POLI 715 - International Relations Theory

This course is a graduate-level introduction to the field of international relations (IR). The syllabus can be found here.

Course resources

(Copied from Juan Tellez’ website)

Datastes

Here’s a (non-exhaustive) list of datasets you might consider:

• The COW datasets
• LEAD (leader characteristics dataset)
• POLITY IV
• UCDP GED
• Minorities at Risk project
• ACLED
• Social Conflict Analysis database
• Global Terrorism Database
• Political Instability Task Force
• ICEWS
• Quality of Governance data
• Varieties of Democracy (VDEM)
• Transparency International
• AID Data (William & Mary)
• Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns
• Change in Source of Leader Support (CHISOLS) Data
• The Varieties of Coups D’état: Introducing the Colpus Dataset
• Electoral intervention dataset 1946–2000
• Bread before guns or butter: Introducing Surplus Domestic Product (SDP)
• Yes, Human Rights Practices Are Improving Over Time
• Introducing the Military Intervention Project: A New Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776–2019
• DCAD dataset
• Conflict Events Worldwide Since 1468BC: Introducing the Historical Conflict Event Dataset
• frozen conflicts in world conflict dataset
• UN Fatalities dataset
• Partisan electoral interventions by the great powers: Introducing the PEIG Dataset
• near crises in world politics
• Post-Cold War sanctioning by the EU, the UN, and the US: Introducing the EUSANCT Dataset
• Threat and imposition of economic sanctions 1945–2005: Updating the TIES dataset
• Financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping, 1990–2010: A new dataset
• The Autocratic Ruling Parties Dataset: Origins, Durability, and Death

Reviewing a paper

(Copied this from Macartan Humphreys’ website which seems to be down)

For a formal review or referee report you have space to go into much more depth. A standard approach is to divide these reviews into three parts.

The first part can be a single paragraph — it summarizes the key contribution of the paper as you see it, gives an overall assessment, and points to the key issues, concerns, or strengths. Don’t forget the strengths. Try to articulate succinctly what you know now that you didn’t know before you read the piece. Often a quick summary can draw attention to strong features you were not conscious of, or makes you realize that what you were impressed by is not so impressive after all.

The second part discusses 3 – 6 major features of the paper; the checklist below lists features that could be useful to think through when selecting themes. Try to organize by theme (measurement, explanation etc.). The third part is for “smaller issues” where you can bullet point things from ambiguities, to estimation issues, to pointers to other work.

Other things:

• It’s useful to authors when you can point to literature they have not read, if relevant.
• It’s useful to authors to know what to cut: reviews tend to worry about length but still ask for more.
• Your tone should be such that you would not feel embarrassed if someday your review gets into the public domain by mistake.
• You should feel free to ask for extra material such as replication data or analysis plans. Sometimes reviewing can go quicker if you can access data.
• Don’t ask the authors to ask and answer a different question; respond to the paper you have been sent.
• Be generous: share references if they are missing but don’t assume that researchers intentionally ignored the work of others (or your work!); raise ethical issues if you see them but don’t assume researchers acted without ethical concern; ask for multiple comparisons corrections but don’t assume deliberately misleading reporting.
• Pronouns. For anonymous review it’s usually safe to use pronouns “you” or “they” even if single authorship has been indicated.

The Checklist

Here is my list of what to look out for as I read a paper:

Theory

• Is the theory internally consistent?
• Is it consistent with past literature and findings?
• Is it novel or surprising?
• Are elements that are excluded or simplified plausibly unimportant for the outcomes?
• Is the theory general or specific? Are there more general theories on which this theory - could draw or contribute?

From Theory to Hypotheses

• Is the theory really needed to generate the hypotheses?
• Does the theory generate more hypotheses than considered?
• Are the hypotheses really implied by the theory? Or are there ambiguities arising from say - non-monotonicities or multiple equilibria?
• Does the theory specify mechanisms?
• Does the theory suggest heterogeneous effects?

Hypotheses

• Are the hypotheses complex? (eg in fact 2 or 3 hypotheses bundled together)
• Are the hypotheses falsifiable?

Evidence I: Design

• External validity: is the population examined representative of the larger population of - interest?
• External validity: Are the conditions under which they are examined consistent with the - conditions of interest?
• Measure validity: Do the measures capture the objects specified by the theory?
• Consistency: Is the empirical model used consistent with the theory?
• Mechanisms: Are mechanisms tested? How are they identified?
• Replicability: Has the study been done in a way that it can be replicated?
• Interpretation: Do the results admit rival interpretations?

Evidence II: Analysis and Testing

• Identification: are there concerns with reverse causality?
• Identification: are there concerns of omitted variable bias?
• Identification: does the model control for pre treatment variables only? Does it control or - does it match?
• Identification: Are poorly identified claims flagged as such?
• Robustness: Are results robust to changes in the model, to subsetting the data, to changing - the period of measurement or of analysis, to the addition or exclusion of plausible - controls?
• Standard errors: does the calculation of test statistics make use of the design? Do standard - errors take account of plausibly clustering structures/differences in levels?
• Presentation: Are the results presented in an intelligible way? Eg using fitted values or - graphs? How can this be improved?
• Interpretation: Can no evidence of effect be interpreted as evidence of only weak effects?

Evidence III: Other sources of bias

• Fishing: were hypotheses generated prior to testing? Was any training data separated from test data?
• Measurement error: is error from sampling, case selection, or missing data plausibly - correlated with outcomes?
• Spillovers / Contamination: Is it plausible that outcomes in control units were altered - because of the treatment received by the treated?
• Compliance: Did the treated really get treatment? Did the controls really not?
• Hawthorne effects: Are subjects modifying behavior simply because they know they are under study?
• Measurement: Is treatment the only systematic difference between treatment and control or are there differences in how items were measured?
• Implications of Bias: Are any sources of bias likely to work for or against the hypothesis tested?

Explanation

• Does the evidence support the particular causal account given?
• Are mechanisms examined? Can they be?
• Are there observable implications we might expect to see associated with different possible mechanisms?

Policy Implications

• Do the policy implications really follow from the results?
• If implemented would the policy changes have effects other thank those specified by the research?
• Have the policy claims been tested directly?
• Is the author overselling or underselling the findings?

IR substantive areas

These topic areas are based on ISQ’s listing from their submission portal

Domestic Politics

• Authoritarianism/Repression
• Comparative FP
• Civil Society/Social Movements
• Contentious politics/Political violence
• Revolution/Regime change/leaders
• State capacity
• International Relations
• Norms/Institutions/Law
• Public Opinion/Elections/Parties

International Order

• Cooperation
• Global Governance
• International institutions/Regimes
• International Law/Norms
• International Organizations
• Power/Hegemony
• IR Theory

Political Economy

• Development/Growth
• Economic Sanctions
• Finance/Monetary Policy
• Foreign Aid
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Globalization
• Interdependence
• Regionalism/Integration
• Trade

Security Studies

• Alliances
• Balance of Power/Rivalry
• Bargaining
• Civil Conflict (short of war)
• Civil War
• Democratic Peace/Audience Costs
• Deterrence/Compellence/Strategy
• Diplomacy
• Human Security/Securitization
• Interstate Conflict (short of war)
• Interstate war
• Intervention/Peacekeeping
• Mediation/Peacebuilding
• Military/Civil-Military Relations
• Sovereignty/Legitimacy
• Territory/Secession
• Terrorism
• WMD Proliferation/Arms Races

Transnational Issues

• Diffusion/Socialization
• Energy/Environment/Health
• Gender
• Geography/Demography/Population
• Media/Education/Communication
• Migration/Immigration
• Networks/NGOs
• Race/Ethnicity/Nationalism
• Religion
• Science/Technology