Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| IGO Network Analysis× | Alliance Portfolio Similarity× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | International Relations | International Relations |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 2004 | 1999 |
| Originator≠ | Correlates of War IGO data (Pevehouse, Nordstrom & Warnke); network treatments by Ingram, Robinson & Busch and others | Bueno de Mesquita (Tau-b); Curtis Signorino & Jeffrey Ritter (S) |
| Type≠ | Affiliation/co-membership network analysis of international organizations | Dyadic similarity index over alliance commitment profiles |
| Seminal source≠ | Pevehouse, J. C., Nordstrom, T., & Warnke, K. (2004). The Correlates of War 2 international governmental organizations data version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 101–119. DOI ↗ | 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. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases | Intergovernmental Organization Network Analysis, IGO Co-membership Network, International Organization Network Analysis, IGO Affiliation Network | Alliance Portfolio Similarity Scores, S-Score of Alliance Similarity, Tau-b Alliance Similarity, Alliance Profile Similarity |
| Related | 3 | 3 |
| Summary≠ | IGO network analysis treats the web of states' memberships in intergovernmental organizations as a network and studies its structure and consequences. Using membership data such as the Correlates of War IGO dataset (Pevehouse, Nordstrom, and Warnke 2004), it represents which states belong to which organizations as an affiliation network, projects it into a state-to-state graph of shared memberships, and analyzes how organizational ties bind states together — measuring integration into global governance, detecting institutional blocs, and testing whether shared IGO membership shapes outcomes like trade and conflict. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|