Network Centrality and International Conflict, 1816-2001 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Network Polarization, Network Interdependence, and International Conflict, 1816-2002
Journal of Peace Research, 2006
This study examines the effect of polarization and interdependence on systemic conflict. It argues that both polarization and interdependence must be conceptualized in terms of different types of relations among states and that different relationships would reflect varied levels of polarization and interdependence. Accordingly, this study develops general measures of network polarization and interdependence that allow measurement of these concepts over a wide array of international relations. Hypotheses are deduced from the realist and liberal paradigms about how alliance polarization, trade polarization, and cultural polarization affect systemic conflict. Likewise, hypotheses are deduced regarding the expected effects of strategic and economic interdependence on conflict. These hypotheses are tested using data on alliance, trade, linguistic, and religious networks over the period 1816-2002. The findings suggest that alliance polarization and strategic interdependence increase the amount of systemic conflict, while trade polarization and economic interdependence have a dampening effect on the amount of conflict in the international system. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.
The concept of international affinity-albeit under different names-captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. We discuss notions of affinities derived from the realist, liberal, and culturlalist paradigm and derive hypotheses regarding the impact of different types of affinity on the probability of dyadic conflict. We point out some of the weaknesses in existing measures of structural affinity. We offer a social networks conception of structural affinity-the concept of structural equivalence-which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. A test of the hypotheses derived from these paradigms using both existing measures of affinity and our own structural equivalence measures suggests several findings: (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict; (2) trade-related affinity does not have a significant impact on the probability of dyadic conflict; (3) IGOrelated affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the 20 th century. (4) Cultural (linguistic and religious) affinity also does not appear to have a significant or consistent effect on the probability of dyadic conflict. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of international politics.
Structural Equivalence and International Conflict: A Social Networks Analysis
The concept of international affinity-albeit under different names-captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. The authors discuss different types of affinities as these appear in the realist and liberal paradigms. They offer a social networks conception of structural affinity-the concept of structural equivalence-which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. They test the hypotheses derived from these paradigms, using both existing measures of affinity and their own structural equivalence measures. Their findings suggest that (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict, (2) trade-related affinity does consistently affect the probability of dyadic conflict, and (3) intergovernmental organization-related affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the twentieth century.
Centrality in Politics: How Networks Confer Influence
2009
In this article, we argue that network centrality approaches can illuminate power processes in transnational security governance. Most approaches to power and centrality focus on the direct effects of the possession of resources or ties. By contrast, we argue that centrality can also inform how network structures constrain behavior through diffuse power processes. We illustrate our argument by replicating two important papers on socialization through democratic international organizations and producing order through alliance hierarchies. We demonstrate that using network conceptualizations and measurements of these processes allows for better connections between theory and empirics, more precise hypothesis testing, improved models, and more robust results. We find that socialization by democratic IOs is more important than dispute resolution mechanisms in preventing conflict and that ordering through hierarchical structures occurs throughout the entire international alliance system. * The authors share equal responsibility for this paper and their names appear in alphabetical order. A traditional view of power in international politics holds that it resides in the possession of important resources. Actors with significant stocks of military hardware, economic wealth, and other high-value assets, the argument goes, enjoy advantages when it comes to influencing others. But a great deal of research suggests that power also resides in ties (patterns of association) that link together actors in networks. Some of these ties are material, such as trade and capital flows, while others are symbolic, such as friendship. Whether material or symbolic, however, these ties determine actors' relative position in networks. These positions, in turn, profoundly structure agents' abilities to determine their circumstances and fates.
Structural Equivalence and International Conflict
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2006
The concept of international affinity—albeit under different names—captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. The authors discuss different types of affinities as these appear in the realist and liberal paradigms. They offer a social networks conception of structural affinity—the concept of structural equivalence—which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. They test the hypotheses derived from these paradigms, using both existing measures of affinity and their own structural equivalence measures. Their findings suggest that (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict, (2) trade-related affinity does consistently affect the probability of dyadic conflict, and (3) intergovernmental organization-related affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the twentieth cen...
Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2006
A growing number of international relations scholars argue that intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) promote peace. Existing approaches emphasize IGO membership as an important causal attribute of individual states, much like economic development and regime type. The authors draw up on social network analysis, arguing that conflicts between states are also shaped by relative positions of social power created by IGO memberships and characterized by significant disparity. Membership partitions states into structurally equivalent clusters and establishes hierarchies of prestige in the international system. These relative positions promote common beliefs and alter the distribution of social power, making certain policy strategies more practical or rational. The authors introduce new IGO relational data and explore the empirical merits of their approach during the period from 1885 to 1992. They demonstrate that conflict is increased by the presence of many other states in structurally equivalent clusters, while large prestige disparities and in-group favoritism decrease it.