|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148042
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We revisit Gartzke and Weisiger's (2014) claim that development and dyadic difference, rather than democracy or a strong democratic community, drive peace and conflict in the international system. In so doing, we identify important inconsistencies in their theoretical argument. We also find extensive instability and errors in their empirical tests. Corrected analyses support the conclusion that a materially strong global democratic community dampens the onset of militarized violence. In addition, we show that an accurate interpretation of models including Gartzke and Weisiger's “dyadic difference” variable actually supports the conclusion that dyadic democracy reduces conflict. We recommend moving toward a more productive analysis of the interdependence between regime dynamics, political economy, and violence. This involves better theorizing about the emergence of market structures and their pacifying effects, treating global economic and democratic effects as complementary, research designs that carefully adhere to logic, and a continued practice of sharing replication files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126708
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Using personal observations and the results from a variety of studies on gender and scholarship, this paper demonstrates that our discipline often holds women's research in lower esteem. It does so by examining gendered patterns in various cultures of academic life, the processes by which intellectual leaders emerge, and coauthorship as one of the most significant social activities undertaken by researchers. Solutions at all institutional levels-professional organizations, journals, grant organizations, universities and colleges, graduate colleges, departments-are suggested. And even well-intentioned individuals, in a variety of roles-departmental leaders, panel organizers, discussants, bloggers, instructors, mentors, colleagues, authors, and journalists-must be willing to examine and change their own practices. The result is win-win: valuing women's research is better for female and male academics, students' intellectual health, the strength of colleges and universities, and the long-run vitality of professional organizations and journals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
109581
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We develop and test a theory of the supply side of third-party conflict management. Building on Kydd's (2003) model of mediation, which shows that bias enhances mediator credibility, we offer three complementary mechanisms that may enable mediator credibility. First, democratic mediators face costs for deception in the conflict management process. Second, a vibrant global democratic community supports the norms of unbiased and nonviolent conflict management, again increasing the costs of deception for potential mediators. Third, as disputants' ties to international organizations increase, the mediator's costs for dishonesty in the conflict management process rise because these institutions provide more frequent and accurate information about the disputants' capabilities and resolve. These factors, along with sources of bias, increase the availability of credible mediators and their efforts to manage interstate conflicts. Empirical analyses of data on contentious issues from 1816 to 2001 lend mixed support for our arguments. Third-party conflict management occurs more frequently and is more successful if a potential mediator is a democracy, as the average global democracy level increases, and as the disputants' number of shared International Organization (IO) memberships rises. We also find that powerful states serve as mediators more often and are typically successful. Other factors such as trade ties, alliances, issue salience, and distance influence decisions to mediate and mediation success. Taken together, our study provides evidence in support of Kydd's bias argument while offering several mechanisms for unbiased mediators to become credible and successful mediators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|