手法を比較

	Selectorate Theory Analysis	Democratic Peace Analysis
分野	International Relations	International Relations
系統	MCDM	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2003	1993
提唱者	Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson & James Morrow	Zeev Maoz & Bruce Russett (and the broader democratic-peace literature)
種類	Formal theory of leader survival and policy choice	Observational dyadic test of the regime-type/conflict relationship
原典	Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.	Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.
別名	Selectorate Theory, Logic of Political Survival, Winning Coalition Analysis, Selectorate Model of Governance	Democratic Peace Theory Testing, Dyadic Democratic Peace Analysis, Joint Democracy and Conflict Analysis, Liberal Peace Analysis
関連	3	3
概要	Selectorate theory, developed by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson, and James Morrow in The Logic of Political Survival (2003), explains policy and foreign-policy behavior as a by-product of leaders' overriding goal: staying in power. Every leader depends on a winning coalition (W) drawn from a larger selectorate (S) of those with a say in choosing leaders. The relative size of W and S determines whether a leader buys loyalty with broad public goods or narrow private rewards — which in turn shapes growth, war, peace, and the survival of regimes.	Democratic peace analysis is the empirical study of the proposition that democracies rarely or never fight one another. Building on the dyadic research design crystallized by Maoz and Russett (1993), it codes the regime type of each state, constructs dyad-years, and models the probability of militarized conflict as a function of joint democracy alongside controls for power, contiguity, alliances, and trade. The approach has produced one of the most robust empirical regularities in international relations and a long debate over whether shared norms or institutional structures account for it.