Measuring International Order: Three Approaches to an Amorphous Concept

Projects Leads: Andrew Goodhart and Jared Edgerton

(One common definition of order foregrounds predictability. The graphic above shows fluctuations in predictability since WWII.)

The concept of international order is enjoying a renaissance in academic
and policy debates, but two problems impede the development of this promising area of research. First, the term is often used without clear definition, lending it more talismanic than analytical value. Researchers often motivate their object of study as important for its impact on the international order, without operationalizing order in their analysis.
Second, where the term is used in a clearly defined way, researchers generally lack the data necessary to test statistical hypotheses about how orders form, change, and relate to key outcomes of interest. As a result, researchers talk past each other, hindering a more cumulative research program. This article addresses both problems by outlining three of
the most common definitions of international order, explaining their logics, and generating new quantitative measures for the post-World War II period. We do not privilege a particular ontological conception of order as more correct than the others or prejudge the effect of international order on outcomes in international relations. Rather than making theoretical or causal claims, this paper quantifies "international order" with the intention
to catalyze a more robust scientific research program on this important subject.