Peter B White, David E Cunningham, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
{"title":"Presenting the Governmental Incompatibilities Data Project (GIDP) 2.0","authors":"Peter B White, David E Cunningham, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"s This research note introduces a new dataset—the Governmental Incompatibilities Data Project (GIDP) 2.0—which identifies the presence of incompatibilities over governments for all countries in the world from 1960 to 2020. Incompatibilities over government involve organizations making maximalist claims related to the legitimacy of elections, the composition of the national government, or regime change. GIDP 2.0 includes information about which of these claims is present in each incompatibility year. These data can facilitate analyses of the onset, dynamics, and outcomes of both civil war and nonviolent campaigns, improve our ability to predict their occurrence, and allow for analysis of whether international efforts to prevent violent conflicts over government are effective. We present a series of descriptive analyses showing that governmental incompatibilities are common but not ubiquitous, and occur across time periods, and within and across regime types. These descriptive analyses further show interesting variation among the types of claims articulated in democracies, autocracies, and anocracies and across different types of autocratic institutions. A brief two-stage analysis shows that some factors commonly included in studies of armed conflict and nonviolent campaign onset have different effects on the emergence of governmental incompatibilities and on whether these incompatibilities escalate to mass mobilization.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf037","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
s This research note introduces a new dataset—the Governmental Incompatibilities Data Project (GIDP) 2.0—which identifies the presence of incompatibilities over governments for all countries in the world from 1960 to 2020. Incompatibilities over government involve organizations making maximalist claims related to the legitimacy of elections, the composition of the national government, or regime change. GIDP 2.0 includes information about which of these claims is present in each incompatibility year. These data can facilitate analyses of the onset, dynamics, and outcomes of both civil war and nonviolent campaigns, improve our ability to predict their occurrence, and allow for analysis of whether international efforts to prevent violent conflicts over government are effective. We present a series of descriptive analyses showing that governmental incompatibilities are common but not ubiquitous, and occur across time periods, and within and across regime types. These descriptive analyses further show interesting variation among the types of claims articulated in democracies, autocracies, and anocracies and across different types of autocratic institutions. A brief two-stage analysis shows that some factors commonly included in studies of armed conflict and nonviolent campaign onset have different effects on the emergence of governmental incompatibilities and on whether these incompatibilities escalate to mass mobilization.
期刊介绍:
International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.