Addressing Endogeneity in Actor-Specific Network Measures*

Frederick J. Boehmke; Olga Chyzh; Cameron G. Thies

doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.34

Addressing Endogeneity in Actor-Specific Network Measures*

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2015

Frederick J. Boehmke ,

Olga Chyzh and

Cameron G. Thies

Article contents

Abstract
Footnotes
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

The study of international relations (IR), and political science more broadly, has derived great benefits from the recent growth of conceptualizing and modeling political phenomena within their broader network contexts. More than just a novel approach to evaluating old puzzles, network analysis provides a whole new way of theoretical thinking. Challenging the traditional dyad-driven approach to the study of IR, networks highlight actor interdependence that goes beyond dyads and emphasizes that many traditional IR variables, such as conflict, trade, alliances, or international organization memberships must be treated and studied as networks. Properties of these networks (e.g., polarization, density), and of actor positions within them (e.g., similarity, centrality), will then reveal important insights about international events. Network analysis, however, is not yet fully adapted to account for important methodological issues common to IR research, specifically the issue of endogeneity or possible nonindependence between actors’ position within international networks and the outcomes of interest: for example, alliance network may be nonindependent from the conflict or trade network. We adopt an instrumental variable approach to explore and address the issue of endogeneity in network context. We illustrate the issue and the advantages of our approach with Monte Carlo analysis, as well as with several empirical examples from IR literature.

Information

Type: Original Articles
Information: Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 123 - 149

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.34 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: © The European Political Science Association 2015

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Frederick J. Boehmke, Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa, 341 Schaeffer Hall Iowa City, IA 52242 (frederick-boehmke@uiowa.edu); Olga Chyzh, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Statistics, Iowa State University, 555 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50011 (ochyzh@iastate.edu); Cameron G. Thies, Professor and Director, School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Lattie F. Coor Hall, Room 6748, Tempe, AZ 85287-3902 (cameron.thies@asu.edu). To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.34

References

Bailey, Michael, Strezhnev, Anton, and Voeten, Erik. 2013. ‘Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data’. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2330913, accessed 13 December 2013.Google Scholar

Barbieri, Katherine, Keshk, Omar M.G., and Pollins, Brian M.. 2009. ‘Trading Data: Evaluating our Assumptions and Coding Rules’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(5):471–491.Google Scholar

Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan. 2000. ‘EUGene: A Conceptual Manual’. International Interactions 26(2):179–204.Google Scholar

Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan C.. 2004. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. ‘Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures’. American Journal of Sociology 92(5):1170–1182.Google Scholar

Boorman, Scott A., and White, Harrison C.. 1976. ‘Social Structure from Multiple Networks. II. Role Structures’. American Journal of Sociology 81(6):1384–1446.Google Scholar

Brams, Steven J. 1966. ‘Transaction Flows in the International System’. The American Political Science Review 60(4):880–898.Google Scholar

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1975. ‘Measuring Systemic Polarity’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 19(2):187–216.Google Scholar

Burt, Ronald S. 1976. ‘Positions in Networks’. Social Forces 55(1):93–122.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carpenter, R. Charli. 2011. ‘Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms’. International Organization 65(1):69–102.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carter, David B., and Signorino, Curtis S.. 2010. ‘Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data’. Political Analysis 18(3):271–292.Google Scholar

Chyzh, Olga. 2013. ‘Tell Me Who Your Friends Are: An Endogenous Model of International Trade Network Formation and Effect on Domestic Political Outcomes’. PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar

Cranmer, Skyler J., and Desmarais, Bruce A.. 2011. ‘Inferential Network Analysis with Exponential Random Graph Models’. Political Analysis 19(1):66–86.Google Scholar

Cranmer, Skyler J., Desmarais, Bruce A., and Menninga, Elizabeth J.. 2012. ‘Complex Dependencies in the Alliance Network’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29(3):279–313.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dorussen, Han, and Ward, Hugh. 2008. ‘Intergovernmental Organizations and the Kantian Peace’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(2):189–212.Google Scholar

Engle, Robert F., Hendry, David F., and Richard, Jean-Francois. 1983. ‘Exogeneity’. Econometrica 51(2):277–304.Google Scholar

Fowler, James H. 2006. ‘Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks’. Political Analysis 14(4):456–487.Google Scholar

Franzese, Robert J., Hays, Jude C., and Kachi, Aya. 2012. ‘Modeling History Dependence in Network-Behavior Coevolution’. Political Analysis 20(2):175–190.Google Scholar

Gartzke, Eric A. 2007. ‘The Capitalist Peace’. American Journal of Political Science 51(1):166–191.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gartzke, Erik, and Hewitt, J. Joseph. 2010. ‘International Crises and the Capitalist Peace’. International Interactions 36(2):115–145.Google Scholar

Gawande, Kishore, and Li, Hui. 2009. ‘Dealing with Weak Instruments: An Application to the Protection for Sale Model’. Political Analysis 17(3):236–260.Google Scholar

Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede. 2002. ‘Expanded Trade and GDP Data’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(5):712–724.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gowa, Joanne. 1995. Allies, Adversaries, and International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Granato, Jim. 1991. ‘An Agenda for Econometric Model Building’. Political Analysis 3(1):123–154.Google Scholar

Greene, William H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2006. ‘Power Positions: International Organizations, Social Networks, and Conflict’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(1):3–27.Google Scholar

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2008. ‘Power or Plenty: How Do International Trade Institutions Affect Economic Sanctions?’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(2):213–242.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2012. ‘War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29(3):257–278.Google Scholar

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2009. ‘Network Analysis for International Relations’. International Organization 63(3):559–592.CrossRef Google Scholar

Häge, Frank M. 2011. ‘Choice or Circumstance? Adjusting Measures of Foreign Policy Similarity for Chance Agreement’. Political Analysis 19(3):287–305.Google Scholar

Hays, Jude C., Kachi, Aya, and Franzese, Robert J. Jr. 2010. ‘A Spatial Model Incorporating Dynamic, Endogenous Network Interdependence: A Political Science Application’. Statistical Methodology 7(3):406–428.Google Scholar

Hegre, Havard. 2009. ‘Trade Dependence or Size Dependence?’ Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(1):26–45.Google Scholar

Hegre, Havard, Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2010. ‘Trade Does Promote Peace: New Simultaneous Estimates of the Reciprocal Effects of Trade and Conflict’. Journal of Peace Research 47(6):763–774.Google Scholar

Hoff, Peter D., Raftery, Adrian E., and Handcock, Mark S.. 2002. ‘Latent Space Approaches to Social Network Analysis’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97(460):1090–1098.Google Scholar

Hoff, Peter D., and Ward, Michael. 2004. ‘Modeling Dependencies in International Relations Networks’. Political Analysis 12(2):160–175.Google Scholar

Ingram, Paul, Robinson, Jeffrey, and Busch, Marc L.. 2005. ‘The Intergovernmental Network of World Trade: IGO Connectedness, Governance, and Embeddedness’. American Journal of Sociology 111(3):824–858.Google Scholar

Jackson, Matthew O. 2008. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kadera, Kelly M., and Morey, Daniel S.. 2008. ‘The Trade-Offs of Fighting and Investing: A Model of the Evolution of War and Peace’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25(2):152–170.Google Scholar

Kelejian, Harry H. 1971. ‘Two-Stage Least Squares and Econometric Systems Linear in Parameters but Nonlinear in the Endogenous Variables’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 66(334):373–374.Google Scholar

Keshk, Omar M.G., Pollins, Brian M., and Reuveny, Rafael. 2004. ‘Trade Still Follows the Flag: The Primacy of Politics in a Simultaneous Model of Interdependence and Armed Conflict’. Journal of Politics 66(4):1155–1179.Google Scholar

King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. ‘Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation’. The American Political Science Review 95(1):49–69.Google Scholar

Kinne, Brandon J. 2012. ‘Multilateral Trade and Militarized Conflict: Centrality, Openness, and Asymmetry in the Global Trade Network’. Journal of Politics 74(1):308–322.Google Scholar

Lai, Brian, and Reiter, Dan. 2000. ‘Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816–1992’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(2):203–227.Google Scholar

Lake, David A., and Wong, Wendy. 2009. ‘The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power, and Human Rights Norms’. In Miles Kahler (ed.), Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance, 127–50. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Leeds, Brett, Ritter, Jeffrey, Mitchell, Sara, and Long, Andrew. 2002. ‘Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815–1944’. International Interactions 28(3):237–260.Google Scholar

Lin, Tracy K., and Shreve, Aaron. 2013. ‘Buying Prestige: Status Inconsistency and Foreign Aid Allocation’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Peace Science Society, October 24, 2013, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar

Little, Roderick J.A., and Rubin, Donald B.. 2002. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Long, Andrew G. 2008. ‘Bilateral Trade in the Shadow of Armed Conflict’. International Studies Quarterly 52(1):81–101.Google Scholar

Long, Andrew G., Nordstrom, Timothy, and Baek, Kyeonghi. 2007. ‘Allying for Peace: Treaty Obligations and Conflict Between Allies’. Journal of Politics 69(4):1103–1117.Google Scholar

Lu, Lingyu, and Thies, Cameron G.. 2010. ‘Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict: Exploring a Boundary Condition of Pacific Interstate Relations’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 27(4):347–368.Google Scholar

Magee, Christopher S. 2003. ‘Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements: An Empirical Analysis’. Contributions in Economic Analysis & Policy 2(1):1538–1645.CrossRef Google Scholar

Manger, Mark S., Pickup, Mark A., and Snijders, Tom A.B.. 2012. ‘A Hierarchy of Preferences: A Longitudinal Network Analysis Approach to PTA Formation’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(5):853–878.Google Scholar

Manski, Charles F. 1993. ‘Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem’. The Review of Economic Studies 60(3):531–542.CrossRef Google Scholar

Maoz, Zeev. 2010. Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816–2001. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maoz, Zeev, Kuperman, Ranan D., Terris, Lesley, and Talmud, Ilan. 2006. ‘Structural Equivalence and International Conflict’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5):664–689.Google Scholar

McDonald, Patrick J. 2010. ‘Capitalism, Commitment, and Peace’. International Interactions 36(2):146–168.CrossRef Google Scholar

Miura, Hirotaka. 2012. ‘Stata Graph Library for Network Analysis’. The Stata Journal 12(1):94–129.Google Scholar

Moore, Spencer, Eng, Eugenia, and Daniel, Mark. 2003. ‘International NGOs and the Role of Network Centrality in Humanitarian Aid Operations: A Case Study of Coordination During the 2000 Mozambique Floods’. Disasters 27(4):305–318.Google Scholar

Morrow, James. 1991. ‘Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliances’. American Journal of Political Science 35(4):904–933.Google Scholar

Mueller, John. 2010. ‘Capitalism, Peace, and the Historical Movement of Ideas’. International Interactions 36(2):169–184.Google Scholar

Murdie, Amanda. 2014. ‘The Ties that Bind: A Network Analysis of Human Rights International Nongovernmental Organizations’. British Journal of Political Science 44(1):1–27.Google Scholar

Murdie, Amanda, and Davis, David R.. 2012. ‘Looking in the Mirror: Comparing INGO Networks Across Issue Areas’. The Review of International Organizations 7(2):177–202.Google Scholar

Padgett, John F., and Ansell, Christopher K.. 1993. ‘Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434’. American Journal of Sociology 98(6):1259–1319.Google Scholar

Peterson, Timothy, and Thies, Cameron G.. 2012. ‘Beyond Ricardo: The Link Between Intraindustry Trade and Peace’. British Journal of Political Science 42(4):747–767.Google Scholar

Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002a. Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization’. International Organization 56(3):515–549.Google Scholar

Pevehouse, Jon C. 2002b. With a Little Help from My Friends? Regional Organizations and the Consolidation of Democracy’. American Journal of Political Science 46(3):611–626.Google Scholar

Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Powell, Robert. 1993. ‘Guns, Butter, and Anarchy’. American Political Science Review 87(1):115–132.Google Scholar

Reuveny, Rafael, and Kang, Heejoon. 1996. ‘International Trade, Political Conflict/Cooperation, and Granger Causality’. American Journal of Political Science 40(3):943–970.Google Scholar

Rogowski, Jon C., and Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. ‘Estimating the Causal Effects of Social Interaction with Endogenous Networks’. Political Analysis 20(3):316–328.Google Scholar

Ross, Michael L. 2011. ‘Replication Data For: Oil and Gas Production and Value, 1932–2009’. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/15828 UNF:5:Hwe3jAjxG7fgOMzpGQXOxw==V4, accessed 15 January 2015.Google Scholar

Russett, Bruce, and Oneal, John R.. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organization. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Sachs, Jeffrey D., and Warner, Andrew M.. 2001. ‘The Curse of Natural Resources’. European Economic Review 45(46):827–838.Google Scholar

Sailer, Lee Douglas. 1979. ‘Structural Equivalence: Meaning and Definition, Computation and Application’. Social Networks 1(1):73–90.Google Scholar

Signorino, Curtis S., and Ritter, Jeffrey M.. 2002. ‘Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions’. International Studies Quarterly 43(1):115–144.Google Scholar

Singer, J. David. 1987. ‘Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985’. International Interactions 14(2):115–132.Google Scholar

Snijders, Tom A.B., Steglich, Christian E.G., and Schweinberger, Michael. 2007. ‘Modeling the Co-Evolution of Networks and Behavior’. In K. van Montfort, H. Oud and A. Satorra (eds), Longitudinal Models in the Behavioral and Related Sciences. 41–71. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Snyder, David, and Kick, Edward L.. 1979. ‘Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, 1955–1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions’. American Journal of Sociology 84(5):1096–1126.Google Scholar

Steglich, C., Snijders, Tom A.B., and Pearson, Michael. 2010. ‘Dynamic Networks and Behavior: Separating Selection from Influence’. Sociological Methodology 40:329–392.Google Scholar

Stone, Randall W. 2002. Lending Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Post-Communist Transition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweeney, Kevin, and Keshk, Omar M.G.. 2005. ‘The Similarity of States: Using S to Compute Dyadic Interest Similarity’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(2):165–187.Google Scholar

Vasquez, John A. 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ward, Hugh. 2006. ‘International Linkages and Environmental Sustainability: The Effectiveness of the Regime Network’. Journal of Peace Research 43(2):149–166.Google Scholar

Ward, Michael D., Hoff, Peter D., and Lofdhall, Corey L.. 2003. ‘Identifying International Networks: Latent Spaces and Imputations’. In Kathleen M. Carley, Philippa E. Pattison and Ronald L. Breiger (eds), Dynamic Social Network: Modeling and Analysis. 345–363. Washington, DC: Committee on Human Values.Google Scholar

Wilson, Sven E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2007. ‘A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications’. Political Analysis 15(2):101–123.Google Scholar

Boehmke et al Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BKPIEV

Boehmke supplementary material 15

File 573 Bytes

Article contents

Addressing Endogeneity in Actor-Specific Network Measures*

Abstract

Information

Access options

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

References

Boehmke et al Dataset

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Boehmke supplementary material

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests