Record Details

Replication data for: Reevaluating Alliance Reliability: Specific Threats, Specific Promises

Harvard Dataverse (Africa Rice Center, Bioversity International, CCAFS, CIAT, IFPRI, IRRI and WorldFish)

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Replication data for: Reevaluating Alliance Reliability: Specific Threats, Specific Promises
 
Identifier https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/55VDFM
 
Creator Brett Ashley Leeds
Sara McLaughlin Mitchell
and Andrew G. Long
 
Publisher Harvard Dataverse
 
Description Previously reported empirical evidence suggests that when conflict arises, military alliances are not reliable; state leaders should only expect their alliance partners to join them in war about 25% of the time. Yet, theoretical arguments explaining the choices of leaders to form cooperative agreements are at odds with such empirical evidence. This puzzling gap between theory and evidence motivates a reconsideration of previous measures of alliance reliability. Many alliance treaties include specific language regarding the circumstances under which the alliance comes into effect, often limiting obligations to disputes with specific target states or in specific geographic areas, and many treaties do not go so far as to require states to join in active fighting. Considering the specific obligations included in alliance agreements provides an improved estimate of the propensity of states to honor their commitments. Results show that alliances are reliable 74.5% of the time.
 
Date 2000