Compara mètodes

	Alliance Portfolio Similarity	Foreign Policy Similarity Score
Camp	International Relations	International Relations
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Any d'origen	1999	2011
Autor original	Bueno de Mesquita (Tau-b); Curtis Signorino & Jeffrey Ritter (S)	Foreign-policy-similarity literature (Signorino & Ritter; Voeten ideal points; Frank Häge chance correction)
Tipus	Dyadic similarity index over alliance commitment profiles	Dyadic measurement of revealed foreign-policy agreement
Font seminal	Signorino, C. S., & Ritter, J. M. (1999). Tau-b or not Tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 115–144.	Häge, F. M. (2011). Choice or circumstance? Adjusting measures of foreign policy similarity for chance agreement. Political Analysis, 19(3), 287–305.
Àlies	Alliance Portfolio Similarity Scores, S-Score of Alliance Similarity, Tau-b Alliance Similarity, Alliance Profile Similarity	Foreign Policy Similarity Measurement, UN Voting Affinity Score, Ideal Point Distance, State Preference Similarity
Relacionats	3	3
Resum	Alliance portfolio similarity measures how alike two states' overall patterns of alliance commitments are. Each state has a 'portfolio' — the profile of defense pacts, neutrality agreements, ententes, or no tie it holds with every other state — and the similarity of two portfolios is summarized in a single dyadic score. Signorino and Ritter (1999) showed that the long-dominant Kendall's tau-b measure is flawed for this purpose and introduced the S-score as a better-behaved alternative. These scores are a standard proxy for shared interests and have been used to operationalize utilities in expected-utility models of war.	A foreign-policy similarity score measures how alike two states' revealed foreign-policy positions are — most commonly from their votes in the UN General Assembly, but also from alliance portfolios or treaty positions. It is a workhorse measure of shared interests, affinity, and alignment in dyadic IR. Häge (2011) shows that naive agreement and the popular S-score can be inflated by chance agreement that arises because states differ in how often they take each position, and proposes chance-corrected indices (Scott's π, Cohen's κ) that better isolate genuine alignment.