Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:50:06.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Approaches in Coalition Foreign Policy: Scope, Content, Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Sibel Oktay and
Ryan Beasley
Sibel Oktay*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Springfield, One University Plaza, MS PAC 350, Springfield, IL 62703, USA
Ryan Beasley*
Affiliation:
School of International Relations, University of St Andrews, Arts Faculty Building, The Scores, St Andrews KY16 9AX, Scotland, UK
*
E-mail: sibelo@uis.edu
E-mail: rb68@st-andrews.ac.uk
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article surveys the quantitative literature in coalition foreign policy. Tracing its development back to what we call the ‘first generation studies’ in Democratic Peace research, we illustrate that its theoretical and methodological foundations distinguish this literature from its predecessors. We then overview the existing studies along three dimensions: the nature of the dependent variables, the content of the key explanatory variables, and the processes that identify and systematise the institutional factors that influence coalition foreign policy. Our suggestions for future research highlight some of the puzzles motivated by the findings of this literature and the promise of multi-method designs.

Keywords

commitmentextremityideological cohesionlog-rollingveto-players

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
European Political Science , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2017, pp. 475 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 European Consortium for Political Research

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

*

Corresponding author.

References

Auerswald, D.P. (1999) ‘Inward bound: domestic institutions and military conflicts’, International Organization 53(3): 469-504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, D. and Pedersen, R.B. (2013) Process-Tracing Method: Foundations and Guidelines, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press 10.3998/mpub.2556282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beasley, R.K. and Kaarbo, J. (2014) ‘Explaining extremity in the foreign policies of parliamentary democracies’, International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 729-740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, P. (1982) ‘Commitment’, in Callahan, P., Brady, L.P. and Hermann, M.G. (eds.) Describing Foreign Policy Behavior, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 177-206 Google Scholar
Clare, J. (2010) ‘Ideological fractionalization and the international conflict behavior of parliamentary democracies’, International Studies Quarterly 54(4): 965-987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, J. (2014) ‘Hawks, doves, and international cooperation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 58(7): 1311-1337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D.D. (2015) ‘Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fisher, S.D. and Hobolt, S.B. (2010) ‘Coalition government and electoral accountability’, Electoral Studies 29(3): 358-369 Google Scholar
Ghosn, F., Palmer, G. and Bremer, S.A. (2004) ‘The MID3 data set, 1993–2001: procedures, coding rules, and description’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 21(2): 133-154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J.S. (1992) ‘A conflict–cooperation scale for WEIS events data’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 36(2): 369-385 Google Scholar
Hagan, J.D. (1993) Political Opposition and Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Hagan, J., Everts, P.P., Fukui, H. and Stempel, J.D. (2001) ‘Foreign policy by coalition. deadlock, compromise, and anarchy’, International Studies Review 3(2): 169-216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, C.F. (1963) ‘Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 1 61-82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, M. (2001) ‘How decision units shape foreign policy: a theoretical framework’, International Studies Review 3(2): 47-81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, R.K. (2013) ‘Perceptions and image theory in international relations’, in Huddy, L., Sears, D.O. and Levy, J.S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 334-363 Google Scholar
Houghton, D.P. (2007) ‘Reinvigorating the study of foreign policy decision making: toward a constructivist approach’, Foreign Policy Analysis 3(1): 24-45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J.D. (1998) ‘How does cabinet instability affect political performance? Portfolio volatility and health care cost containment in parliamentary democracies’, American Political Science Review 92(3): 577-591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, V.M. (2014) Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory, 2nd edn., Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hudson, V.M. and Vore, C.S. (1995) ‘Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow’, Mershon International Studies Review 39(2): 209-238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, M.J. and Gartner, S.S. (2001) ‘Time to fight. Government type and conflict initiation in parliamentary systems’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(5): 547-568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2006) ‘Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: why some democracies redistribute more than others’, American Political Science Review 100(2): 165-181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J. (1996) ‘Influencing peace. Junior partners in Israeli coalition cabinets’, Cooperation and Conflict 31(3): 243-284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J. (1996) ‘Power and influence in foreign policy decision making: the role of junior coalition partners in German and Israeli foreign policy’, International Studies Quarterly 40(4): 501-530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J. (2012) Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 10.3998/mpub.4195139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J. and Beasley, R.K. (2008) ‘Taking it to the extreme: the effect of coalition cabinets on foreign policy’, Foreign Policy Analysis 4(1): 67-81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. (2007) ‘Belgian intervention policy in the DRC: causes and consequences of the reorientation, 1999–2006’, Les Cahiers du RMES 4(2): 59-106 Google Scholar
King, G. and Lowe, W. (2003) ‘An automated information extraction tool for international conflict data with performance as good as human coders: a rare events evaluation design’, International Organization 57(3): 617-642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubálková, V. (eds.) (2001) Foreign Policy in a Constructed World (vol. 4), Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Leblang, D. and Chan, S. (2003) ‘Explaining wars fought by established democracies: do institutional constraints matter?’, Political Research Quarterly 56(4): 385-400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, B.A. and Davis, D.R. (1997) ‘Domestic political vulnerability and international disputes’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(6): 814-834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, B.A. and Davis, D.R. (1999) ‘Beneath the surface: regime type and international interaction, 1953–78’, Journal of Peace Research 36(1): 5-21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L.W. (2004) ‘The government agenda in parliamentary democracies’, American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 445-461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, C.A. (1978) World Event/interaction Survey (WEIS), 1966–1978, Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Oktay, S. (2014) ‘Constraining or enabling? The effects of government composition on international commitments’, Journal of European Public Policy 21(6): 860-884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oktay-Karagul, S. (2014) ‘Unpacking coalitions: explaining international commitment in European governments’, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Ozkececi-Taner, B. (2005) ‘The impact of institutionalized ideas in coalition foreign policy making: Turkey as an example, 1991–2002’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(3): 249-278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G., London, T. and Regan, P. (2004) ‘What’s stopping you? The sources of political constraints on international conflict behavior in parliamentary democracies’, International Interactions 30(1): 1-24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. and Whitten, G.D. (1993) ‘A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context’, American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 391-414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prins, B.C. and Sprecher, C. (1999) ‘Institutional constraints, political opposition, and interstate dispute escalation: evidence from parliamentary systems, 1946–89’, Journal of Peace Research 36(3): 271-287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization 42(3): 427-460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, B. (2004) Partisan Interventions: European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans, New York: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, D. and Tillman, E.R. (2002) ‘Public, legislative, and executive constraints on the democratic initiation of conflict’, Journal of Politics 64(3): 810-826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, M. (2007) ‘Clarity of responsibility and corruption’, American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 218-229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1995) ‘Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism’, British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 289-325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1999) ‘Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: an empirical analysis’, American Political Science Review 93(3): 591-608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar