Methoden vergleichen

	Conflict Recurrence Analysis	State Capacity Measurement
Fachgebiet	International Relations	International Relations
Familie	Survival analysis	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	2004	2010
Urheber	Civil-war recurrence literature (e.g., Barbara F. Walter)	State-capacity literature; measurement synthesis by Cullen Hendrix
Typ	Survival/repeated-events analysis of renewed conflict	Measurement of the state's ability to penetrate, extract, and enforce
Wegweisende Quelle	Walter, B. F. (2004). Does conflict beget conflict? Explaining recurring civil war. Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 371–388.	Hendrix, C. S. (2010). Measuring state capacity: Theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 47(3), 273–285.
Aliasnamen	Recurring Civil War Analysis, Conflict Relapse Analysis, Repeated-Conflict Survival Analysis, Conflict Recidivism Analysis	Measuring State Capacity, State Strength Measurement, Bureaucratic and Fiscal Capacity Measures, State Capacity Indicators
Verwandt	3	3
Zusammenfassung	Conflict recurrence analysis studies why and when conflicts that have ended return, treating renewed war as a time-to-event outcome. Most civil wars in recent decades have occurred in countries with a prior war, making recurrence a central puzzle. Using survival and repeated-events models — as in Barbara Walter's (2004) analysis of recurring civil war — researchers model the hazard that a post-conflict country relapses into violence as a function of how the war ended and the underlying conditions, while accounting for the fact that the same country can experience multiple conflict spells.	State capacity measurement is the effort to quantify how able a state is to do the things states do — raise revenue, administer territory, and enforce its will — a variable central to explaining civil conflict, development, and governance. Because capacity is abstract, researchers operationalize it through observable indicators of fiscal, bureaucratic, and coercive strength. Hendrix (2010) systematically compared fifteen common operationalizations, using factor analysis to show that they reduce to a few underlying dimensions, and clarified which measures best capture the capacity relevant to conflict.