Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The State of the Field on Political Shocks: A Review of (Mostly) Quantitative Literature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Shocks and Political Change

Part of the book series: Evidence-Based Approaches to Peace and Conflict Studies ((EBAPCS,volume 11))

  • 177 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces readers to recent literature on political shocks and their relevance for foreign policy and international relations. The literature on the topic has been extensive and growing. I review the state of the literature on political shocks, and especially the large-N, quantitative literature (including a sample of over 1500 journal articles), addressing how political shocks have been approached and what we know thus far regarding their dynamics. In discussing the extant research, areas of consensus are highlighted as well as where discrepancies remain. The review suggests that while political shocks have become highly salient to scholars, it is also apparent that to better understand how such phenomena can come to impact key areas of scholarly concern, there is a need for further conceptual, theoretical, and empirical work in order to achieve a better understanding of conditions under which political shocks can lead to major foreign policy change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This review included the following journals, which are consistent with TRIP’s evaluation of primary IR research sources: American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, British Journal of Political Science, Conflict Management and Peace Science, International Interactions, International Organization, International Security, International Studies Quarterly, International Studies Review, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Politics, Security Studies, and World Politics.

  2. 2.

    The timeframe covers the years 1990 through 2020; 30 years should be long enough to provide a thorough evaluation of the literature while also ensuring a more contemporary understanding of the topic. The use of “shock” rather than “political shock” was intentional, as numerous relevant studies used only the generic term in their discussions. This broader phrasing did result in several substantively irrelevant articles, which are not factored into this discussion.

  3. 3.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Political+Shocks&year_start=1900&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3.

  4. 4.

    Different disciplines have similar concepts such as critical junctures, large crises, and punctuations. Historical institutionalism incorporates critical junctures, arguing that continuity and path dependence can experience substantial change via critical junctures. Critical junctures have been described as a “period of significant change, which typically occurs in distinct ways in different countries (or in other units of analysis)” (Collier & Collier, 1991, p. 29). Large crises, critical junctures, and punctuations have similar conceptualizations and processes associated with the disruption of path dependence (Kahl, 1998).

  5. 5.

    There are numerous additional authors who have characterized the phenomena in terms of anticipation, structure, transition, and so on, as reflected in Table 1.

  6. 6.

    Table 1 is drawn from information compiled in Gordell (2021). This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead to provide an overview of the broader descriptors used among the literature. These descriptors are used to (1) convey significance, and (2) distinguish shocks from other concepts. The specification of external/internal or exogenous/endogenous is also used among the literature but is not included in this discussion, since the focus here is not on the origins of the shock itself.

  7. 7.

    While crises may be viewed as similar to shocks, their conceptualization has changed over the years resulting in a significant divergence between the two concepts. See Hermann (1969a, 1969b, p. 414) and Brecher and Wilkenfeld (2001) for differences in definitions and approaches.

  8. 8.

    In 1989 the Berlin Wall was dismantled. A few months later the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe dissolved. By 1991 the Soviet Union itself had disintegrated. Amidst the euphoria and surprise that surrounded these shocking events, many observers were sure that this new new world order, even as it evolved, would be inordinately stable (Zagare, 1996, p. 366).

  9. 9.

    All things equal, terrorism is advantaged… because it is dramatic and shocking and often poses a challenge to the established order (Asal & Hoffman, 2015, p. 386).

    The 9/11 attacks might well have been needed to shock the government and the public into a drastic change of policy, as many Bush administration officials argued (Coe, 2018, p. 1209; Jervis, 2003).

    Some cognitive or ideational tendencies may have affected the comparison between invading with a light footprint or staying out, especially after the shock of 9/11 (Saunders, 2017, p. S233).

  10. 10.

    Table 2 is drawn from information compiled in Gordell (2021). This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead provides a glimpse at the different levels at which political shocks have been considered. While the international/global/systemic level is arguably the most frequent level utilized within the literature, it is far from being the only level of focus.

  11. 11.

    Table 3 is drawn from information compiled in Gordell (2021). This table is not intended to be an exhaustive list of authors or types, rather it is meant to provide a view of both the diversity and agreement among researchers.

  12. 12.

    See Maoz and Joyce (2016) for an elaboration on this critique.

  13. 13.

    The Economist (2022) reports that Russian officers in the invading army were carrying dress uniforms for the victory parade they expected within a few days of the invasion.

  14. 14.

    Complementing the role of policy entrepreneurs are other domestic political actors who may be willing to entertain policy entrepreneurs when shocks occur. Avant (2000, pp. 50–51) notes that policymakers’ reactions to shocks may be conditioned by a fear that changing policy will threaten their interests but as party leaders begin to split, new ideas and actions become more possible.

  15. 15.

    For an in-depth discussion of the pertinent literature on the punctuated equilibrium approach and its application to political shocks, see Chap. 3.

  16. 16.

    Several of the following chapters use alternative approaches to the magnitude of shock issue; see especially the contrast between Chaps. 4 and 11.

  17. 17.

    Bas and Schub (2017, p. 857) also note that the probability for interstate wars is also conditioned by actors’ pessimism about their strategic environment as they estimate the degree to which the “window of opportunity” will be closing. Mattes (2008) suggests that commitment problems stemming from shocks do not always have detrimental effects as states under certain conditions are able to absorb shocks without increasing conflicts with adversaries.

  18. 18.

    There is a wide range of studies that have considered major war, including the world wars, and the end of the Cold War as shocks, including but not limited to Carson et al. (2011), Collins (2007), Fettweis (2004), Finkel (2015), Florea (2012), Fordham and Kleinberg (2012), Goertz and Diehl (1995), Holmes and Traven (2015), Hudson and Vore (1995), Iversen and Soskice (2009), Kalyvas and Balcells (2010), King and Lieberman (2009), Krebs (2015), Maoz and Siverson (2008), Sinha (2018), Streeck and Thelen (2005), Thies (2004), White (2017).

  19. 19.

    I explicitly mention large scale analysis as smaller scale studies can pursue more in-depth analysis of specific events while large-n studies simply cannot. The assessment by smaller scale or more qualitative studies has provided information from which we have generally built upon, however, large-n endeavors also require an alternative approach.

  20. 20.

    Again, by potential political shocks I am referring to events that may be unique, occur rapidly, and were unanticipated but failed to disrupt ongoing economic or political processes.

  21. 21.

    Our explanations of political shocks may also need to embrace conditions of multiple shocks occurring within a state or region (e.g., the simultaneous shock of the Iranian revolution and the oil shock of 1979), rather than solely focusing on individual shocks (Kaufman, 1997).

  22. 22.

    See for example the discussion of variable that may mediate between political shock and role change in Chap. 5.

  23. 23.

    Between 2001 and 2020, Russian trade as a percent of its GDP declined by 26 percent. China’s trade as a percent of its GDP nearly doubled between 2001 and 2006, followed by an equally dramatic decrease between 2006 and 2020 (Source: World Bank).

  24. 24.

    See for examples Mercator Institute for China Studies (2021) and Connolly and Hanson (2016).

References

  • Ahmad, A. (2019). We have captured your women’: Explaining jihadist norm change. International Security, 44(1), 80–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksoy, D., Carter, D., & Wright, J. (2015). Terrorism and the fate of dictators. World Politics, 67(3), 423–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akturk, S. (2011). Regimes of ethnicity comparative analysis of Germany, the Soviet Union/Post-Soviet Russia, and Turkey. World Politics, 63(1), 115–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D., & Rooney, B. (2019). Vote-buying by the United States in the United Nations. International Studies Quarterly, 63(1), 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allee, T., & Peinhardt, C. (2014). Evaluating three explanations for the design of bilateral investment treaties. World Politics, 66(1), 47–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D. (2010). New directions in the study of nation-building: Views through the lens of path dependence. International Studies Review, 12(3), 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anievas, A., & Saull, R. (2019). Reassessing the Cold War and the far-right: Fascist legacies and the making of the liberal international order after 1945. International Studies Review, 22(3), 370–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbatli, C., & Arbatli, E. (2014). External threats and political survival: Can dispute involvement deter coup attempts? Conflict Management and Peace Science, 33(2), 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbatov, A. (1998). Military reform in Russia: Dilemmas, obstacles, and prospects. International Security, 22(4), 83–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arfi, B. (2000). ‘Spontaneous’ interethnic order: The emergence of collective, path-dependent cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 44(4), 563–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arriola, L. (2013). Capital and opposition in Africa coalition building in multiethnic societies. World Politics, 65(2), 233–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asal, V., & Hoffman, A. (2015). Media effects: Do terrorist organizations launch foreign attacks in response to levels of press freedom or press attention? Conflict Management and Peace Science, 33(4), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894215579622

  • Avant, D. (2000). From mercenary to citizen armies: Explaining change in the practice of war. International Organization, 54(1), 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551118

  • Bagozzi, B., Koren, O., & Mukherjee, B. (2017). Droughts, land appropriation, and rebel violence in the developing world. Journal of Politics, 79(3), 1057–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbera, P., Casas, A., Nagler, J., Egan, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 883–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. (2006). Building a republican peace: Stabilizing states after war. International Security, 30(4), 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., Fang, S., & Zurcher, C. (2014). Compromised peacebuilding. International Studies Quarterly, 58(3), 608–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartusevicius, H., & Gleditsch, K. (2019). A two-stage approach to civil conflict: Contested incompatibilities and armed violence. International Organization, 73(1), 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bas, M., & Schub, R. (2017). Peaceful uncertainty: When power shocks do not create commitment problems. International Studies Quarterly, 61(4), 850–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, R. (2012). Crime victimization and political participation. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press, Illinois. ISBN: 9780226039398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bausch, A., Faria, J., & Zeitzoff, T. (2013). Warnings, terrorist threats and resilience: A laboratory experiment. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30(5), 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawn, K., & Rosenbluth, F. (2006). Short versus long coalitions: Electoral accountability and the size of the public sector. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, K., & McQuinn, B. (2009). Rebel groups as predatory organizations: The political effects of the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(4), 624–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beber, B., Gilligan, M., Guardado, J., & Karim, S. (2019). The promise and peril of peacekeeping economies. International Studies Quarterly, 63(2), 364–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendor, J., & Swistak, P. (1997). The evolutionary stability of cooperation. American Political Science Review, 91(2), 290–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A., Lepgold, J., & Unger, D. (1994). Burden-sharing in the Persian Gulf War. International Organization, 48(1), 39–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. (1997). Testing alternative models of alliance duration, 1816–1984. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 846–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. (1998). Integrating and testing models of rivalry duration. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1200–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, A., & Philips, A. (2019). Does the @realDonaldTrump really matter to financial markets? American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitch, J., & Diehl, P. F. (1997). Conflict management of enduring rivalries: The frequency, timing, and short-term impact of mediation. International Interactions, 22(4), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts, R. (1992). Systems for peace or causes of war? Collective security, arms control, and the new Europe. International Security, 17(1), 5–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, T., & Kerner, A. (2016). Real exchange rate overvaluation and WTO dispute initiation in developing countries. International Organization, 70(4), 797–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhavnani, R., & Lacina, B. (2015). The effects of weather-induced migration on sons of the soil riots in India. World Politics, 67(4), 760–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, S., Hess, G., & Tan, D. (2011). Terrorism and the economics of trust. Journal of Peace Research, 48(3), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohmelt, T. (2011). Disaggregating mediations: The impact of multiparty mediation. British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 859–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourbeau, P. (2015). Resilience and international politics: Premises, debates, agenda. International Studies Review, 17(3), 374–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12226

  • Bozzoli, C., & Bruck, T. (2009). Agriculture, poverty, and postwar reconstruction: Micro-level evidence from northern Mozambique. Journal of Peace Research, 46(3), 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., & Licht, A. (2020). The effect of civil society organizations and democratization aid on civil war onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(6), 1095–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brecher, M., & Wilkenfeld, J. (2001). A study of crisis. University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. (2014). Insecure democracy: Risk and political participation in Brazil. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 972–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., & Kurtz, M. (2012). Paths to financial policy diffusion: Statist legacies in Latin America’s globalization. International Organization, 66(1), 95–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broz, J. (1998). The origins of central banking: Solutions to the free-rider problem. International Organization, 52(2), 231–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broz, J., & Plouffe, M. (2010). The effectiveness of monetary policy anchors: Firm-level evidence. International Organization, 64(4), 695–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruck, T., Naude, W., & Verwimp, P. (2012). Business under fire: Entrepreneurship and violent conflict in developing countries. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, V. (2003). Rethinking recent democratization: Lessons from the postcommunist experience. World Politics, 55(2), 167–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby, J. (2008). Who cares about the weather? Climate change and U.S. national security. Security Studies, 17(3), 468–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byman, D., & Kroenig, M. (2016). Reaching beyond the ivory tower: A how to manual. Security Studies, 25(2), 289–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callander, S. (2011). Searching for good policies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, R., & Love, G. (2016). Political competition, partisanship, and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carment, D., Samy, Y., & Prest, S. (2008). State fragility and implications for aid allocation: An empirical analysis. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(4), 349–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, J., Lynch, M., & Madonna, A. (2011). Coalition formation in the house and senate: Examining the effect of institutional change on major legislation. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1225–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, S., & Rudra, N. (2013). Reassessing the links between regime type and economic performance: Why some authoritarian regimes show stable growth and others do not. British Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 253–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2006). Fostering stability or creating a monster? The rise of China and U.S. policy toward East Asia. International Security, 31(1), 81–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwieroth, J. (2008). Normative change from within: The international monetary fund’s approach to capital account liberalization. International Studies Quarterly, 52(1), 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W., Reichert, U., Lomas, S., & Parker, K. (1998). International and domestic constraints on political business cycles in OECD economies. International Organization, 52(1), 87–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, A. (2018). Containing rogues: A theory of asymmetric arming. Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1197–1210. https://doi.org/10.1086/698845

  • Cohen, B. (2009). A grave case of myopia. International Interactions, 35(4), 436–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colgan, J. (2010). Oil and revolutionary governments: Fuel for international conflict. International Organization, 64(4), 661–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colgan, J., & Lucas, E. (2017). Revolutionary pathways: Leaders and the international impacts of domestic revolutions. International Interactions, 43(3), 480–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, R., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures and the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K. (2004). The logic of clan politics: Evidence from the Central Asian trajectories. World Politics, 56(2), 224–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K. (2007). Ideas, networks, and Islamist movements: Evidence from Central Asia and the Caucasus. World Politics, 60(1), 64–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, R., & Hanson, P. (2016, June). Import substitution and economic sovereignty in Russia. Russia and Eurasian Programme. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2016-06-09-import-substitution-russia-connolly-hanson.pdf

  • Costalli, S., Moretti, L., & Pischedda, C. (2017). The economic costs of civil war: Synthetic counterfactual evidence and the effects of ethnic fractionalization. Journal of Peace Research, 54(1), 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crescenzi, M., & Enterline, A. (2001). Time remembered: A dynamic model of interstate interaction. International Studies Quarterly, 45(3), 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crescenzi, M., Enterline, A., & Long, S. (2008). Bringing cooperation back in: A dynamic model of interstate interaction. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(3), 264–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, M. (2002). Between the bear and the phoenix: The United States and the European Defense Community, 1950–54. Security Studies, 11(4), 89–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, B., & Kelly, M. (1999). The socioeconomic impact of structural adjustment. International Studies Quarterly, 43(3), 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (1998). From balance to community: Transnational identity and political integration. Security Studies, 8(2–3), 270–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dancygier, R., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Sectoral economies, economic contexts, and attitudes toward immigration. Journal of Politics, 75(1), 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnton, C. (2014). Whig history, periodization, and international cooperation in the Southern Cone. International Studies Quarterly, 58(3), 579–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirel-Pegg, T. (2017). The dynamics of the demobilization of the protest campaign in Assam. International Interactions, 43(2), 175–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRouen, K., Jr. (2000). The guns-growth relationship in Israel. Journal of Peace Research, 37(1), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, R., & Vreeland, J. (2011). Global governance in a multipolar world: The case for regional monetary funds. International Studies Review, 13(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewan, T., & Shepsle, K. (2008). Review article: Recent economic perspectives on political economy, part II. British Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 543–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (2000). War and peace in international rivalry. University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. (2009). Bad debts: Assessing China’s financial influence in great power politics. International Security, 34(2), 7–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. (2019). Counter-hegemonic strategies in the global economy. Security Studies, 28(3), 505–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy Toft, M. (2007). Shifts and civil war: A test of power transition theory. International Interactions, 33(3), 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, S. (2007). Access to protection: Domestic institutions and trade policy in democracies. International Organization, 61(3), 571–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elhefnawy, N. (2004). Societal complexity and diminishing returns in security. International Security, 29(1), 152–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P., Kelly, N., Morgan, J., Volscho, T., & Witko, C. (2014). Conditional status quo bias and top income shares: How U.S. political institutions have benefited the rich. Journal of Politics, 76(2), 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1996). The partisan paradox and the U.S. tariff, 1877–1934. International Organization, 50(2), 301–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, S., & Stone, R. (2012). International organizations as policy advisors. International Organization, 66(4), 537–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, T. (2005). World culture and military power. Security Studies, 14(3), 448–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. (2004). Why do some civil wars last so much longer than others? Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fettweis, C. (2004). Evaluating IR’s crystal balls: How predictions of the future have withstood fourteen years of unipolarity. International Studies Review, 6(1), 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. (2015). The phoenix effect of state repression: Jewish resistance during the Holocaust. American Political Science Review, 109(2), 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florea, A. (2012). Where do we go from here? Conceptual, theoretical, and methodological gaps in the large-N civil war research program. International Studies Review, 14(1), 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fordham, B. (2007). Revisionism reconsidered: Exports and American intervention in World War I. International Organization, 61(2), 277–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fordham, B., & Kleinberg, K. (2012). How can economic interests influence support for free trade? International Organization, 66(2), 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frye, T., & Borisova, E. (2019). Elections, protest, and trust in government: A natural experiment from Russia. Journal of Politics, 81(3), 820–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, G. (1992). International cooperation and institutional choice: The European community’s internal market. International Organization, 46(2), 533–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, S. (2006). Uncommon ground: Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimacy. International Organization, 60(1), 35–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, G., & Diehl, P. F. (1995). The initiation and termination of enduring rivalries: The impact of political shocks. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., Spar, D., & Yoffie, D. (1996). Foreign direct investment and the demand for protection in the United States. International Organization, 50(4), 565–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordell, K. M. (2021). An assessment of political shocks: Considering the domestic and international consequences. The University of Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2009). International organization as a seal of approval: European Union accession and investor risk. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 931–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (1998). Macropartisanship: A replication and critique. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 883–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greig, J., Mason, T., & Hamner, J. (2018). Win, lose, or draw in the fog of civil war. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35(5), 523–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorescu, A. (2010). The spread of bureaucratic oversight mechanisms across intergovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 871–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, E., LeVeck, B., & Victor, D. (2017). No false promises: How the prospect of non-compliance affects elite preferences for international cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 136–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, J. (2001). Does decision making matter? Systemic assumptions vs. historical reality in international relations theory. International Studies Review, 3(2), 5–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haim, D. (2016). Alliance Networks and trade: The effect of indirect political alliances on bilateral trade flows. Journal of Peace Research, 53(3), 472–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., & Shepsle, K. (2013). The changing value of seniority in the U.S. house: Conditional party government revised. Journal of Politics, 76(1), 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, T., & Ross, A. (2015). Affective politics after 9/11. International Organization, 69(4), 847–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, M. (2000). The past, present, and the perhaps’ is Germany a “normal” power? Security Studies, 10(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, R., & Stasavage, D. (2013). What democracy does (and doesn’t do) for basic services: School fees, school inputs, and African elections. Journal of Politics, 76(1), 229–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H., Nygard, H., & Raeder, R. (2017). Evaluating the scope and intensity of the conflict trap: A dynamic simulation approach. Journal of Peace Research, 54(2), 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herd, G. (2001). Russia and the politics of ‘Putinism.’ Journal of Peace Research, 38(1), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, C. (1969a). International crisis as a situation variable. In J. N. Roseanu (Ed.), International political and foreign policy: A reader in research and theory. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, C. (1969b). Crises in foreign policy. The Bobbs-Merril Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M., & Traven, D. (2015). Acting rationally without really thinking: The logic of rational intuitionism for international relations theory. International Studies Review, 17(3), 414–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, S. (2004). Structural sources of post-communist market reform: Economic structure, political culture, and war. International Studies Quarterly, 48(4), 755–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, S. (2006). Debate: Democracy for peace, or peace for democracy? The post-communist experience. Journal of Peace Research, 43(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343306059794

  • Houle, C., & Bodea, C. (2017). Ethnic inequality and coups in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 54(3), 382–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, V., & Vore, C. (1995). Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow. International Studies Review, 39(2), 209–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imerman, D. (2018). Contested legitimacy and institutional change: Unpacking the dynamics of institutional legitimacy. International Studies Review, 20(1), 74–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iqbal, Z., & Zorn, C. (2008). The political consequences of assassination. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(3), 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2009). Distribution and redistribution: The shadow of the nineteenth century. World Politics, 61(3), 438–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2010). Real exchange rates and competitiveness: The political economy of skill formation, wage compression, and electoral systems. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 601–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., Maher, T., & Fahrer, C. (2014). Seedbeds of insurgency: Structure and dynamics in the Egyptian Islamist Insurgency, 1986–99. Journal of Peace Research, 51(4), 470–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (2003). Understanding the bush doctrine. Political Science Quarterly, 118(3), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00398.x

  • Johansson, K., & Sarwari, M. (2017). Sexual violence and biased military interventions in civil conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(5), 469–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Tierney, D. (2018/2019). Bad world: The negativity bias in international politics. International Security, 43(3), 96–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B., Mattiacci, E., & Braumoeller, B. (2017). Food scarcity and state vulnerability: Unpacking the link between climate variability and violent unrest. Journal of Peace Research, 54(3), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaempfer, W., & Lowenberg, A. (1999). Unilateral versus multilateral international sanctions: A public choice perspective. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahl, C. (1998). Population growth, environmental degradation, and state-sponsored violence: The case of Kenya, 1991–93. International Security, 23(2), 80–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahler, M. (2018). Global governance: Three futures. International Studies Review, 20(2), 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyvas, S., & Balcells, L. (2010). International system and technologies of rebellion: How the end of the Cold War shaped internal conflict. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, C. (1997). U.S. politics and greater regulation of inward foreign direct investment. International Organization, 51(2), 301–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S., & Meernik, J. (2005). Civil war destruction and the prospects for economic growth. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karell, D., & Schutte, S. (2018). Aid, exclusion, and the local dynamics of insurgency in Afghanistan. Journal of Peace Research, 55(6), 711–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, S. (1997). The fragmentation and consolidation of international systems. International Organization, 51(2), 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D., & Lieberman, R. (2009). Ironies of state building: A comparative perspective on the American state. World Politics, 61(3), 547–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Little, Brown & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A. (1998). Historical and theoretical considerations. In M. Dogan & J. Higley (Eds.), Elites, crises, and the origins of regimes. Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, C., Nygard, H., & Wig, T. (2017). Autocratic elections stabilizing tool or force for change? World Politics, 69(1), 98–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, M. (2009). Governments, partisanship, and foreign policy: The case of dispute duration. Journal of Peace Research, 46(6), 799–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koga, K. (2018). The concept of “hedging” revisited: The case of Japan’s foreign policy strategy in East Asia’s power shift. International Studies Review, 20(4), 633–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koren, O. (2018). Food abundance and violent conflict in Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(4), 981–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren, O. (2019). Food, state power, and rebellion: The case of maize. International Interactions, 45(1), 170–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren, O., & Bagozzi, B. (2017). Living off the land: The connection between cropland, food security, and violence against civilians. Journal of Peace Research, 54(3), 351–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmidis, S. (2018). International constraints and electoral decisions: Does the room to maneuver attenuate economic voting? American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 519–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koubi, V., & Bohmelt, T. (2013). Grievances, economic wealth, and civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, G. (2003). Coping with uncertainty: Analyzing risk propensities of SEC budgetary decisions, 1949–97. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, R. (2015). Tell me a story: FDR, narrative, and the making of the Second World War. Security Studies, 24(1), 131–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M., Hjorth, F., Dinesen, P., & Sonderskov, K. (2019). When do citizens respond politically to the local economy? Evidence from registry data on local housing markets. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 499–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, K. (2011). Multilateral cooperation and congress: The legislative process of securing funding for the World Bank. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarev, E. (2019). Laws in conflict: Legacies of war, gender, and legal pluralism in Chechnya. World Politics, 71(4), 667–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887119000133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarev, E., Sobolev, A., Soboleva, I., & Sokolov, B. (2014). Trial by fire: A natural disaster’s impact on support for the authorities in rural Russia. World Politics, 66(4), 641–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legro, J. (2000). Whence American internationalism. International Organization, 54(2), 253–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeVeck, B., & Narang, N. (2017). How international reputation matters: Revisiting alliance violations in context. International Interactions, 43(5), 797–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J., & Gochal, J. (2001). Democracy and preventive war: Israel and the 1956 Sinai Campaign. Security Studies, 11(2), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht, A., & Allen, S. (2018). Repressing for reputation: Leadership transitions, uncertainty, and the repression of domestic populations. Journal of Peace Research, 55(5), 582–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, E. (2002). Taxation data as indicators of state-society relations: Possibilities and pitfalls in cross-national research. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(4), 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger, C. (2016). Dangerous lessons: Rebel learning and mobilization in the international system. Journal of Peace Research, 53(5), 633–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke, A., Schutte, S., & Buhaug, H. (2015). Population attitudes and the spread of political violence in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Studies Review, 17(1), 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. (2015). Coordination, learning, and coups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(1), 204–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren, M. (2018). Backdoor peacekeeping: Does participation in un peacekeeping reduce coups at home? Journal of Peace Research, 55(4), 508–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, J. (2019). Civilian casualties, humanitarian aid, and insurgent violence in civil wars. International Organization, 73(4), 901–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., Mutz, D., & Brackbill, D. (2016). Effects of the great recession on american attitudes toward trade. British Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z. (2009). Primed to fight: The “can/must” syndrome and the conflict proneness of nations. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(5), 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z., & Joyce, K. (2016). The effects of shocks on international networks: Changes in the attributes of states and the structure of international alliance networks. Journal of Peace Research, 53(3), 292–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z., & Siverson, R. (2008). Bargaining, domestic politics, and international context in the management of war: A review essay. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(2), 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2010). Political polarization and cabinet stability in multiparty systems: A social networks analysis of European parliaments, 1945–98. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 805–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattes, M. (2008). The effect of changing conditions and agreement provisions on conflict and renegotiation between states with competing claims. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2008.00503.x

  • Mattli, W. (2000). Sovereignty bargains in regional integration. International Studies Review, 2(2), 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2015). Great powers, hierarchy, and endogenous regimes: Rethinking the domestic causes of peace. International Organization, 69(3), 557–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDoom, O. (2013). Antisocial capital: A profile of Rwandan genocide perpetrators’ social networks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(5), 865–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuirk, E., & Burke, M. (2017). The economic origins of conflict in Africa (Working Paper 23056). National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meernik, J., & Poe, S. (1996). U.S. foreign aid in the domestic and international environments. International Interactions, 22(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meierding, E. (2013). Climate change and conflict: Avoiding small talk about the weather. International Studies Review, 15(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menaldo, V. (2012). The Middle East and North Africa’s resilient monarchs. Journal of Politics, 74(3), 707–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercator Institute for China Studies. (2021, October 19). Course correction: China’s shifting approach to economic globalization. https://merics.org/en/report/course-correction-chinas-shifting-approach-economic-globalization

  • Miller, M., Joseph, M., & Ohl, D. (2016). Are coups really contagious? An extreme bounds analysis of political diffusion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(2), 410–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mironova, V., & Whitt, S. (2020). Mobilizing civilians into high-risk forms of violent collective action. Journal of Peace Research, 57(3), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, D. (2011). When war brings peace: A dynamic model of the rivalry process. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, J., & Orsini, A. (2013). Insights from global environmental governance. International Studies Review, 15(4), 562–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murshed, S., & Mamoon, D. (2010). Not loving thy neighbour as thyself: Trade, democracy and military expenditure explanations underlying India-Pakistan rivalry. Journal of Peace Research, 47(4), 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narang, N. (2015). Assisting uncertainty: How humanitarian aid can inadvertently prolong civil war. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 184–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narang, N., & LeVeck, B. (2019). International reputation and alliance portfolios: How unreliability affects the structure and composition of alliance treaties. Journal of Peace Research, 56(3), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayar, B. (1995). Regimes, power, and international aviation. International Organization, 49(1), 139–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, S., & Katzenstein, P. (2014). Uncertainty, risk, and the financial crisis of 2008. International Organization, 68(2), 361–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, S., Segura, G., & Woods, N. (2002). Presidential approval and the mixed blessing of divided government. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 701–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, R., Findley, M., Davis, Z., Candland, T., & Nielson, D. (2011). Foreign aid shocks as a cause of violent armed conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nincic, M., & Nincic, D. (2002). Race, gender, and war. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 547–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (1997). Peacebuilding and the limits of liberal internationalism. International Security, 22(2), 54–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, S. (2013). Organizing rebellion: Rethinking high-risk mobilization and social networks in war. American Political Science Review, 107(3), 418–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, C. (2008). US presidential war powers: Legacy chains in military intervention decision making. Journal of Peace Research, 45(5), 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V. (2006). Why has the India-Pakistan rivalry been so enduring? Power asymmetry and an intractable conflict. Security Studies, 15(4), 600–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M. (2019). Immigration and international law. International Studies Quarterly, 63(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, M. (2019). What matters is who supports you: Diaspora and foreign states as external supporters and militants’ adoption of nonviolence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(9), 2155–2179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfutze, T. (2014). Clientelism versus social learning: The electoral effects of international migration. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips, A., Rutherford, A., & Whitten, G. (2016). Dynamic pie: A strategy for modeling trade-offs in compositional variables over time. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 268–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependency, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pop-Eleches, G. (2007). Historical legacies and post-communist regime change. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 908–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, P. (2018). Why America’s grand strategy has not changed: Power, habit, and the U.S. foreign policy establishment. International Security, 42(4), 9–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00311

  • Raleigh, C., & Kniveton, D. (2012). Come rain or shine: An analysis of conflict and climate variability in East Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasler, K. (2000). Shocks, expectancy revision, and the de-escalation of protracted conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian case. Journal of Peace Research, 37(6), 699–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasler, K., & Thompson, W. R. (2011). Borders, rivalry, democracy, and conflict in the European Region, 1816–1994. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(3), 280–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renshon, J. (2008). Stability and change in belief systems: The operational code of George W. Bush. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(6), 820–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reus-Smit, C. (2011). Struggles for individual rights and the expansion of the international system. International Organization, 65(2), 207–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuveny, R., & Li, Q. (2003). The joint democracy-dyadic conflict nexus: A simultaneous equations model. International Studies Quarterly, 47(3), 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuveny, R., & Thompson, W. R. (2007). The North-South divide and international studies: A symposium. International Studies Review, 9(4), 556–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, K. (2006). Wage arrears and economic voting in Russia. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, B. (2018). Sources of leader support and interstate rivalry. International Interactions, 44(5), 969–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehyan, I. (2018). The externalities of civil strife: Refugees as a source of international conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 787–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambanis, N., & Shayo, M. (2013). Social identification and ethnic conflict. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 294–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, E. (2017). No substitute for experience: Presidents, advisers, and information in group decision making. International Organization, 71(S1), S219–S247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. (2005). Strategic calculation and international socialization: Membership incentives, party constellations, and sustained compliance in Central and Eastern Europe. International Organization, 59(4), 827–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, L., & Lange, P. (2002). Where have all the members gone? Globalization, institutions, and union density. Journal of Politics, 64(1), 126–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D., & Funk, C. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segura, G., & Nicholson, S. (1995). Sequential choices and partisan transitions in U.S. senate delegations: 1972–1988. Journal of Politics, 57(1), 86–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serneels, P., & Verpoorten, M. (2013). The impact of armed conflict on economic performance: Evidence from Rwanda. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(4), 555–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, A. (2018). Building a theory of change in international relations: Pathways of disruptive and incremental change in world politics. International Studies Review, 20(2), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, J., Shapiro, R., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2009). Free hand abroad, divide and rule at home. World Politics, 61(1), 155–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobek, D., & Payne, C. (2010). A tale of two types: Rebel goals and the onset of civil wars. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solingen, E. (1994). The political economy of nuclear restraint. International Security, 19(2), 126–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmadge, C. (2008). Closing times: Assessing the Iranian threat to the Strait of Hormuz. International Security, 33(1), 82–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2022, August 23). The war where nothing is what it seems. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/23/the-war-where-almost-nothing-is-what-it-seems

  • Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies, C (2004) State building, interstate and intrastate rivalry: A study of post-colonial developing country extractive efforts, 1975–2000. International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurner, P., Schmid, C., Cranmer, S., & Kauermann, G. (2018). Network interdependencies and the evolution of the international arms trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(7), 1736–1764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thyne, C. (2017). The impact of coups d’état on civil war duration. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 34(3), 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilton, M. (1994). Informal market governance in Japan’s basic materials industries. International Organization, 48(4), 663–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, A. (2020). Experienced poverty and local conflict violence. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 37(3), 323–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tussie, D. (1998). Multilateralism revisited in a globalizing world economy. International Studies Review, 42(1), 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Maat, E. (2018). Simplified complexity: Analytical strategies for conflict event research. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 38(1), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdier, D. (1998). Democratic convergence and free trade. International Studies Quarterly, 42(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voeten, E., & Brewer, P. (2006). Public opinion, the war in Iraq, and presidential accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 809–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, M. (1999). Wage-setting institutions and pay inequality in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 649–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, J., & Bakker, R. (2014). Let them eat cake: Food prices, domestic policy and social unrest. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 32(3), 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub, M. (2016). Do all good things go together? Development assistance and insurgent violence in civil war. Journal of Politics, 78(4), 989–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch Larson, D. (2018). New perspectives on rising powers and global governance: Status and clubs. International Studies Review, 20(2), 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, P. (2017). Crises and crisis generations: The long-term impact of international crises on military political participation. Security Studies, 26(4), 575–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitlark, R. (2017). Nuclear beliefs: A leader-focused theory of counter-proliferation. Security Studies, 26(4), 545–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigley, S. (2018). Is there a resource curse for private liberties? International Studies Quarterly, 62(4), 834–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., & Wright, T. (2016). Responding to catastrophe: Repression dynamics following rapid-onset natural disasters. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(8), 1446–1472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D. (1996). Governing China’s transition to the market: Institutional incentives, politician’s choices, and unintended outcomes. World Politics, 48(3), 424–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagare, F. (1996). Classical deterrence theory: A critical assessment. International Interactions, 21(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629608434873

  • Zakharov, A. (2016). The loyalty-competence trade-off in dictatorships and outside options for subordinates. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, F. (2020). Rising illusion and illusion of rising: Mapping global financial governance and relocating China. International Studies Review, 23(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhukov, Y., & Stewart, B. (2013). Choosing your neighbors: Networks of diffusion in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 57(2), 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Kelly Marie Gordell

Authors
  1. Kelly Marie Gordell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Marie Gordell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    William R. Thompson

  2. School of Government and Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, USA

    Thomas J. Volgy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gordell, K.M. (2023). The State of the Field on Political Shocks: A Review of (Mostly) Quantitative Literature. In: Thompson, W.R., Volgy, T.J. (eds) Shocks and Political Change. Evidence-Based Approaches to Peace and Conflict Studies, vol 11. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1498-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation