Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:46:11.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory and Evidence in International Conflict: A Response to de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2004

NATHANIEL BECK ,
GARY KING  and
LANGCHE ZENG
NATHANIEL BECK
Affiliation:
New York University
GARY KING
Affiliation:
Harvard University
LANGCHE ZENG
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we show that de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski's substantive analyses are fully consistent with our prior theoretical conjecture about international conflict. We note that they also agree with our main methodological point that out-of-sample forecasting performance should be a primary standard used to evaluate international conflict studies. However, we demonstrate that all other methodological conclusions drawn by de Marchi, Gelpi, and Gryanaviski are false. For example, by using the same evaluative criterion for both models, it is easy to see that their claim that properly specified logit models outperform neural network models is incorrect. Finally, we show that flexible neural network models are able to identify important empirical relationships between democracy and conflict that the logit model excludes a priori; this should not be surprising since the logit model is merely a limiting special case of the neural network model.

Type
FORUM
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 379 - 389
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreou A. S., and G. A. Zombanakis. 2001. “A Neural Network Measurement of Relative Military Security—The Case of Greece and Cyprus.” Defence and Peace Economics 12 (4): 303– 24.Google Scholar
Bearce David. 2000. “Economic Sanctions and Neural Networks: Forecasting Effectiveness and Reconsidering Cooperation.” In Political Complexity: Non Linear Models of Politics, ed. Diana Richards. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 269– 95.
Beck Nathaniel, and Simon Jackman. 1998. “ Beyond Linearity by Default: Generalized Additive Model.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (April): 596– 627.Google Scholar
Beck Nathaniel, Gray King, and Langche Zeng. 2000. “Improving Quantitative Studies of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 94 (March): 21– 36.Google Scholar
Bishop Christopher M. 1995. Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borisyuk Roman, Galina Borisyuk, Colin Rallings, and Michael Thrasher. 2001. “Forecasting the 2001 General Election Result: A Neural Network Approach.” http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/epop/forecasting_genelect2001.htm.
de Marchi Scott, Christopher Gelpi, and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski. 2004. “Untangling Neural Nets.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 371– 378.Google Scholar
Demuth Howard, and Mark Beale. 2002. “Neural Network Toolboox for MATLAB, User's Guide.” http://www.mathworks.com/.
Gelpi Christopher, and Joseph M. Grieco. 2000. “Democracy, Interdependence, and the Liberal Peace.” Duke University. http://www.duke.edu/~gelpi/papers.htm.
Hastie Trevor R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2001. The Elements of Statistical Learning. New York: Springer Verlag.
King Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9 (Spring): 137– 63.Google Scholar
King Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2002. “Improving Forecasts of State Failure.” World Politics 53 (July): 623– 58.Google Scholar
King Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2003. “When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference.” Preprint available at http://gking.harvard.edu.
King Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (April): 341– 55. Reprint at http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/making-abs.shtml.Google Scholar
Lagazio Monica, and Bruce Russett. 2002. “A Neural Network Analysis of Militarized International Disputes, 1885–1992: Temporal Stability and Causal Complexity.” In The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem, ed. Paul Diehl. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Oneal John R., and Bruce Russett. 1997. “The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (June): 267– 93.Google Scholar
Peceny Mark, Caroline C. Beer, and Shannon Sanchez-Terry. 2002. “Dictatorial Peace?” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 15– 26.Google Scholar
Reuveny Rafael, and Quan Li. 2003. “The Joint Democracy-Dyadic Conflict Nexus: A Simultaneous Equations Model.” International Studies Quarterly 47 (September): 325– 46.Google Scholar
Russett Bruce, John Oneal, and Michael L. Berbaum. 2003. “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992.” International Studies Quarterly 47 (September): 371– 93.Google Scholar
Signorino Curtis. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93 (2): 279– 98.Google Scholar
Signorino Curtis S., and Kuzey Yilmaz. 2003. “Strategic Misspecification in Regression Models.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (July): 551– 66. http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/signorino/papers/Signo00.pdf.Google Scholar
Stock James H., and Mark W. Watson. 2003. “Forecasting Output and Inflation: The Role of Asset Prices.” Journal of Economic Literature 41 (September): 788– 829.Google Scholar
Stone M. 1974. “Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Prediction.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B 36 (2): 111– 33.Google Scholar
Vapnik Vladimir N. 1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer.
Vapnik Valdimir N. 1998. Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Wiley.
Werner Suzanne. 2000. “The Effects of Political Similarity on the Onset of Militarized Disputes, 1816–1985.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (June): 343– 74.Google Scholar
White Halbert H. 1992. Artificial Neural Networks, Approximation and Learning Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Zeng Langche. 1999. “Classification and Prediction with Neural Network Models.” Sociological Methods and Research 27 (May): 499– 524.Google Scholar
Zeng Langche. 2000. “Neural Network Models for Political Analysis.” In Political Complexity: Nonlinear Models of Politics, ed. Diana Richards. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 239– 268.
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.