Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The international political economy data resource

  • Comment
  • Published:
The Review of International Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantitative scholars in international relations often draw repeatedly on the same sources of country-year data across a diverse range of projects. The International Political Economy Data Resource seeks to provide a public good to the field by standardizing and merging together 951 variables from 78 core International Political Economy data sources into a single dataset, increasing efficiency and reducing the risk of data management errors. Easier access to data encourages researchers to perform more robustness checks in their own work and replicate others’ published results more often. It also and makes it easier for teachers of quantitative research methods to assign realistic exercises to their students. This resource will be updated and expanded annually. The full resource is available via the Harvard Dataverse Network, with versions also available via the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton University and NewGene.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See, for example, Fariss (2014) assessing government respect for human rights, Hollyer et al. (2014) assessing government transparency, or Fariss, Graham and Kenwick (2016) measuring the security of property rights.

  2. EUGene refers to the Expected Utility Generation and Data Management Program (Bennett and Stam 2000). NewGene, a successor to EUGene, will be released soon (Bennett, Poast and Stam 2015).

  3. This count, and all details in this article, refer to version 1.5 of the data. Additional datasets will be added with each update.

  4. Please send suggestions for additions or revisions to benjamin.a.graham@usc.edu.

  5. The one exception is the Major Episodes of Political Violence Data (Marshall 1999), which includes economic damage within its index of conflict severity. We view this as a conflict measure particularly appropriate for use as an independent variable in analyses of economic outcomes.

  6. IFS codes are used by the International Monetary Fund. World Development Indicator codes are included beginning with version 2.0.

  7. It is notable that the Uppsala/PRIO civil conflict datasets are all based on Gleditsch-Ward numbers (Gleditsch et al. 2002).

  8. Time series setting refers to the process of establishing unit and time variables within Stata to identify unique time-series-cross-sectional observations. The primary version of this resource contains some observations that are duplicates by COW code and year. In particular, some component datasets include data for both Serbia (in isolation) and Yugoslavia (in total) in the same years. We can retain this information in the Gleditsch-Ward-based version of the data, where modern Serbia is treated as a continuation of the Kingdom of Serbia and as distinct from Yugoslavia, but must drop this information from the COW version, where Yugoslavia and Serbia share the same country code.

  9. In this process, we remove the observation with the least information. In most cases at least one of the duplicate observations contains exclusively missing values.

  10. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/X093TV

  11. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/X093TV Versions 1.0–1.4 are not on Dataverse and are available from the authors upon request. Other sites that host interactive versions of the resource may experience a lag in posting updated versions of the resource after they become available via Dataverse.

  12. http://ncgg.princeton.edu/irdataverse.php

  13. Software available at http://newgenesoftware.org

  14. http://www.paulhensel.org/data.html Accessed May 16, 2017.

  15. This count was produced using the January 2016 version of the QoG Standard Data.

  16. Permission to repost data was obtained from the authors of each component dataset with the exception of datasets governed by creative commons licenses.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). De facto political power and institutional persistence. The American Economic Review, 96(2), 325–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston, L. J. (1996). Empirical Work in Institutional Economics: An Overview. In L. J. Alston, T. Eggertsson, & D. C. North (Eds.), Empirical Studies in Institutional Change (Vol. 1996, pp. 25–30). Cambridge University Press.

  • Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. (2013). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 184–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. S., & Stam, A. C. (2000). EUGene: A Conceptual Manual. International Interactions, 26, 179–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. Scott and Poast, Paul and Stam, Allan C. 2015. “NewGene: A conceptual manual.” Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=2596297

  • Brown, Davis, and Patrick James. 2015. “Religious Characteristics of State Dataset, Phase 1: Demographics.” http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/BROWN.asp. Accessed on September 15, 2015.

  • Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S-E., Teorell, J., Andersson, F., et al. (2016). Methodology V6. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2951040.

  • Cruz, C., Keefer, P., & Scartascini, C. (2016). The Database of political institutions 2015 (DPI2015). Inter-American Development: Bank https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/7408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fariss, C. J. (2014). Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review, 108(02), 297–318.

  • Fariss, C. J., Benjamin A.T. Graham, and Michael Kenwick. 2016 “Secure from what? Theorizing and measuring property rights security.” Working Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2989195.

  • Fouré, J., Bénassy-Quéré, A., & Fontagné, L. 2012. “The Great Shift: Macroeconomic Projections for the World Economy at the 2050 Horizon,” CEPII Working paper 2012–03. http://www.cepii.fr/CEPII/en/publications/wp/abstract.asp?NoDoc=4179

  • Girardin, L., Hunziker, P., Cederman, L.-E., Bormann, N.-C., et al. (2015). GROW up - geographical research on war. ETH Zurich: Unified Platform http://growup.ethz.ch/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. D. (1999). Interstate system membership: A revised list of the independent states since 1816. International Interactions, 25(4), 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, N. P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M., & Strand, H. (2002). Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollyer, J. R., Peter Rosendorff, B., & Vreeland, J. R. (2014). Measuring transparency. Political Analysis, 22(4), 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, M., de la Sierra, R. S., & der Windt, P. V. (2013). Fishing, commitment, and communication: A proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration. Political Analysis, 21(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsley, Allison and Benjamin A.T. Graham. 2017. “The capital effects of information voids in emerging markets.” Journal of International Business Studies 48, 324.

  • Laitin, D. D. (2013). Fisheries management. Political Analysis, 21(1), 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linzer, D. A., & Staton, J. K. (2015). A Global measure of judicial independence, 1948-2012. Journal of Law and Courts, 3(2), 223–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G. (1999). Third world war. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

  • Marshall, Monty and Benjamin R. Cole. 2014. “Global report 2014: Conflict, governance, and State fragility.” Center for Systemic Peace. http://www.systemicpeace.org/vlibrary/GlobalReport2014.pdf

  • Mayer, T., and S. Zignago. 2011. “Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: the GeoDist Database.” CEPII Working Paper 2011–25. http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/pdf/2011/wp2011-25.pdf.

  • Monogan III, J. E. (2013). A case for registering studies of political outcomes: An application in the 2010 House elections. Political Analysis, 21(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teorell, Jan, Stefan Dahlberg, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Anna Khomenko, and Richard Svensson. 2016. The quality of government standard dataset, version Jan16. University of Gothenburg: The quality of government Institute, http://www.Qog.Pol.Gu.Se doi:10.18157/QoGStdJan16.

  • Tollefsen, A. F., Strand, H., & Buhaug, H. (2012). PRIO-GRID: A unified spatial data structure. Journal of Peace Research, 49(2), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Benjamin A. T. Graham & Jacob R. Tucker

Authors
  1. Benjamin A. T. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob R. Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin A. T. Graham.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graham, B.A.T., Tucker, J.R. The international political economy data resource. Rev Int Organ 14, 149–161 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-017-9285-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-017-9285-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation