European Political Science

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 475–488 | Cite as

quantitative approaches in coalition foreign policy: scope, content, process

  • sibel oktay
  • ryan beasleyEmail author


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.


commitment extremity ideological cohesion log-rolling veto-players 


  1. Auerswald, D.P. (1999) ‘Inward bound: domestic institutions and military conflicts’, International Organization 53(3): 469–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, D. and Pedersen, R.B. (2013) Process-Tracing Method: Foundations and Guidelines, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Callahan, P. (1982) ‘Commitment’, in P. Callahan, L.P. Brady and M.G. Hermann (eds) Describing Foreign Policy Behavior, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 177–206.Google Scholar
  5. Clare, J. (2010) ‘Ideological fractionalization and the international conflict behavior of parliamentary democracies’, International Studies Quarterly 54(4): 965–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clare, J. (2014) ‘Hawks, doves, and international cooperation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 58(7): 1311–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D.D. (2015) ‘Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, S.D. and Hobolt, S.B. (2010) ‘Coalition government and electoral accountability’, Electoral Studies 29(3): 358–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Goldstein, J.S. (1992) ‘A conflict–cooperation scale for WEIS events data’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 36(2): 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagan, J.D. (1993) Political Opposition and Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hermann, C.F. (1963) ‘Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 1: 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hermann, M. (2001) ‘How decision units shape foreign policy: a theoretical framework’, International Studies Review 3(2): 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrmann, R.K. (2013) ‘Perceptions and image theory in international relations’, in L. Huddy, D.O. Sears and J.S. Levy. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 334–363.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Hudson, V.M. (2014) Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory, 2nd edn., Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Kaarbo, J. (1996a) ‘Influencing peace. Junior partners in Israeli coalition cabinets’, Cooperation and Conflict 31(3): 243–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaarbo, J. (1996b) ‘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
  24. Kaarbo, J. (2012) Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Kubálková, V. (eds). (2001) Foreign Policy in a Constructed World (vol. 4), Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Leeds, B.A. and Davis, D.R. (1997) ‘Domestic political vulnerability and international disputes’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(6): 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Martin, L.W. (2004) ‘The government agenda in parliamentary democracies’, American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McClelland, C.A. (1978) World Event/interaction Survey (WEIS), 19661978, Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Oktay-Karagul, S. (2014) ‘Unpacking coalitions: explaining international commitment in European governments’, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Putnam, R.D. (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization 42(3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rathbun, B. (2004) Partisan Interventions: European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Tavits, M. (2007). ‘Clarity of responsibility and corruption’, American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Tsebelis, G. (1999) ‘Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: an empirical analysis’, American Political Science Review 93(3): 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Illinois at SpringfieldSpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.School of International RelationsUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations