Democracy, autocracy and the likelihood of international conflict

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 10 - Trang 99-117 - 2008
Thomas P. Tangerås1
1Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm, Sweden

Tóm tắt

This is a game-theoretic analysis of the link between regime type and international conflict. Democratic leaders can credibly be punished for bad conflict outcomes, whereas autocratic leaders cannot. Due to the fear of being thrown out of office, democratic leaders are (i) more selective about the wars they initiate and (ii) on average win more of the wars they start. Foreign policy behaviour is found to display strategic complementarities. Therefore, the likelihood of interstate war is lowest in the democratic dyad (pair), highest in the autocratic dyad with the mixed dyad in between. The results are consistent with empirical findings.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Babst D (1964) Elective governments: a force for peace. Wis Sociol 3: 9–14 Baliga S, Lucca DO, Sjöström T (2007) Domestic political survival and international conflict: is democracy good for peace? mimeo. Northwestern University, Evanston Bester H, Wärneryd K (2006) Conflict and the social contract. Scand J Econ 108: 231–249 Bremer SA (1992) Dangerous dyads: conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. J Confl Resolut 36: 309–341 Bueno de Mesquita B, Lalman D (1992) War and reason. Yale University Press, New Haven Bueno de Mesquita B, Siverson RM (1995) War and the survival of political leaders: a comparative study of regime types and political accountability. Am Polit Sci Rev 89: 841–855 Bueno de Mesquita B, Siverson RM, Woller G (1992) War and the fate of regimes: a comparative analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev 86: 638–646 Bueno de Mesquita B, Morrow JD, Siverson RM, Smith A (1999) An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. Am Polit Sci Rev 93: 791–807 Bueno de Mesquita B, Smith A, Siverson RM, Morrow JD (2003) The logic of political survival. MIT Press, Cambridge Chan S (1984) Mirror, mirror on the wall... are the freer countries more pacific. J Confl Resolut 28: 617–648 Chiozza G, Goemans HE (2004) International conflict and the tenure of leaders: is war still ex post inefficient. Am J Polit Sci 48: 604–619 Downs GW, Rocke DM (1994) Conflict, agency and the gambling for resurrection: the principal-agent model goes to war. Am J Polit Sci 38: 362–380 Garfinkel M (1994) Domestic politics and international conflict. Am Econ Rev 84: 1294–1309 Gelpi C (1997) Democratic diversions: governmental structure and the externalization of domestic conflict. J Confl Resolut 41: 255–282 Gurr TR (1974) Persistence and change in political systems, 1800–1971. Am Polit Sci Rev 68: 1482–1504 Harsanyi JC, Selten R (1988) A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. MIT Press, Cambridge Hess GD, Orphanides A (1995) War politics: an economic, rational-voter framework. Am Econ Rev 85: 828–846 Hess GD, Orphanides A (2001) War and democracy. J Polit Econ 109: 776–810 Huntington SP (1989) No exit: the errors of endism. Natl Interest 17: 3–11 Huth P, Russett B (1993) General deterrence between enduring rivals: testing three competing models. Am Polit Sci Rev 87: 61–73 Jackson MO, Morelli M (2007) Political bias and war. Am Econ Rev 97: 1353–1373 Leeds BA (1999) Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation. Am J Polit Sci 43: 979–1002 Leeds BA, Davis DR (1999) Beneath the surface: regime type and international interaction. J Peace Res 36: 5–21 Levy G, Razin R (2004) It takes two: an explanation for the democratic peace. J Eur Econ Assoc 2: 1–29 Maoz Z, Abdolali N (1989) Regime types and international conflict, 1816–1976. J Confl Resolut 33: 3–35 Maoz Z, Russett B (1992) Alliance, contiguity, wealth and political stability: is the lack of conflict among democracies a statistical artifact. Int Interact 17: 245–267 Maoz Z, Russett B (1993) Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. Am Polit Sci Rev 87: 624–638 Morgan TC, Campbell SH (1991) Domestic structure, decisional constraints and war: so why Kant democracies fight. J Confl Resolut 35: 187–211 Mueller J (1989) Retreat from doomsday: the obsolence of major war. Basic Books, New York Oneal JR, Oneal FH, Maoz Z, Russett B (1996) The liberal peace: interdependence, democracy, and international conflict, 1950–85. J Peace Res 33: 11–28 Peceny M, Beer CC, Sanchez-Terry S (2002) Dictatorial peace. Am Polit Sci Rev 96: 15–26 Ray JL (1989) Global politics, 4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Reiter D (1995) Exploding the powder keg myth: preemptive wars almost never happen. Int Secur 20: 5–34 Reiter D, Stam III AC (1998) Democracy, war initiation and victory. Am Polit Sci Rev 92: 377–389 Richards D, Morgan TC, Wilson R, Schwebach V, Young G (1993) Good times, bad times and the diversionary use of force: a tale of some not-so-free agents. J Confl Resolut 37: 504–535 Rousseau DL, Gelpi C, Reiter D, Huth PK (1996) Assessing the nature of the democratic peace, 1918–88. Am Polit Sci Rev 90: 512–533 Shirk S (1993) The political logic of reform in China. University of California Press, Berkeley Small M, Singer JD (1982) Resort to arms: international and civil wars, 1816–1980. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills Smith A (1993) Diversionary foreign policy in democratic systems. Int Stud Q 40: 133–153 Ward MD, Siverson RM, Cao X (2007) Disputes, democracies and dependencies: a reexamination of the Kantian peace. Am J Polit Sci 51: 583–601 Werner S (2000) The effects of political similarity on the onset of militarized disputes, 1816–1985. Polit Res Q 53: 343–374 Wintrobe R (1998) The political economy of dictatorship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge