2 Nonproportional Hazards in Political Science and Their Interpretation

2.2 Expanding the interpretation of time-varying effects

The most commonly used duration models in political science assume proportional hazards which imply that variables have a constant effect over time (Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004). Since a violation of this assumption can undermine the validity of the model, political scientists have developed helpful strategies to detect and adequately model nonproportional hazards (Box-Steffensmeier and Zorn Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Zorn2001; Keele Reference Keele2010; Park and Hendry Reference Park and Hendry2015). Since even adequately modeled nonproportional hazards are not as easy to interpret as proportional hazards, a second strand of research has developed tools to calculate meaningful quantities of interest (Golub and Steunenberg Reference Golub and Steunenberg2007; Licht Reference Licht2011; Gandrud Reference Gandrud2015). In this paper, I add to the latter part of the literature and discuss how existing interpretation techniques, such as time-varying hazard ratios or relative hazards can be very ambiguous and, in the worst case, may result in misleading inference about the substantive effects. I introduce survival functions for time-varying effects as a suitable technique in how researchers can reduce this ambiguity and visualize the implications of their results more clearly.

Before nonproportional hazards can be interpreted, however, they need to be identified and adequately modeled. Thereby, it is important to keep in mind that not all violations of the proportional hazards assumption indicate time-varying effects; these can also arise from an incorrectly specified functional form (Keele Reference Keele2010). If nonproportional hazards are present even with a correct functional form, interactions with time are an easy approach to model a time-varying effect on the hazard of observing an event (Box-Steffensmeier and Zorn Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Zorn2001). In the widely used Cox model, this leads to the following model: Let $h_{0}(t)$ be an unspecified baseline hazard function of observing the event of interest, which can take on any form. If we model a time-varying effect through an interaction with time, the hazard function for an observation $i$ is then asserted to be

(1) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=h_{0}(t)e^{x_{1i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}_{1}+x_{2i}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}_{2}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}_{3}f(t))},\end{eqnarray}$$

whereby the effect of $x_{1}$ is assumed to be constant while the effect of $x_{2}$ is allowed to vary with some function of analysis time (cf. Box-Steffensmeier and Zorn Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Zorn2001).Footnote ² If the model is a discrete duration model, e.g., a Logit or Probit model with time dependence (cf. Beck, Katz, and Tucker Reference Beck, Katz and Tucker1998; Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004), nonproportional hazards can be modeled through a similar interaction with time (Carter and Signorino Reference Carter and Signorino2010a).

Hence, time-varying effects are easily introduced in a model. Unfortunately, however, the substantive meaning of a time-varying effect is not straightforward. First, the interaction effect needs to be interpreted correctly (cf. Brambor, Clark, and Golder Reference Brambor, Clark and Golder2005). Golub and Steunenberg (Reference Golub and Steunenberg2007) as well as Licht (Reference Licht2011) show for the widely used Cox model how the combined coefficient can be used to calculate time-varying hazard ratios as well as relative hazards. If visualized correctly, these techniques indicate how a variable’s effect on the hazard rate changes with time. It also highlights when these effects are significant.

If we assume the commonly estimated logarithmic effect ( $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}_{2}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}_{3}\times \ln (t)$ ), several patterns can occur. Figure 1 displays how these patterns might look like if the corresponding hazard ratios or relative hazards are visualized using the method proposed by Licht (Reference Licht2011): First, the effect may decrease in size (and possibly become insignificant at some point), as depicted in (a). Second, the effect might decrease in size and eventually significantly reverse its sign (see (b)). Finally, as shown in (c), the effect size could actually increase and possibly become only significant after a certain time.Footnote ³

Figure 1.

Potential patterns of time-varying hazard ratios or relative hazards.

Although this type of visualization is sufficient to highlight the pattern with which the instantaneous effect changes, I show in this paper that it does not provide a clear indication about the overall effect over time as well as its changing magnitude. This is due to the fact that the instantaneous effect of a variable might be outweighed by the different earlier effect which a variable created. For example, the risk, which was avoided early on, might outweigh the increased risk at later points in time.

I discuss how visualizing the results with survivor functions can give a good intuition of the effect magnitude in the data and generate predictions for substantively interesting scenarios. In panels (a) and (c) survival functions provide an intuitive interpretation of the overall effect, in addition to relative hazards. For example, a survival function can show, whether an effect of type (a) still causes a higher/lower probability of survival, even after the variable has lost its immediate influence. In scenario (b), however, i.e., when the estimated effect reverses its sign, survival functions are a crucial step for an unambiguous interpretation. The necessity for a survival function in scenario (b) arises from the fact that a significant change in a coefficient’s sign can support three different substantive conclusions about the overall effect: First, the variable might decrease/increase the duration or the probability of an event, but after some time the variable begins to have the opposite effect. Second, the variable could decrease/increase the duration or the probability of an event, but this effect disappears at some point; third, the variable might permanently decrease/increase the duration or the probability of an event, but the magnitude of the effect becomes somewhat smaller over time.

Hence, scenario (b) entails a lot of ambiguity. It implies that a simple hypothesis like “higher values of X increase the duration of Y” can still be valid, even if the estimated time-varying effect significantly reverses its sign. This ambiguity ensues because both relative hazards and hazard ratios describe a multiplicative change of an unspecified baseline as well as the fact that this baseline is an instantaneous rate of failure, given that the event has not yet occurred. I discuss the importance of both of these factors in detail in the next two sections and describe how survival functions incorporate them. Since the approaches outlined by Golub and Steunenberg (Reference Golub and Steunenberg2007) as well as Licht (Reference Licht2011) focus on the multiplicative, instantaneous effect, they only allow to describe a time-varying effect as e.g., type (b), but they do not allow to describe the substantive overall impact of such a time-varying effect. The visualization using survival functions proposed in this paper overcomes these limitations.

Discrete duration models (also used as binary time-series-cross-section models) are another form of duration model frequently used in political science (cf. Beck, Katz, and Tucker Reference Beck, Katz and Tucker1998; Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004). Carter and Signorino (Reference Carter and Signorino2010a) show that nonproportional hazards can be easily modeled and visualized in these models, since the baseline hazard is estimated using a flexible function of time. Hence, the magnitude at a given point in time can be calculated. In fact, if events occur repeatedly, Williams (Reference Williams2016) shows that changes in the probability of an event can also affect the long-term effect of additional future events at a certain point in time. If a variables effect changes over time, these nonproportional hazards also need to be modeled to accurately estimate possible long-term effects (Williams Reference Williams2016). Hence, discrete duration models are therefore more easily able to estimate the magnitude of the change in the hazard rate, or more precisely the hazard probability at a given point in time. However, this quantity of interest remains uninformative about the total effect over time, since it is also an instantaneous failure rate, given that the event has not yet occurred. This leaves the same ambiguity regarding the overall implication of time-varying effects of type (b). Again, survival functions are a suitable tool to dissipate this ambiguity.

I use the example of a time-dependent effect of mediation in international crises to highlight the two central aspects which cause this ambiguity (cf. Putter et al. Reference Putter, Sasako, Hartgrink, van de Velde and van Houwelingen2005):Footnote ⁴

1. 1. The context determines the magnitude of a time-varying effect. This context consists of the effect of other covariates, regardless of whether they are constant or time-varying, as well as the baseline hazard. Without knowledge of the (potentially time-varying) baseline, which an effect changes multiplicatively, it is not possible to describe the substantive implication of a time-varying effect.

2. 2. Even if the values of other covariates and the baseline hazard are taken into account, an analysis of a hazard rate requires care. The hazard rate describes the instantaneous risk of failure at a point in time, given that the event has not yet occurred. This implies that the substantive importance of long-term effects depends on earlier short-term effects.

Below, I discuss these points and highlight how survival functions can help to overcome these problems and enable researchers to intuitively visualize time-varying effects.

3 The Importance of the Baseline

As described above, the substantive interpretation of a time-varying effect can heavily depend on the context. Time-varying hazard ratios describe how, at a specific time, some baseline value is increased or decreased multiplicatively by a variable. This means that the magnitude of the change is determined by this baseline. In turn, the baseline depends on the values and effects of other variables in the model as well as the baseline hazard rate. Thereby, the baseline hazard rate captures every remaining process that the model does not explain systematically based on independent variables.

Thus, the baseline hazard describes how the average risk, which is not explained systematically, evolves over time. Since the baseline hazard may therefore simply be “a statement about omitted variables” and consequently change with the model, the question whether the baseline hazard should be interpreted has caused some controversy (cf. Beck Reference Beck2010, 294). Nevertheless, others have argued that until a better model can be constructed, the baseline hazard is a substantive part of the model, which contains important information about the underlying data (cf. Carter and Signorino Reference Carter and Signorino2010b, 296f.). Although I generally agree with the perspective by Beck (Reference Beck2010), the absolute magnitude as well as the cumulative effect of a variable in a given dataset are only identifiable if we use the information about the underlying data provided by the baseline hazard. A second aspect reinforces this perspective: Even when a duration process is perfectly understood and modeled, leaving only a flat baseline hazard, time-varying covariates or other covariates with time-varying effects can lead to changes in risk over time. Hence, in this case, the baseline, not the baseline hazard rate, increases or decreases over time and this changes the overall magnitude of a time-varying effect and potentially even its substantive meaning. Below, I therefore use the word baseline to highlight that there are multiple possible causes for changes in this baseline.

Most parametric models assume a specific functional form for the baseline hazard. However, the Cox Proportional Hazard model allows to estimate the effect of a variable on the hazard rate of observing an event at time $t$ without any specification of the functional form of the baseline hazard rate. This flexibility of the semiparametric Cox model has led to the popularity of the Cox model in political science (Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004).Footnote ⁵ At the same time, however, not knowing the baseline makes any substantive interpretation of a time-varying effect challenging, especially if the coefficient reverses its sign.

To understand how the baseline is important to assess the substantive meaning of a time-varying effect of type (b) in Figure 1 and highlight the limitation of hazard ratios or relative hazards in this context, it is important to review the interpretation of the coefficient in a Cox model. Due to the model’s nonlinearity and since the baseline hazard rate $h_{0}(t)$ is left unspecified, the coefficients themselves have little meaning. Given this limited information, hazard ratios, the exponentiated coefficients, are the most intuitive interpretation of the estimated coefficients. They express the multiplicative change in the hazard rate for a one-unit change in the predictor variable, ceteris paribus (Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004). Hence, a one-unit change in $x_{1}$ in Equation (1) would change the unobserved hazard rate by the factor $e^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}_{1}}$ at any given time. However, in contrast to a constant effect, a time-varying hazard ratio is not nearly as intuitive. Aside from the care which should be devoted to an interpretation of interaction effects (cf. Brambor, Clark, and Golder Reference Brambor, Clark and Golder2005), the difficult interpretation of this relative risk measure arises from the unknown value and shape of the baseline which determines how large the absolute change in risk is at various points in time. Without knowledge of the baseline, the risk of observing the event at a certain point in time remains unknown (cf. Putter et al. Reference Putter, Sasako, Hartgrink, van de Velde and van Houwelingen2005). The effect of the predictor variables can therefore only be interpreted as shifts in the unknown hazard rate.

Figure 2 visualizes this difficulty. For simplicity, we can think of this example as modeling the risk of acquiring a disease. Assume a first scenario with a baseline which is initially very high, but quickly falls to a very low level.Footnote ⁶ If in this context a treatment $x$ would initially lead to a substantive decrease in the very high hazard, this would imply a drastic decrease in risk. Assume further that, due to a time-varying effect, $x$ more than doubles the hazard rate after several years (see panel (b)). How substantive these short- and long-term effects are essentially depends on the baseline which is altered by variable $x$ . In scenario 1, a late increase in relative risk would be reasonably small, since the overall hazard rate at that point is very low (see panel (c)). Consequently, with this hypothetical hazard rate, the treatment $x$ might still be a good option, despite the time-varying effect. On the other hand, consider the second scenario with a very different, strongly monotonically increasing baseline. Panel (c) shows that with a constantly increasing baseline, a hypothetical time-varying effect of treatment $x$ implies a substantially elevated hazard rate at later points in time. In the supplementary information, I provide a further example which highlights that even proportional changes in a flat hazard rate can affect the cumulative effect of a time-varying hazard ratio.

Figure 2.

Same hazard ratio, different conclusion: The magnitude and substantive importance of an effect varies with the overall shape of the baseline. Results for two scenarios with the same time-varying effect of variable x, but different Weibull distributed baseline hazards.

The example highlights how context-dependent the actual magnitude of a time-varying effect can be. In scenario 1, we would probably conclude that the overall treatment effect of $x$ is beneficial because it decreases the risk at a time when the risk is very high, while the increased hazard rate of treated people that remain healthy is neglectable. In contrast, scenario 2 is substantively more ambiguous. If the model contains more than one time-varying effect, this problem becomes even more pronounced. Depending on the value of these variables, the hazard rate may be increasing or decreasing. Consequently, the same time-varying hazard ratio might imply different substantive effects, given alternative values of the other variables with time-varying effects (cf. Putter et al. Reference Putter, Sasako, Hartgrink, van de Velde and van Houwelingen2005).

Hence, hazard ratios are not a sufficient way to describe the substantive meaning of a time-varying effect on failure risk. Without knowledge of the baseline, the magnitude of a time-varying effect remains unclear. Nevertheless, this is not to say that researchers should not graph time-varying hazards ratios. Such a graphical analysis is very important to describe whether and how an effect changes with time and whether any changes are statistically significant (Licht Reference Licht2011). However, these plots are not a good indicator of the magnitude of an effect. For this, we need to know the baseline. Even further steps are needed to enable a good interpretation of the overall effect of a variable.

4 Beyond the Hazard Rate

While plotting the hazard rate gives an intuition into how relevant changes in an effect may be, this option is not available in the Cox model, since it provides no direct estimate of this function. However, even with parametric models, Scenario 2 shows that plotting the scenario-specific hazard is also quite unintuitive and gives little insights about the cumulative effect. This becomes especially apparent if we consider the substantive meaning of the hazard rate. One can think of the hazard as the instantaneous rate of failure, conditional on the fact that an event has not occurred up to this point in time. It can be described formally as follows (cf. Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004, 14):

(2) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=\lim _{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}t\rightarrow 0}{\displaystyle \frac{P(t\leqslant T\leqslant t+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}t\mid T\geqslant t,x_{i})}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}t}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

The instantaneous nature and the conditionality, however, are a crucial complication when interpreting the cumulative impact of a time-varying effect. To highlight why hazard rates are often not sufficient, we can assume that Figure 2 reports the finding of a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effect of the treatment. For the instantaneous effect, we are simply interested in the risk of acquiring the illness at a specific point in time, given that a patient has remained healthy and given the treatment choice. In this case, the hazard rate would be sufficient. Nevertheless, it is important to remember what is being compared at a late point in the study period. Despite randomization, the groups might no longer be identical toward the end of the study. Assume that there are an equal proportion of patients with good and with poor health in both the treatment and in the control group. At the start, the groups are identical, except for the treatment. Assume further that the treatment reduces the risk of sickness initially, but the effect disappears quickly. In the treatment group, the patients will be stabilized as long as the treatment has an effect. Once the treatment loses its effect, these weak patients will most likely start to become sick. In the control group, the weak patients catch the disease very quickly because they are not protected by the treatment. Hence, they are no longer in the sample. If we now compare the treatment and control group at this late point in time, we compare a treatment group in which many weak cases remain against a control group, which consists mostly of patients with good health. If the treatment now loses its effect and the weak cases start to get sick, we will naturally see a higher rate of infection in the treated group than in the control group. This is because we are comparing a treated group, which still contains strong and weak patients against a control group, which, at this point in time, consists only of strong patients.

If our main research interest is to evaluate the cumulative effect, calculating the magnitude of a time-varying hazard ratio by multiplying it with the baseline is not sufficient.Footnote ⁷ It is only an intermediate step, since it provides the risk of illness at a given point in time, given that a patient is still healthy. For the cumulative effect, we would like to know the probability with which a patient remains healthy up to a certain point, depending on the treatment choice. A time-varying hazard rate in itself does not provide clear evidence whether this hypothesis is true or false. In fact, it is possible that a higher proportion of patients with treatment $x$ will remain healthy, even long after the hazard rates crossed. In this case, a simple hypothesis that $x$ increases or decreases the duration to an event is still valid, despite a time-varying hazard ratio. On the other hand, the time-varying hazard ratio can also imply that a variable’s effect is reversed after some time. Whether this is the case depends on how much instantaneous risk was avoided compared to the control group and how strongly the relative risk changes later on.

Fortunately, survival analysis provides a tool to examine how many units have not yet experienced an event at a given point in time: Survivor functions. These functions estimate the proportion of cases which have not (yet) failed at a certain point in time (Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004).Footnote ⁸ Duration models, such as the Cox model can be used to estimate these quantities of interest, but the calculations are not straightforward in the presence of time-varying effects (cf. Putter et al. Reference Putter, Sasako, Hartgrink, van de Velde and van Houwelingen2005). I discuss this in detail below. However, in the motivating example described in Figure 2, the respective survivor functions are easily calculated analytically. Figure 3 plots the results for both scenarios from Figure 2. In the first scenario, the time-varying effect leads to a substantively higher probability of survival, which eventually converges to the same level toward the end of the analysis time. However, in the second scenario, the time-varying effect leads to a higher probability of survival during the first half of the analysis time, and a lower probability of survival thereafter. If a physician faces the first scenario, the results clearly indicate that the treatment has a beneficial effect for some time, before this effect eventually disappears. The second scenario is substantively more ambiguous, since the physician actually faces a trade-off between increasing short-term survival at the risk of long-term survival with treatment allocation.

Figure 3.

Survival estimates for scenarios presented in Figure 2.

The example highlights how different the cumulative implication of a time-varying effect can be. Depending on the baseline, crossing hazard rates could imply an impact, which is reversed over time, convergence between groups or even merely a slight decrease of a persistent difference between groups. Hence, to describe the overall effect, crossing hazard rates are a similarly ambiguous outcome as time-varying hazard ratios. Survivor or cumulative hazard functions are better suited to identify whether a time-varying effect reverses its impact over time.

5 Survival Functions for Time-varying Effects

How can a covariate-specific survival function be estimated in the commonly used Cox model? If the proportional hazards assumption holds, the survivor function for different covariate values can easily be calculated. Based on a hazard rate similar to (1), but without a time-varying effect, we can calculate the cumulative hazard function (Kalbfleisch and Prentice Reference Kalbfleisch and Prentice2002; Cleves et al. Reference Cleves, Gould, Gutierrez and Marchenko2010):

(3) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle H(t|x_{i}) & = & \displaystyle \int _{0}^{t}h(u|x_{i})\,\text{d}u\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle \int _{0}^{t}e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}}h_{0}(u)\,\text{d}u\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}}\int _{0_{}}^{t}h_{0}(u)\,\text{d}u\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}}H_{0}(t).\end{eqnarray}$$

Based on the cumulative hazard function with proportional hazards, we get the following survival function:

(4) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle S(t|x_{i}) & = & \displaystyle e^{-H(t|x_{i})}\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle e^{-e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}}H_{0}(t)}\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle (e^{-H_{0}(t)})^{e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}}}\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle S_{0}(t)^{e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}}}\end{eqnarray}$$

(Kalbfleisch and Prentice Reference Kalbfleisch and Prentice2002; Cleves et al. Reference Cleves, Gould, Gutierrez and Marchenko2010). Consequently, given proportional hazards, i.e., in the absence of time-varying effects, the survivor function for different scenarios can easily be calculated using the baseline survivor function $S_{0}(t)$ as well as the estimated coefficients. Since all statistical packages allow predicting the baseline survivor function from estimated Cox models, these calculations are easily implemented. Furthermore, all statistical packages provide automated tools to calculate covariate-specific survivor functions.

If we no longer assume proportional hazards and model a time-varying effect through an interaction with time, the calculation is not as simple. Due to the interaction with time, the linear combination of predictors $x\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}$ now changes to $x\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}(t)$ , which is a function of time and remains in the integral:

(5) $$\begin{eqnarray}H(t|x_{i})=\int _{0}^{t}\!e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}(u)}h_{0}(u)\,\text{d}u\end{eqnarray}$$

(cf. Thomas and Reyes Reference Thomas and Reyes2014). Moreover, since $h_{0}$ is not directly estimated in the Cox model, the calculation of the cumulative hazard rate and the survivor function are not directly available. Nevertheless, the model does provide estimates of the baseline cumulative hazard function as well as the baseline survivor function. These estimates are based on the information gained at each failure time and thus do not give an estimate of a smooth function, which leads to the familiar, jagged step functions. Each failure time thereby provides an estimate of the risk at that point in time: the hazard component. Based on the hazard component and the estimated coefficients, both the cumulative hazard as well as the survival functions can be calculated (see Kalbfleisch and Prentice Reference Kalbfleisch and Prentice2002, 114ff.).

Based on the grouped relative risk model described in Kalbfleisch and Prentice (Reference Kalbfleisch and Prentice2002, 47f.), the hazard at failure time $t_{j}$ and given covariates with time-varying effects $x\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}(t)$ Footnote ⁹ can be estimated as

(6) $$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}H(t_{j}|x_{i(t)})=1-(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}H_{0}(t_{j}))^{e^{x_{i(t_{j})}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}(t_{j})}},\end{eqnarray}$$

whereby $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}H_{0}(t_{j})$ is the discrete hazard component which is based on

(7) $$\begin{eqnarray}H_{0}(t_{j})=\mathop{\sum }_{j=1}^{k}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}H_{0}(t_{j})\end{eqnarray}$$

(Kalbfleisch and Prentice Reference Kalbfleisch and Prentice2002, 114f.). Using this calculation, the survivor function can be approximated by the exponentiated, negative sum of estimated hazards until failure time $t_{j}$

(8) $$\begin{eqnarray}S(t_{j}|x_{i})=e^{-\mathop{\sum }_{j=1}^{k}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}H(t_{j}|x_{i})}\end{eqnarray}$$

(Ruhe Reference Ruhe2016).Footnote ¹⁰

To demonstrate that this approximation of the survivor function yields good estimates of the true survivor function even with a limited sample size, I conduct a Monte Carlo simulation.Footnote ¹¹ Thereby, I simulate data for differently shaped baseline hazard rates and various parameter specifications. The simulated data generating process comes from a Weibull model with increasing, decreasing as well as flat baseline hazards, i.e., with shape parameters $p=0.75$ , $p=1$ as well as $p=1.25$ . The model includes a time-varying effect of a binary predictor variable $x$ , whereby an observation has $x=1$ when a random draw from a standard normal distribution returns a positive number. I show results for four different types of time-varying effects, based on the following data generating processes:Footnote ¹²

A negative hazard ratio, which turns positive

(9) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=pt^{p-1}e^{\ln (0.05)-0.8x_{i}+0.3\ln (t)x_{i}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

A positive hazard ratio, which turns negative

(10) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=pt^{p-1}e^{\ln (0.05)+0.8x_{i}-0.3\ln (t)x_{i}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

A positive hazard ratio, which increases in size

(11) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=pt^{p-1}e^{\ln (0.05)+0.8x_{i}+0.3\ln (t)x_{i}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

A negative hazard ratio, which increases in size

(12) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=pt^{p-1}e^{\ln (0.05)-0.8x_{i}-0.3\ln (t)x_{i}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

The corresponding, analytically derived survivor functions for each data generating process are documented in the supporting material.

For each data generating process, I generate 100 data sets with 500 failure times each. For each data set I estimate the survivor function for $x=1$ using Equation (8). To quantify the prediction error of the approach, I calculate the difference between the estimated survivor function and the true, analytically derived survivor function. Figure 4 plots the distribution of this prediction error over time for each data generating process. The solid line gives the estimated average error based on a local polynomial smoother. The dashed lines document the median as well as 5th and 90th percentile for the prediction error in bins with width of one analysis time unit. Figure 4 indicates that the median and the estimated mean are virtually identical and always close to zero, suggesting no systematic bias. At the same time, the variance of the prediction error is symmetric and quite small, as about 90 percent of the estimates display an error of 5 percentage points or less. The supporting material includes similar graphs for simulations with smaller sample sizes ( $N=200$ and $N=50$ ). The replication material also provides Stata code on how to implement the calculations in Equation (8) using the user-written package described in Ruhe (Reference Ruhe2016). A tutorial for R as well as SAS is provided by Thomas and Reyes (Reference Thomas and Reyes2014). In the next section, I demonstrate how survivor functions substantively improve the interpretation of time-varying effects.

Figure 4.

Monte Carlo Experiments: Distribution of the prediction error for data generating processes (9)–(12). Solid line gives estimated average based on local polynomial smoother. Dashed lines give 5th, 50th and 90th percentile of the error calculated in bins (width=1 analysis time unit).

6 Empirical Example: The Time-varying Effect of Mediation

I highlight the intricate interpretation of time-varying effects with the important example of how effectively international third-party mediation appeases armed conflict.Footnote ¹³ Prominent research suggests that mediators may only have a short-term effect (cf. Beardsley Reference Beardsley2008, Reference Beardsley2011; Quinn et al. Reference Quinn, Wilkenfeld, Eralp, Asal and Mclauchlin2013) and that third-party pressure is correlated with shorter peace (Werner and Yuen Reference Werner and Yuen2005). Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008) reconciles positive and negative conclusions about mediation effectiveness in the literature based on his finding that the risk of renewed conflict is initially lower if a mediator was involved. However, mediated cases are exposed to a higher risk of crisis recurrence after several years. These results are interpreted as an indication that mediators might face a dilemma of buying short-term peace at the expense of long-term stability (Beardsley Reference Beardsley2008, Reference Beardsley2011).

If this interpretation were true, diplomats trying to appease international conflicts would face a difficult trade-off. It would beg the question of at what point and under which conditions the short-term benefits of mediation are outweighed by its long-term problems. Furthermore, if mediators were in fact buying short-term peace at the expense of long-term stability, would it be recommendable to get involved in the first place? These are all questions about the cumulative impact of mediation which cannot be answered with existing methods. In the following section, I show that, at scrutiny, the implications are less dramatic than the original interpretation of the time-varying effect might imply. Survivor functions are crucial to arrive at a less ambiguous conclusion.

The empirical analysis of the “mediation dilemma” is based on survival analyses of the duration of postconflict peace in which the effect of mediation is modeled through an interaction with time. The Cox model used by Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, Reference Beardsley2011) therefore implies the following specification:

(13) $$\begin{eqnarray}h(t|x_{i})=h_{0}(t)e^{x_{i}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}+\text{mediation}_{i}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{1}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{2}t)},\end{eqnarray}$$

whereby the effect of the binary predictor mediation is allowed to vary with a linear function of time. The empirical analysis indeed finds a strongly significant coefficient for the interaction with time and indicates that the hazard rates of mediated and unmediated cases cross after a few years. This indicates an effect of type (b) in Figure 1. Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, 737) concludes from this finding that “crisis dyads with mediation [...] are less likely to experience a recurrence of crisis within the first few years after a crisis. Yet mediators tend to only produce a pause before the dyad eventually becomes even more prone to recurrence than if it had not had mediation”.Footnote ¹⁴

While the conclusion is accurate about the instantaneous effect, Beardsley also draws conclusions about the cumulative effect. Based on the crossing hazard rate and the sign change in the hazard ratio, Beardsley states that despite positive short-term effects “[i]n the long run, mediation can create artificial incentives that, as the mediator’s influence wanes and the combatants’ demands change, leave the actors with an agreement less durable than one that would have been achieved without mediation” (Beardsley Reference Beardsley2008, 723). Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011) elaborates on this potential dilemma in much greater detail.

This strong claim is unfortunate, since it suggests to scholars and practitioners that mediation worsens the durability of peace in the long-term. Thus, it makes a statement about the cumulative effect of mediation over time, which cannot be drawn reliably from the hazard rates and hazard ratios presented in the paper. Nevertheless, the interpretation of Beardsley’s results could still be correct. Time-varying hazard ratios and crossing hazard rates are simply too ambiguous. With only these tools available at the time of the study, a more informed conclusion was not directly available. Under these circumstances, it was important that Beardsley highlighted this possibility. Due to the immense policy relevance, however, it is of great importance to understand the ambiguity inherent in the results and to reanalyze the question with appropriate methods.

As described before, the interpretation of the empirical hazard rate estimates is not sufficient to make a claim on the cumulative effect. In fact, such an interpretation misses the fact that a hazard rate represents the instantaneous probability of failure, conditional that an event has not occurred up to this point in time (cf. Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004). It appears, that Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, 737) alludes to this important fact in a small paragraph in his conclusion: “Moreover, the results should not be interpreted as suggesting that mediated crises are unconditionally more likely to recur. Recall that unmediated peace arrangements are much more likely to fail in the first few years after a crisis. The key point is that mediation does very well in sustaining short-term peace at the expense of some potential for extremely durable peace. [Emphasis in the original]” Unfortunately, however, this important detail is overlooked for the remaining parts of the paper and most parts of the book. Immediately after the statement above, Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, 737) again evokes that mediation creates a trade-off between short- and long-term effects.

To understand under which circumstances mediation would be associated with long-term problems, we can use the analogy that mediation acts like a medical drug against renewed conflict. The “treatment” mediation is intended to stabilize the “immune system” of the most unstable conflict dyads. Over time, the concentration of the drug in the body decreases. For example, the mediator might become less involved, stop monitoring or the agreement fostered by the mediator is no longer adequate due to changing conflict parties. Hence, the effect of mediation diminishes with time and, at some point, exerts no influence anymore. In the drug example, the concentration of the drug in the body has been reduced to zero. If we want to know whether mediation actually creates long-term problems which make mediated cases worse off, the medical analogy helps to highlight what kind of pattern we are looking for: We suspect that the “treatment” mediation creates adverse effects or side effects, rather than just losing all influence. Unfortunately, however, crossing hazard rates as shown in panel (c) of Figure 2 as well as Figure 3 in Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, 736) and Figure 5.1 in Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011, 113) are no indication of adverse effects.

As discussed above, survivor functions are needed to investigate whether the overall long-term effect of mediation is problematic. Hence, I use the data from Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011) to replicate the original result and calculate the survivor functions implied by the model. I begin with the initial, bivariate comparison and plot the hazard rate of a renewed crisis for both mediated and unmediated crisis dyads. This corresponds to the analysis reported in Figure 3 in Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, 736) and Figure 5.1 in Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011, 113). To replicate the results with as little assumptions as possible I rely on a fully nonparametric analysis. I estimate the smoothed hazard estimates as well as Kaplan–Meier survival functions for mediated and unmediated crisis outcomes using the data from (Beardsley Reference Beardsley2011). The results in Panel (a) of Figure 5 bear a striking resemblance with the results reported in Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008, Reference Beardsley2011).Footnote ¹⁵ Since the analysis time unit is a single day, the values of the hazard rate denoted on the y-axis are much smaller. However, the overall pattern is very similar to the original results. Panel (b) in Figure 5 plots the corresponding Kaplan–Meier survival estimates. It becomes apparent that in a purely descriptive situation without control variables, there is always a higher proportion of ‘surviving’ cases in the mediated than in the unmediated dyads. This implies that mediated cases are more likely to remain at peace throughout the study period. Toward the end, however, the difference becomes quite small and no longer statistically significant.

Figure 5.

Comparing the stability of mediated and unmediated agreements: Smoothed hazard and Kaplan–Meier survival estimates using the data from Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011, 208ff.).

Substantively, the descriptive evidence does not support a mediation dilemma. Rather, for quite some time, mediated cases are somewhat more stable than unmediated cases. Consequently, based on this evidence alone, mediators do not seem to face a trade-off between achieving short-term success at the expense of long-term stability. However, it has to be kept in mind that these results might suffer from considerable confounding. I therefore replicate Beardsley’s core model documented in chapter 5, which is substantively identical to the central model in Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2008). The Cox model estimates the effect of covariates on the duration until a renewed crisis breaks out. The observations are censored after 10 years, or 3650 days. Since the data consists of multiple failure time data, the model stratifies for the number of previous crises which a dyad experienced. The model uses several predictor variables, all of which are interacted with a linear function of time. These predictor variables capture the number of previous crises, the violence level of the conflict, the natural log of the crisis duration, and dichotomous indicators if both sides in the dyad are a democracy, whether the conflict ended in victory as well as whether the states are territorially contiguous (Beardsley Reference Beardsley2011, 208ff.). The complete regression model by Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011) interacts all predictor variables with a linear function of time.

Table 1 provides the estimates of the analysis. Model 1 is an exact replication of Beardsley’s model (Reference Beardsley2011, app. c. 5). Most of the interactions are highly statistically significant. However, at closer inspection, Model 1 still violates the proportional hazards assumption for virtually every single variable according to a test using Schoenfeld residuals. Keele (Reference Keele2010) describes how an incorrectly specified model may lead to a significant test statistic. Moreover, including interactions with time when the proportional hazards assumption is not violated may create such a violation based on a misspecified model (Box-Steffensmeier and Jones Reference Box-Steffensmeier and Jones2004, 136, n. 8). Hence, I modify the model. It appears that a model in which only the mediation effect is allowed to vary with time fits the data generating process best and already fulfills the proportional hazard assumption. Model 2 in Table 1 documents the coefficient estimates for this restricted model specification.

Table 1.

Mediation and crisis recurrence: Replication of the core model in (Beardsley Reference Beardsley2011, 208ff., table 5.1, model 1).

Note: cluster robust standard errors in parentheses, $^{\ast }~p<0.05$ , $^{\ast \ast }~p<0.01$ .

Regarding the effect of mediation, both models appear to estimate a substantively similar pattern. Mediation originally decreases the hazard of a renewed crisis. Eventually, however, this effect is reversed. As described above, this pattern in itself does not imply that mediation has a counterproductive long-term effect. In order for this to be the case, the survival curves for mediated and unmediated cases would need to cross after a certain time. The simple bivariate comparison without control variables in Figure 5 suggests that this is not the case. However, the effect of the control variables may alter this conclusion.

Figure 6 depicts for both the original as well as the revised, restricted model the estimated survival function for mediated and unmediated cases if all remaining variables are held at their mean value in the sample. Since different shapes of the baseline hazard rate may affect the magnitude of mediation’s time-varying effect on crisis risk, the plot distinguishes between the five strata in the model.Footnote ¹⁶ The results clearly indicate that for the average case, mediation is in no way associated with long-term problems. On the contrary, mediated settlements are estimated to remain substantively more stable than unmediated crisis outcomes, despite the fact that the advantage of mediated crises eventually decreases. Figure 6 further shows that this result holds across strata and regardless of whether the original or the restricted model is used. Due to the uncertainty in the parameter estimates and the survival estimates, the difference in survival probability becomes insignificant after five to eight years.Footnote ¹⁷ This confirms the Kaplan–Meier estimates in Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Predicted effect of mediation on the duration of postcrisis peace. Results are reported for each stratum based on the estimates from all models in Table 1. All variables, except mediation, held at their mean.

7 Discussion and Recommendations

The analysis of the time-varying mediation effect provides a more nuanced image of mediation effectiveness than earlier studies. The replication confirms empirical evidence which shows that, compared to unmediated crises, mediated cases are more stable early on in a postconflict period, but less stable at later points in time, given that they did not yet experience a renewed crisis and compared to unmediated cases which also did not yet fail. However, the empirical evidence provides no indication that fewer mediated cases are at peace after several years than unmediated cases. Hence, the results do not support the hypothesis of a mediation dilemma.

The results from the reanalysis of Beardsley (Reference Beardsley2011) suggest that mediation is associated with substantively more stable conflict outcomes, although this difference becomes small and statistically insignificant after several years. This implies that while both mediated and unmediated dyads might eventually relapse into crisis, mediated cases do so later. In other words, mediation is associated with peace for some time, but not indefinitely. How these results compare across different mediators of alternative mediation strategies should be analyzed in further analyses. This paper introduces the necessary methodology in the form of survival functions.

On a larger scale, the example and the discussion of time-varying effects clearly indicate that neither hazard ratios nor hazard rates for specific scenarios provide the full picture of the substantive meaning of time-varying effects with a change in sign. Depending on the baseline, the cumulative impact of such time-varying effects can be both a drastic reversal of an effect as well as no substantive change at all. This shows that an interpretation based on time-varying hazard ratios or hazard rates alone leave a lot of ambiguity regarding the overall effect, since it is not clear if mediated cases are on average worse off in the long run. However, appropriate visualizations using survivor functions are able to reduce this ambiguity and provide a clearer picture of how the overall effect evolves over time.

This leads to the following recommendations for researchers dealing with time-varying effects in duration analyses. These recommendations consist of four steps and extend earlier research on the interpretation of nonproportional hazards:

1. 1. In order to identify and model nonproportional hazards, the steps outlined by Keele (Reference Keele2010) as well as Park and Hendry (Reference Park and Hendry2015) should be followed.

2. 2. Time-varying effects can thereafter be analyzed using hazard ratios or relative hazards as described by Licht (Reference Licht2011). This allows visualizing the pattern of the instantaneous, multiplicative time-varying effect and helps to assess if the effect significantly changes its sign (e.g., pattern b in Figure 1).

3. 3. If the effect significantly changes its sign, it is recommendable to clarify the substantive cumulative effects using survivor functions as outlined above. If the effect does not change its sign, survivor functions may nevertheless provide an intuitive summary of the estimated cumulative effects and the pattern in the data.

4. 4. Researchers should be aware that a variable’s effect on the survival function could vary, depending on the baseline hazards across different strata as well as due to the values of other (time-varying) covariates in the model. Thus, survivor functions should be used to intuitively communicate predictions for different, meaningful scenarios.Footnote ¹⁸

Supplementary materials

For supplementary materials accompanying this paper, please visithttps://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.35.