方法对比

	V-Dem Democracy Measurement	Democratic Peace Analysis
领域	International Relations	International Relations
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2011	1993
提出者	V-Dem Institute (Michael Coppedge, John Gerring, Staffan Lindberg, et al.)	Zeev Maoz & Bruce Russett (and the broader democratic-peace literature)
类型	Multidimensional, expert-coded measurement of democracy	Observational dyadic test of the regime-type/conflict relationship
开创性文献	Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., et al. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267.	Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.
别名	Varieties of Democracy, V-Dem Indices, V-Dem Democracy Indices, Disaggregated Democracy Measurement	Democratic Peace Theory Testing, Dyadic Democratic Peace Analysis, Joint Democracy and Conflict Analysis, Liberal Peace Analysis
相关	3	3
摘要	Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a measurement project that captures democracy as a multidimensional concept rather than a single score. Set out by Coppedge, Gerring, and colleagues (2011), V-Dem distinguishes five principles of democracy — electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian — and measures them from hundreds of specific indicators coded by multiple country experts. A statistical measurement model aggregates these expert ratings into disaggregated indicators and high-level indices, each accompanied by estimates of measurement uncertainty, producing one of the most detailed and transparent democracy datasets available.	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.