Cited by 67

Preferential Attachment, Homophily, and the Structure of International Networks, 1816–2003

Maoz, Zeev·2012·Conflict Management and Peace Science

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which network formation processes in international relations parallel models that characterize the formation processes of physical, biological, and social networks. I introduce two influential models from networks sciences: Preferential Attachment (PA) models state that the probability of a new node forming a link with an existing node is a function of the latter node’s centrality. Networks that form through a PA process tend to have a power-law degree distribution. The Homophily (HO) model states that nodes tend to attach to similar other nodes. Such networks evolve into a set of homogenous subgroups. An analysis of alliance and trade networks over the 1816 (1870)–2003 period reveals strong evidence that alliance networks are affected by homophily processes. Trade networks form via a preferential attachment process. The tendency of international networks to evolve according to such processes increases over time. I discuss the implications of these results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0738894212443344

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This kind of 'preferential attachment' can have large impacts on network structures, which could include AI systems assuming a more critical and central role than intended, or leading to an unequal distribution of resources or power.

    “This kind of 'preferential attachment' can have large impacts on network structures (Kunegis et al., 2013; Maoz, 2012), which could include AI systems assuming a more critical and central role than intended, or leading to an unequal distribution of resources or power (see Section 4.3).”

    From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Maoz, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maoz, Z.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis and Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel
Venue
Conflict Management and Peace Science
Published
2012-07
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
341-369
ISSN
  • 0738-8942
  • 1549-9219
Cited by
67
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review