Theory and Evidence in International Conflict: A Reponse to de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski
View/ Open
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001212Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Beck, Nathaniel, Gary King, and Langche Zeng. 2004. Theory and evidence in international conflict: A Reponse to de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski. American Political Science Review 98(2): 379-389.Research Data
http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/LAAYCJJGDSAbstract
In this article, we show that de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski’s substantive analyses are fully consistent with our prior theoretical conjecture about international conflict. We note that they also agree with our main methodological point that out-of-sample forecasting performance should be a primary standard used to evaluate international conflict studies. However, we demonstrate that all other methodological conclusions drawn by de Marchi, Gelpi, and Gryanaviski are false. For example, by using the same evaluative criterion for both models, it is easy to see that their claim that properly specified logit models outperform neural network models is incorrect. Finally, we show that flexible neural network models are able to identify important empirical relationships between democracy and conflict that the logit model excludes a priori; this should not be surprising since the logit model is merely a limiting special case of the neural network model.Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3965180
Collections
- FAS Scholarly Articles [18292]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)