett critiques Spiro’s argument, particularly Spiro’s assumption that dyadic data points lack independence and offers some of the most convincing statistical tests yet for the existence of an interdemocratic peace (Bruce Russett, “Correspondence: The Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Spring 1995), pp. 164-184). For an additional account that finds Russett’s statistical tests more convincing, see Braumoeller, “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics.” For an additional account that questions the statistical validity of the finding of an interdemocratic peace, see Henry Farber and Joanne Gowa, “Polities and Peace,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Fall 1995), pp. 123-146.
96
Dixon, “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict,” pp. 14-32; Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, p. 48.
97
On the difficulties of conceptualizing and measuring democracy, and on the strengths and weaknesses of various statistical databases in doing so, see Gerardo Munck and Jay Verkuilen, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (February 2002), pp. 5-34.
98
Ted Gurr et al., “The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy, Autocracy, and State Power Since 1800,” Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1990), pp. 73-108. The “Polity” data set, begun in the 1970s, has been updated several times, and the current “Polity IV” version is available at 99 Maoz and Russett, “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace,” p. 630. 100 Braumoeller, “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics.” 101 Ray, Democracies and International Conflict; and Spiro, “The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace.” 102 Ray, Democracies and International Conflict, pp. 86-87. 103 Correspondence of Kalevi Holsti, cited in Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, p. 44. 104 Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, p. 43. 105 Harry Eckstein, “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science,” in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 79-138; Alexander L. George, “Case Studies and Theory Development,” in Paul G. Lauren, ed., Diplomacy: New Approaches in Theory, History, and Policy (New York: Free Press, 1979), pp. 43-68. 106 See, respectively, Susan Peterson, “How Democracies Differ: Public Opinion, State Structure, and the Lessons of the Fashoda Crisis,” Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn 1995), pp. 3-37; William Hoeft, Explaining Interdemocratic Peace: The Norm of Cooperatively Biased Reciprocity (Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, 1993); John M. Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994), pp. 87-125; Bernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising