方法对比

	Peace Duration Analysis	State Capacity Measurement
领域	International Relations	International Relations
方法族	Survival analysis	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2003	2010
提出者	Conflict-duration literature (e.g., Caroline Hartzell & Matthew Hoddie on post-civil-war peace)	State-capacity literature; measurement synthesis by Cullen Hendrix
类型	Time-to-event (survival) analysis of peace spells	Measurement of the state's ability to penetrate, extract, and enforce
开创性文献	Hartzell, C., & Hoddie, M. (2003). Institutionalizing peace: Power sharing and post-civil war conflict management. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 318–332.	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.
别名	Duration of Peace Analysis, Post-Conflict Peace Survival Analysis, Peace Spell Analysis, Time-to-Conflict-Recurrence Analysis	Measuring State Capacity, State Strength Measurement, Bureaucratic and Fiscal Capacity Measures, State Capacity Indicators
相关	3	3
摘要	Peace duration analysis applies survival (time-to-event) methods to study how long peace lasts after a conflict ends and what makes it endure or collapse. The unit is the post-conflict peace spell, observed from a settlement or cessation until conflict recurs or the observation is censored. Modeling the hazard that peace fails as a function of how the conflict ended and the structural conditions — as in Hartzell and Hoddie's (2003) study of power-sharing after civil war — reveals which arrangements, such as institutionalized power sharing or peacekeeping, lengthen the survival of peace.	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.