|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
163750
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How does climate change affect the risk and dynamics of violent conflict? Existing research shows that climate change can increase the risk of violent conflict and significantly alter the dynamics of existing conflicts. Less is known about the exact mechanisms through which climate change affects violent conflict. In this article, we address this lacuna in light of the first systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative scholarship. Through an analysis of forty-three peer-reviewed articles on climate-related environmental change and violent conflict in East Africa published 1989–2016, we evaluate to what extent the literature provides coherent explanations that identify relevant mechanisms, actors, and outcomes. In addition, we discuss the expected temporal and spatial distribution of violence and the confounding political factors implied in the literature. Against this background, we offer a number of suggestions for how future climate-conflict research can theorize and explore mechanisms. Future research should distinguish between explanations that focus on causes and dynamics of climate-related violent conflict, theoretically motivate when and where violence is most likely to occur, systematically examine the role of state policies and intervention, and explore the implications of each explanation at the microlevel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
027541
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1972.
|
| Description |
ix, 435p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
0691075441
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 011309 | 900/AYD 011309 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
110267
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article uses quantitative methods to deepen and broaden our understanding of the factors that determine the effectiveness of international regimes. To do so, we compare and contrast the findings resulting from two major projects: the Oslo-Seattle Project and the International Regimes Database Project. The evidence from these projects sheds considerable light on the determinants of regime effectiveness in the environmental realm. Clearly, regimes do make a difference. By combining models and data from the two projects, we are able to move beyond this general proposition to explore the significance of a number individual determinants of effectiveness, including the distribution of power, the roles of pushers and laggards, the effects of decision rules, the depth and density of regime rules, and the extent of knowledge of the relevant problem. We show how important insights emerge not only from the use of statistical procedures to separate the effects of individual variables but also from the application of alternative techniques, such as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), designed to identify combinations of factors that operate together to determine the effectiveness of regimes. We use our results to identify a number of opportunities for additional research featuring quantitative analyses of regime effectiveness. Our goal is not to displace traditional qualitative methods in this field of study. Rather, we seek to sharpen a set of quantitative tools that can be joined together with the extensive body of qualitative studies of environmental regimes to strengthen our ability both to identify patterns in regime effectiveness and to explore the causal mechanisms that give rise to these patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
173125
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
“The Soldier, the State, and the People—Costs and Benefits of Military Regimes”: Evaluating the Essay “Guns and Butter: Child Mortality and the Mediators of Militarization” raises several concerns about the theory and analyses in our article. We address what we see as the three most important: (1) the necessity of both qualitative and quantitative analyses in the study of militarization; (2) correlational versus causal analysis; and (3) the value of Huntington’s analysis of praetorian militarization. We have varying levels of agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
080975
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This special issue seeks to move forward the development of an empirical research agenda that takes seriously the complexity of how international organizations (IOs) function and the need to study that complexity at all levels of analysis by using robust research tools. We advocate for a broad empirical research approach that molds and sharpens theories about IOs by conducting systematic tests in large-sample environments. Two themes create a common thread throughout this issue. First, shifting the focus from whether IOs matter to how they work requires acknowledgment of the contingency of cause and effect. A second common thread lies in the authors' treatment of IO membership as an aggregate phenomenon-that is, as a set of institutions and relationships evolving over time and with many members rather than as a single organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
154918
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The first part of this article discusses the current state of International Relations (IR) in Turkey and begins with the argument that the local disciplinary community shows a lack of adequate communication and interactive scholarly debates, and therefore of knowledge accumulation. This article proposes that the growth of such engagement could be encouraged by increased methodological diversity, in particular additional research using quantitative methods. It argues that quantitative research could contribute to engagement by providing conceptual and methodological clarity around which scholarly debates could develop and ultimately contribute to Turkish IR's progress as a disciplinary community. To substantiate these claims, this article goes on to discuss the development and contributions of quantitative research to global IR and illustrates the potential benefits of using quantitative methods in the study of Turkish foreign affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
093001
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past decade, dozens of quantitative studies on civil war onset have been published. This study compiles the results of 46 quantitative studies, and finds that of more than 200 hundred independent variables, there is some degree of consensus on the effects of fewer than 30 and a high degree of consensus on no more than seven. Furthermore, many puzzles and contradictions in the existing research literature have barely been examined. The review concludes that while there is embryonic consensus on the effects of a small set of variables, there is not yet a widely accepted theory that explains these effects. Since neither qualitative nor quantitative analysis of civil wars has solved these puzzles, future studies of civil war onset should theorize the expected interactions between all variables of interest, collect data on variables with poor proxies, take grievances more seriously in theory and measurement, make use of the enormous quantity of historical scholarship on civil wars, and extend the concept of "multiple paths to war" to intrastate war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|