Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Illusion of Democratic Credibility

  • Alexander B. Downes (a1) and Todd S. Sechser (a2)
Abstract

Do democracies make more effective coercive threats? An influential literature in international relations argues that democratic institutions allow leaders to credibly signal their resolve in crises, thereby making their threats more likely to work than threats by nondemocracies. This article revisits the quantitative evidence for this proposition, which we call the “democratic credibility hypothesis,” and finds that it is surprisingly weak. Close examination of the data sets most commonly used to test this hypothesis reveals that they contain few successful democratic threats, or indeed threats of any kind. Moreover, these data sets' outcome variables do not properly measure the effectiveness of threats, and therefore yield misleading results. The article then reassesses the democratic credibility hypothesis using the Militarized Compellent Threats data set, a new data set designed specifically to test hypotheses about the effectiveness of coercive threats. The analysis indicates that threats from democracies are no more successful than threats from other states.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Art, Robert J., and Cronin, Patrick M., eds. 2003. The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace.
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan C.. 2000. A Universal Test of an Expected Utility Theory of War. International Studies Quarterly 44 (3):451–80.
Boix, Carles, and Rosato, Sebastian. 2001. A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–1999. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago.
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1):6382.
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2004. Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms. International Organization 58 (4):807–20.
Brecher, Michael, and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 1997. A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Brown, Jonathan N., and Marcum, Anthony. 2011. Avoiding Audience Costs: Domestic Political Accountability and Concessions in Crisis Diplomacy. Security Studies 20 (2):141–70.
Cheibub, José Antonio, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2010. Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice 143 (1-2):67101.
Clare, Joe. 2007. Domestic Audiences and Strategic Interests. Journal of Politics 69 (3):732–45.
Correlates of War 2 Project. 2004. Dispute Narratives—MID 3.0 Dataset. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Danilovic, Vesna. 2002. When the Stakes Are High: Deterrence and Conflict Among Major Powers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Desch, Michael C. 2008. Power and Military Effectiveness: The Fallacy of Democratic Triumphalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Downes, Alexander B. 2009. How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of Democratic Victory in War. International Security 33 (4):951.
Eyerman, Joe, and Hart, Robert A. Jr. 1996. An Empirical Test of the Audience Cost Proposition: Democracy Speaks Louder Than Words. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (4):597616.
Fang, Songying. 2008. The Informational Role of International Institutions and Domestic Politics. American Journal of Political Science 52 (2):304–21.
Fearon, James D. 1994. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. American Political Science Review 88 (3):577–92.
Fearon, James D. 1995. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49 (3):379414.
Fearon, James D. 1997. Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands Versus Sinking Costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1):6890.
Finel, Bernard I., and Lord, Kristin M.. 1999. The Surprising Logic of Transparency. International Studies Quarterly 43 (2):315–39.
Gelpi, Christopher, and Griesdorf, Michael. 2001. Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94. American Political Science Review 95 (3):633–47.
Guisinger, Alexandra, and Smith, Alastair. 2002. Honest Threats: The Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (2):175200.
Haynes, Kyle. Forthcoming. Lame Ducks and Coercive Diplomacy: Do Executive Term Limits Reduce the Effectiveness of Democratic Threats? Journal of Conflict Resolution.
Huth, Paul K., and Russett, Bruce. 1984. What Makes Deterrence Work? Cases from 1900 to 1980. World Politics 36 (4):496526.
Huth, Paul K., and Russett, Bruce. 1990. Testing Deterrence Theory: Rigor Makes a Difference. World Politics 42 (4):466501.
Indian Ministry of External Affairs. 1959. Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged and Agreements Signed by the Governments of India and China, Volume I: 1954–1959. New Delhi, India: Indian Ministry of External Affairs.
Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 1995. Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data. Journal of Peace Research 32 (4):469–82.
Jones, Daniel M., Bremer, Stuart A., and Singer, J. David. 1996. Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15 (2):163213.
Juhász, Gyula. 1979. Hungarian Foreign Policy 1919–1945. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347–61.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lebow, Richard Ned, and Stein, Janice Gross. 1990. Deterrence: The Elusive Dependent Variable. World Politics 42 (3):336–69.
Lipson, Charles. 2003. Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Lyall, Jason. 2010. Do Democracies Make Inferior Counterinsurgents? Reassessing Democracy's Impact on War Outcomes and Duration. International Organization 64 (1):167–92.
Mansfield, Edward D., Milner, Helen V., and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2002. Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. International Organization 56 (3):477513.
Mansfield, Edward D., and Snyder, Jack. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Martin, Lisa L. 2000. Democratic Commitments: Legislatures and International Cooperation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
McDougall, Walter A. 1978. France's Rhineland Diplomacy, 1914–1924: The Last Bid for a Balance of Power in Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Merom, Gil. 2003. How Democracies Lose Small Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Narang, Vipin, and Nelson, Rebecca M.. 2009. Who Are These Belligerent Democratizers? Reassessing the Impact of Democratization on War. International Organization 63 (2):357–79.
Partell, Peter J. 1997. Executive Constraints and Success in International Crises. Political Research Quarterly 50 (3):503–28.
Partell, Peter J., and Palmer, Glenn. 1999. Audience Costs and Interstate Crises: An Empirical Assessment of Fearon's Model of Dispute Outcomes. International Studies Quarterly 43 (2):389406.
Pemstein, Daniel, Meserve, Stephen A., and Melton, James. 2010. Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type. Political Analysis 18 (4):426–49.
Popper, Karl R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Pregibon, Daryl. 1981. Logistic Regression Diagnostics. Annals of Statistics 9 (4):705–24.
Prins, Brandon C. 2003. Institutional Instability and the Credibility of Audience Costs: Political Participation and Interstate Crisis Bargaining, 1816–1992. Journal of Peace Research 40 (1):6784.
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Cheibub, José Antonio, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ramsay, Kristopher W. 2004. Politics at the Water's Edge: Crisis Bargaining and Electoral Competition. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (4):459–86.
Reiter, Dan, and Stam, Allan C.. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Rioux, Jean-Sébastien. 1998. A Crisis-Based Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition. Canadian Journal of Political Science 31 (2):263–83.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585602.
Ross, Robert S. 2003. The 1995–96 Taiwan Strait Confrontation: Coercion, Credibility, and Use of Force. In The United States and Coercive Diplomacy, edited by Art, Robert J. and Cronin, Patrick M., 225273. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace.
Sartori, Anne E. 2005. Deterrence by Diplomacy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Schultz, Kenneth A. 1998. Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises. American Political Science Review 92 (4):829–44.
Schultz, Kenneth A. 1999. Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War. International Organization 53 (2):233–66.
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sechser, Todd S. 2010. Goliath's Curse: Coercive Threats and Asymmetric Power. International Organization 64 (4):627–60.
Sechser, Todd S. 2011. Militarized Compellent Threats, 1918–2001. Conflict Management and Peace Science 28 (4):377401.
Slantchev, Branislav L. 2006. Politicians, the Media, and Domestic Audience Costs. International Studies Quarterly 50 (2):445–77.
Smith, Alastair. 1998. International Crises and Domestic Politics. American Political Science Review 92 (3):623–38.
Snyder, Jack, and Borghard, Erica. 2011. The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound. American Political Science Review 105 (3):437–56.
Sullivan, Patricia Lynne, and Gartner, Scott Sigmund. 2006. Disaggregating Peace: Domestic Politics and Dispute Outcomes. International Interactions 32 (1):125.
Swanson, John C. 2001. The Remnants of the Habsburg Monarchy: The Shaping of Modern Austria and Hungary, 1918–1922. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tarar, Ahmer, and Leventoğlu, Bahar. 2009. Public Commitment in Crisis Bargaining. International Studies Quarterly 53 (3):817–39.
Tomz, Michael. 2007. Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach. International Organization 61 (4):821–40.
Tomz, Michael, and Weeks, Jessica. 2009. MIDipedia: An Expanded Database of Militarized Interstate Disputes. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif./Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Trachtenberg, Marc. 1980. Reparation in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Trachtenberg, Marc. 2012. Audience Costs: An Historical Analysis. Security Studies 21 (1):342.
Trager, Robert F., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2011. The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Presidential Rhetoric and the Role of Party. American Journal of Political Science 55 (3):526–45.
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2000. A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research 37 (2):251–65.
Weeks, Jessica L. 2008. Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve. International Organization 62 (1):3564.
Weiss, Jessica Chen. Forthcoming. Autocratic Signaling and Nationalist Protest in China. International Organization.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 20
Total number of PDF views: 351 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1342 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.