![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article summarizes the new Correlates of War 2 International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) data. The data in the Correlates of War IGO data sets capture state memberships in the network of international governmental organizations. The expanded version 2.0 updates the original CitationWallace and Singer (1970) data set to provide membership information from 1964 to 2001. Following a brief review of the literature pertaining to IGOs and world politics, we provide descriptions of all three versions of the data (country-year, IGO-year, and joint dyadic membership), discuss coding rules and subsequent changes to the data, and present graphical representations of changes in the network of IGOs over time using all three versions of the data.
Notes
1 Of course, the conflict-related literature is only one strain of research that discusses the importance of IGOs. CitationJacobson, Reisinger, and Mathers (1986) and CitationShanks, Jacobson, and Kaplan (1996) both analyzed the causes of IGO membership to determine why some states are members of many IGOs while other states show no proclivity for joining international institutions. Researchers have also studied what factors cause institutions to endure. CitationCupitt, Whitlock, and Whitlock (1996) and CitationPevehouse and Nordstrom (2001) examined the factors that lead to IGO survival.
2 We do not intend to review all literature discussing IGOs and their influence on world politics, but focus only on those areas where large-N studies of IGOs have been prevalent.
3 A state was coded a “1” if it was a member of an IGO at any point in a given five-year period. Thus, if a state joined an IGO in the last year of a specific period or terminated its membership in the first year of a five-year period, it was coded the same as a state that had been a member for all five years in that period.
4 Keeping this data in its original form allows researchers to address the issue of altering the data to annual form on an individual basis.
5 In some cases, we found the IGO to be an NGO.
6 Each UIA yearbook contains a classification system of IGOs with 12 categories. One of these categories (IGO-E) is composed of IGOs that are considered emanations of other IGOs.
7 The UIA only allows one classification code per organization. Thus, once an organization dies it becomes a type “H,” regardless of its prior classification.
8 Independent emanations are coded beginning from their date of independence. The UIA yearbook notes when these shifts from emanation to independent organization take place.
9 We searched for evidence of observers in version 1.1 organizations, although due to source limitations, this was extremely difficult before 1950. We have added observers for version 1.1 organizations where we found evidence of their existence. There are very few cases of observers before 1970, however, suggesting it is a recent phenomenon.
10 To ensure that these were not artifacts of UIA coding procedures, we double-checked the status of these deceased organizations in post-2000 UIA Yearbooks.
∗Measured in five year increments, except for 1985–1989.
11 We add a caveat to our discussion of IGO growth rates and the decline in the number of IGOs by reminding the reader that we have excluded emanations. Given that most new IGOs are now created by other IGOs (see CitationShanks, Jacobson, & Kaplan, 1996) and are not included in our data set, it is possible that what illustrate is the changing institutional form of IGOs rather than any fundamental trends concerning their existence. Still, such an answer would not explain the decrease in the IGO population unless one assumes the functions of state-created IGOs and emanations are substitutable. That is, if the number of emanations continues to rise while IGOs decline, this suggests that IGOs themselves are making comparatively more decisions than nation-states concerning what institutions will be formed.
12 For discussions of IGO birth phases, see CitationFeld and Jordan (1994, 16–21) and CitationArcher (1992, 15–33).
13 We followed the COW classifications for regions with one slight modification: Oceania was combined into the Asia region.
14 For example, Africa has seen a number of competing economic blocs emerge, such as the Economic Community of West African States, Central African Economic and Monetary Union, the Southern African Development Community, the East African Common Market, and the Southern African Customs Union.
15 There have been multiple attempts to create an African Common Market, but these have been largely symbolic. To date, no substantial integration of the competing blocs has been achieved.
16 Examples include the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAfR), European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), and the European Astronaut Centre (EAC).
17 Another explanation for the expansion of these organizations could lie in changing definitions of the regions themselves. While we have chosen to define regions from a strictly geographic perspective, CitationKatzenstein and Hemmer (2002) reminded us that conceptions of regions need not be fixed in time. They argued that regions are social and cognitive constructions that vary according to the perspective of the actors. Thus, one explanation for the rise of cross-regional organizations is that states may reconceptualize their home “region,” which may or may not comport with their physical region (see also CitationPolelle, 1999).
18 Only states that are system members in 1965 and 2000 are considered in this table.