Politics in Space*

What is political space made of, and how can it be represented in statistical models of political processes or behavior?

That question might sound academic (if not psychedelic), but it’s one that doesn’t get the attention it deserves in quantitative analysis of political events.

In recent years, political science has gotten better about considering the effects of physical space on politics, especially in the study of violent conflict. Intellectual trends in the study of civil wars have combined with technical advances in geospatial analysis to encourage observers of conflict processes to be more explicit about ways that things like distance, terrain, climate, and weather might shape where and when violence might occur. (See here for one prominent example.)

The single word that probably best captures the current push on this front is disaggregation. Where the 2000s saw a boom in quantitative studies of civil wars using country-year data to look at the onset and termination of episodes of large-scale violence, a more recent boomlet has shifted the focus to the level of the district and even the locality, sometimes attempting to model the occurrence of the specific events—battles, killings, kidnappings—that comprise those large-scale conflict episodes. The units are getting smaller, but they’re still usually geographic.

As I think about where this research might take us, I wonder if we aren’t atoning too much for past sins. The complaint that studies using nation-states as units of observation are naïve to physical geography may itself be naïve to the profound importance of the state as a political space.

Consider coups d’etat, for example. By definition, these events virtually always happen in a country’s capital city, but that’s not because of differences between the geography of the capital and the rest of the country. They occur in the capital city because it is the locus of national political authority, the point in political space that must be occupied to lay claim to national power. A similar logic applies to the location of battles in civil conflicts. Certain areas will have strategic or symbolic value that is unrelated to their situation in physical space or the character or their terrain. It’s not either/or, but we shouldn’t stop thinking about the one because the other is easier to observe and measure.

The good news is that improvements and innovations in analytic techniques are making this easier to do. For starters, researchers are increasingly using multilevel (a.k.a. hierarchical) models to incorporate factors at multiple levels of analysis in a single estimation. While still computationally intensive, versions of these models with unit-specific slopes let us search for general patterns without making the strong assumption that every variable has the same effect in every region/country/city/person/whatever.

Techniques developed to measure connectivity and distance in other dimensions–such as economic distance as reflected in trade flows, or cultural distance as indicated by populations’ languages and religious practices–can also be applied to political relationships. Mike Ward and Peter Hoff, for example, have done interesting work extending concepts from gravity models of international trade to other aspects of international politics, like alliances and membership in intergovernmental organizations.

Also, when designing research, we should remember that we don’t have to include all physical space in every analysis. Sociologists studying the occurrence of protests and riots in the United States in the 1960s and beyond often restricted their analysis to major cities (see here, here, and here for prominent examples). Riots rarely happen in rural areas in wealthy countries nowadays, but social and economic processes occurring in those rural areas may contribute to the likelihood of riots in nearby cities. So, we might look for ways to design studies that take all of those elements into account, and geographic proximity might turn out to be less relevant than many other things.

There’s certainly no grand solution to this problem. More than anything, this is a plea to researchers, including myself, to think carefully about the spatial dimensions of their theoretical models when designing empirical studies to probe or test them. The fact that a lot of data is available at the state level doesn’t mean states are an appropriate unit of observation, but subnational units aren’t automatically better, either. In many cases, it will help to start by conceptualizing the relevant political space and then looking for data that represent important features of it.

* Title shamelessly stolen from Kate Miller-Heidke.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

7 Comments

  1. ADTS

     /  April 21, 2012

    First, FYI, I just dropped your name (and the name of your blog) at Small Wars Journal, in re a recent article in The Economist on modeling and predicting small wars, political instability, etc.

    Second, I am a bit surprised you didn’t reference James Fearon and David Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” or Patrick Johnston (RAND) on geography and insurgent organization, or Paul Staniland on urban insurgency. I’d be curious on your thoughts about how feasible it is to incorporate better, or at least more fine-grained, measures of terrain than, say, what proportion of a given state is mountainous. There are a lot of both conceptual issues as well as arguably more purely quantitative matters regarding measures and indicators, I think.

    Best
    ADTS

    Reply
    • Thanks for the shout-out.

      On the geography of insurgency, I didn’t even try to get into the details for a couple of reasons. First, there’s a lot of really interesting work being done, including the studies you mention, and surveying it well would require a standalone post, or really a journal article.

      Second and more important here, I was actually trying to shift attention away from geography back to politics, which is, I think, more important but harder to conceptualize and measure. I’d like us to think about how we might represent other aspects of political topography with as much sophistication as we’re starting to see in the measurement of physical topography.

      Reply
  2. ADTS

     /  April 22, 2012

    Interesting. I assume your assume of the word “political” thus references, essentially, how people interact with each other (say, with respect to determining who gets what, how; or determining what form social interaction should follow, what values social life should uphold and express, etc.). Moreover, I imagine a lot of work on this matter has been conducted by those in the theory subfield rather than methodology or comparative politics or international relations. Finally, perhaps primed by The Economist article, I wonder the extent to which political topography currently occurs in ways that, at first glance at least, correspond little with physical topography (via Skype, on Facebook, or via blogs such as this, for example).

    Best
    ADT

    Reply
    • I’ll try illustrating what I mean by example. A lot of work on American politics locates legislators in a multidimensional issue space, and you could do the same with individuals or organizations in other countries. I also think of Andreas Wimmer’s Ethnic Power Relations (EPR) data set as politically spatial in the sense that it locates groups and population shares inside or outside the boundaries of state power. There are lots of more conventional examples from sociology, where politically salient features of populations (e.g., racial composition or income distributions) are measured at district or local levels. I suspect a lot of people working on “disaggregating” civil war would like to be including these things in their models but can’t because they don’t have good measures. That’s fine, but it’s important to keep those omitted variables in mind when we interpret the results of those estimations. I suspect that some of the “findings” on the influence of physical geography would go away or at least get diluted if we had richer models.

      Reply
      • ADTS

         /  April 23, 2012

        I continue to be intrigued (and, perhaps, a bit befuddled). I am somewhat familiar with the American public policy literature (e.g., Baumgartner and Jones on agenda-setting, and PSJ, JPAM and JPART more broadly) – is that what you are referencing with respect to multidimensional issue space? Similarly, could you please let me know who you are referring to who is working on “disaggregating” civil war? (Woods comes to mind, but she is more qualitative than you seem to imply.) More broadly, in plain English, when you refer to “richer models,” what pheneomena would you explain (what would be your dependent variables), and what would you use to explain it (what would be your independent and intervening variables, antecedent condition(s)/conditional variables, etc. – assume away the problem of acquiring good data) and how (no need to impress this non-quant by referencing arcane models far removed from OLS/GLM, but what generally would you utilize?)?

        Thanks
        ADTS

      • Sorry, it’s a busy writing week for me, so I don’t have time to respond in detail. By “richer” models, though, I really just meant better specified models, not fancier techniques. In other words, if we could measure more of the socio-political stuff well at subnational levels, I suspect some of the findings about the observed effects of geography would diminish, in relative if not absolute terms. On “disaggregating” civil war, that JCR issue to which I linked is the best place to start. Here, I’m talking specifically about statistical modeling that uses subnational spaces (e.g., districts) as the units of observation instead of nation-states.

  3. ADTS

     /  May 2, 2012

    Much thanks – sincerely.

    Best
    ADTS

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: