In spite of the limitations discussed, this research is groundbreaking in terms of scope and potential predictive power. It gives policymakers firm tools by which to make decisions instead of relying on qualitative “in this case” or “if we had only known.” Anyone can read a history book to learn about a specific outcome. But to be able to track the outcome of the country as a whole has the potential to provide a whole new range of tools with wide applicability.
The relative insignificance of standard measures in predicting whether coercive diplomacy will fail is as noteworthy as the significance of Hofstede’s cultural variables. The dimensions invite entirely new explanations in international relations theory.
Further research going forward should explore the effect of multilateral coercive efforts, and should seek to expand the granularity applied by qualitative scholars to a wider scope of time, encompassing a pre and post Cold War environment. Broadening the scope can only increase the effectiveness of the model in describing what elements ought to be present in order to expect successful coercive outcomes.