Institutional Instability and the Credibility of Audience Costs: Political Participation and Interstate Crisis Bargaining, 1816-1992

While considerable empirical evidence shows democratic dyads to be less prone to violence than other types of regime pairs, disagreement still exists on the causal factors inhibiting conflict among democratic states. Some scholars have concluded that increased attention needs to be given to identifying specific characteristics of democratic states that might mitigate or incite coercive foreign policy actions. This article begins to pull apart the Polity IIId regime index by assessing the role of political participation in crisis bargaining. If the ability of opposition groups to challenge government policies enables state leaders to communicate credibly their intentions and thus avoid conflict, increased attention needs to be given to the permanence of such structural features of the domestic political environment. What may facilitate efficient signaling is not only competitive political participation, but also the enduring nature of such participation. Regimes that oscillate between severe restrictions on political participation and regulated competition engage in more escalatory behavior because they fail to signal their preferences effectively. The results indicate that while democracy has little effect on MID reciprocation, factionalism among domestic political groups tends to be strongly associated with such a dispute response. Contiguity, military balance, and years at peace also appear to influence dispute reciprocation.

[1]  William R. Thompson,et al.  A Tale of Two Democratic Peace Critiques , 1997 .

[2]  H. Hegre,et al.  The Hazard of War: Reassessing the Evidence for the Democratic Peace , 1997 .

[3]  Peter J. Partell,et al.  Audience Costs and Interstate Crises: An Empirical Assessment of Fearon's Model of Dispute Outcomes , 1999 .

[4]  Brett Ashley Leeds,et al.  Domestic Political Vulnerability and International Disputes , 1997 .

[5]  N. P. Gleditsch,et al.  Timing the Changes in Political Structures , 1998 .

[6]  N. P. Gleditsch Geography, democracy, and peace , 1995 .

[7]  J. Fearon Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes , 1994, American Political Science Review.

[8]  Reinhard Wolf,et al.  Democratization and the Danger of War , 1995 .

[9]  M. Albright The Testing of American Foreign Policy , 1998 .

[10]  L. R. Reed,et al.  A unified statistical model of conflict onset and escalation American Journal of Political Science 4 , 2000 .

[11]  Strobe Talbott Democracy and the National Interest , 1996 .

[12]  T. Gurr Polity II : Political Structures and Regime Change, 1880-1986 , 1992 .

[13]  William J. Dixon,et al.  Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict , 1994, American Political Science Review.

[14]  Jack Snyder From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict , 2000 .

[15]  J. David Singer,et al.  Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns , 1996 .

[16]  Kenneth A. Schultz Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises , 1998, American Political Science Review.

[17]  William J. Dixon,et al.  Democracy and the Management of International Conflict , 1993 .

[18]  D. Scott Bennett,et al.  Testing Alternative Models of Alliance Duration, 1816-1984 , 1997 .

[19]  R. Hart,et al.  An Empirical Test of The Audience Cost Proposition , 1996 .

[20]  Z. Maoz,et al.  Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1976 , 1984 .

[21]  Nils Petter Gleditsch,et al.  Shared rivers and interstate conflict , 2000 .

[22]  Christopher Sprecher,et al.  Institutional Constraints, Political Opposition, And Interstate Dispute Escalation: Evidence from Parliamentary Systems, 1946-89 , 1999 .

[23]  D. S. Bennett,et al.  Research Design and Estimator Choices in the Analysis of Interstate Dyads , 2000 .

[24]  S. Gartner,et al.  Time to Fight , 2001 .

[25]  Michael D. Ward,et al.  Double Take , 1997 .

[26]  J. Gowa Democratic states and international disputes , 1995, International Organization.

[27]  Dan Reiter,et al.  Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88 , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[28]  K. Gleditsch,et al.  War and Peace in Space and Time: The Role of Democratization , 2000 .

[29]  Peter J. Partell Executive Constraints and Success in International Crises , 1997 .

[30]  Gregory A. Raymond Democracies, Disputes, and Third-Party Intermediaries , 1994 .