Is There More Violence in the Middle?
Is There More Violence in the Middle?
复制标题
中间还有更多暴力吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Y. Lupu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Z. Jones;Y. Lupu
中间会有更多的暴力吗？超过100项研究分析了内战，恐怖主义和镇压等暴力结果是否在既不是完全独裁也不是完全民主的政权中更常见，但结果并不确定。虽然这一假设最终是关于功能形式的，但现有的工作使用了假设特定功能形式的模型。现有的工作也使用任意操作的“中间”。本文旨在通过使用一种克服现有工作局限性的研究设计来解决这种关系的经验不确定性。我们使用一个随机的多变量回归和分类树的森林般的合奏来预测多种形式的冲突。我们的研究结果表明，在特定的条件下，有或没有更多的暴力在中间。我们发现最一致的支持假设方面的轻微的国内冲突，没有支持方面的镇压。复制材料：复制本文中所有分析所需的数据、代码和任何其他材料都可以在哈佛Dataverse网络内的《美国政治学杂志》上获得，网址是：https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LNUYXZ。政权类型和政治暴力之间的关系是什么？某些形式的冲突更可能发生在民主国家还是专制国家？一系列有影响力的研究表明，这种关系是曲线型的，暴力最有可能发生在既不完全独裁也不完全民主的中间政权中（通常被称为无政府主义）（Eck and Hultman 2007; Fein 1995; Hegre et al. 2001）。我们把这些论点统称为中间暴力更多假说（或MVM假说）。尽管进行了几十年的研究，但这些理论在多大程度上得到了经验的支持还不清楚。虽然一些早期的研究发现，内战最有可能发生在无政府状态（Hegre et al. 2001），但其他人则没有（Sambanis 2001）。当Vreeland（2008）表明，对民主措施可能包括暴力指标的程度进行修正导致不支持MVM假设时，辩论可能已经解决，但从那时起，一些人使用他的措施并找到了对假设的支持（Gleditsch和Ruggeri 2010），而其他人则证实了他的结果（Peic和Reiter 2011）。同样，一些人发现恐怖主义是最扎卡里M。琼斯是博士后研究员，电子科学研究所，校园框351570，华盛顿大学，西雅图，华盛顿州98195-1570（zmj@zmjones.com）。Yonatan Lupu是政治学系助理教授，乔治华盛顿大学，门罗大厅，房间417，2115 G街，西北，华盛顿，DC 20052（ylupu@gwu.edu）。我们感谢埃里卡·切诺维斯、克里斯蒂安·达文波特、斯科特·盖茨、威尔·摩尔和杰克·夏皮罗，以及纽约大学、乌普萨拉大学和乔治华盛顿大学研讨会的参与者对之前的草案提出的意见。对于研究援助，我们感谢Jack Hasler，Bryce Loidolt和Steven Schaaf。常见于无政府状态（Wade and Reiter 2007），而其他则不常见（Chenoweth 2010）。关于压抑，Davenport和Armstrong（2004）通过使用比大部分文献更合适的方法来检验这一假设，并发现没有支持MVM假说，可以说解决了这个问题，但最近的一些工作继续找到支持它的证据（Mitchell，Ring和Spellman 2013）。本文的目的是减少关于MVM假说的经验不确定性，并描述它成立或不成立的条件。虽然现有的工作已经取得了重大进展，但迄今为止使用的方法有一些相应的局限性。MVM假说是关于政权类型和冲突之间关系的函数形式的预测，然而几乎所有现有的MVM假说的测试都是使用假设特定函数形式的模型进行的，然后测试数据是否允许我们拒绝政权类型和冲突之间更简单的可能关系，例如单调关系。虽然这些工具可以让我们拒绝单调的关系，但它们并不适合理解更复杂的方式，其中政权类型American Journal of Political Science，第62卷，第3号，2018年7月，第103页。652-667 C ©2018，中西部政治科学协会DOI：10.1111/ajps.12373
Is there more violence in the middle? Over 100 studies have analyzed whether violent outcomes such as civil war, terrorism, and repression are more common in regimes that are neither full autocracies nor full democracies, yet findings are inconclusive. While this hypothesis is ultimately about functional form, existing work uses models in which a particular functional form is assumed. Existing work also uses arbitrary operationalizations of “the middle.” This article aims to resolve the empirical uncertainty about this relationship by using a research design that overcomes the limitations of existing work. We use a random forest-like ensemble of multivariate regression and classification trees to predict multiple forms of conflict. Our results indicate the specific conditions under which there is or is not more violence in the middle. We find the most consistent support for the hypothesis with respect to minor civil conflict and no support with respect to repression. Replication Materials: The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available on the American Journal of Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LNUYXZ. What is the relationship between regime type and political violence? Are certain forms of conflict more likely in democracies or in autocracies? A series of influential studies has suggested this relationship is curvilinear, with violence most likely in regimes in the middle range—often referred to as anocracies—that are neither fully autocratic nor fully democratic (Eck and Hultman 2007; Fein 1995; Hegre et al. 2001). We refer to these arguments, collectively, as the More Violence in the Middle Hypothesis (or MVM Hypothesis). Despite decades of research, the extent to which such theories are empirically supported is unclear. While some early studies found that civil wars are most likely in anocracies (Hegre et al. 2001), others did not (Sambanis 2001). The debate may have appeared resolved when Vreeland (2008) showed that correcting for the extent to which measures of democracy might include indicators of violence results in no support for the MVM Hypothesis, but since then some have used his measure and found support for the hypothesis (Gleditsch and Ruggeri 2010), whereas others have confirmed his result (Peic and Reiter 2011). Likewise, some find evidence that terrorism is most Zachary M. Jones is Postdoctoral Fellow, eScience Institute, Campus Box 351570, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1570 (zmj@zmjones.com). Yonatan Lupu is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Monroe Hall, Room 417, 2115 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052 (ylupu@gwu.edu). For comments on previous drafts, we thank Erica Chenoweth, Christian Davenport, Scott Gates, Will Moore, and Jake Shapiro, as well as participants in workshops at New York University, Uppsala University, and George Washington University. For research assistance, we thank Jack Hasler, Bryce Loidolt, and Steven Schaaf. common in anocracies (Wade and Reiter 2007), whereas others do not (Chenoweth 2010). With respect to repression, Davenport and Armstrong (2004) arguably settled the question by using more appropriate methods for testing this hypothesis than the bulk of the literature and finding no support for the MVM Hypothesis, but some recent work continues to find support for it (Mitchell, Ring, and Spellman 2013). The purpose of this article is to reduce the empirical uncertainty about the MVM Hypothesis and describe the conditions under which it does or does not hold. Although existing work has made significant progress, the methods used to date have several consequential limitations. The MVM Hypothesis is a prediction about the functional form of the relationship between regime type and conflict, yet almost all existing tests of the MVM Hypothesis have been conducted using models that assume a particular functional form and then test whether the data allow us to reject a simpler possible relationship between regime type and conflict, such as a monotonic relationship. While such tools can allow us to reject a monotonic relationship, they are not well suited for understanding the more complex ways in which regime type American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 62, No. 3, July 2018, Pp. 652–667 C ©2018, Midwest Political Science Association DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12373