Methodological Change and Bias in Economic Sanction Reconsidered

Peter A.G. van Bergeijk; Muhammad Shahadat Hossain Siddiquee

doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1373351

Methodological Change and Bias in Economic Sanction Reconsidered

Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, Muhammad Shahadat Hossain Siddiquee

Academic staff unit

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

122 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2^nd edition in 1990 and 3^rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently about these changes that make it more likely to find sanction success. A multivariate probit analysis establishes upward bias related to modest policy change, duration and cost to target and cepted Ma downward bias for regime change, military impairment, companion policies and cost to the sender.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-29
Number of pages	29
Journal	International Interactions
Volume	2017
Early online date	6 Sept 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2017.1373351
Publication status	Published - 2017

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright: © 2017, Routledge. All rights reserved.

This research note is based on Bergeijk, P.A.G. van and M.S.H, Siddiquee, (2015), Bias and Methodological Change in Economic Sanction Reconsidered, Economics-Ejournal Paper 2015-33 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2015-33 presented at the 14th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Scientists conference.

Access to Document

10.1080/03050629.2017.1373351

Methodological Change and Bias in Economic Sanction ReconsideredAccepted author manuscript, 0.98 MB

Cite this

@article{26c6b57fac294337ba261b5a269a9d74,

title = "Methodological Change and Bias in Economic Sanction Reconsidered",

abstract = "We investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2nd edition in 1990 and 3rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently about these changes that make it more likely to find sanction success. A multivariate probit analysis establishes upward bias related to modest policy change, duration and cost to target and cepted Ma downward bias for regime change, military impairment, companion policies and cost to the sender.",

author = "{van Bergeijk}, {Peter A.G.} and Siddiquee, {Muhammad Shahadat Hossain}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017, Routledge. All rights reserved. This research note is based on Bergeijk, P.A.G. van and M.S.H, Siddiquee, (2015), Bias and Methodological Change in Economic Sanction Reconsidered, Economics-Ejournal Paper 2015-33 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2015-33 presented at the 14th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Scientists conference.",

year = "2017",

doi = "10.1080/03050629.2017.1373351",

language = "English",

volume = "2017",

pages = "1--29",

journal = "International Interactions",

issn = "0305-0629",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological Change and Bias in Economic Sanction Reconsidered

AU - van Bergeijk, Peter A.G.

AU - Siddiquee, Muhammad Shahadat Hossain

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2017, Routledge. All rights reserved. This research note is based on Bergeijk, P.A.G. van and M.S.H, Siddiquee, (2015), Bias and Methodological Change in Economic Sanction Reconsidered, Economics-Ejournal Paper 2015-33 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2015-33 presented at the 14th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Scientists conference.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - We investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2nd edition in 1990 and 3rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently about these changes that make it more likely to find sanction success. A multivariate probit analysis establishes upward bias related to modest policy change, duration and cost to target and cepted Ma downward bias for regime change, military impairment, companion policies and cost to the sender.

AB - We investigate the influence of case selection and (re)coding for two vintages of a key resource for research on economic sanctions: the Peterson Institute data base reported in Hufbauer et al. (2nd edition in 1990 and 3rd edition in 2007). The Peterson Institute has not reported transparently about these changes that make it more likely to find sanction success. A multivariate probit analysis establishes upward bias related to modest policy change, duration and cost to target and cepted Ma downward bias for regime change, military impairment, companion policies and cost to the sender.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136536913&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/03050629.2017.1373351

DO - 10.1080/03050629.2017.1373351

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85136536913

SN - 0305-0629

VL - 2017

SP - 1

EP - 29

JO - International Interactions

JF - International Interactions

ER -

Methodological Change and Bias in Economic Sanction Reconsidered

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Biased Sanctions? Methodological Change in Economic Sanctions Reconsidered and Its Implications

Cite this