The "hearts and minds" model of combating rebellions holds that civilians are less likely to support violent opposition groups if the government provides public services and security. Building on this model, we argue that a political event that raises popular expectations of future public service and security provision increases support for the government and decreases sympathy for violent opposition groups. To test this argument, we leverage a unique research design opportunity that stems from the unforeseen announcement of the resignation of Iraq's divisive prime minister in August 2014 while an original survey was being administered across the country. We show that the leadership transition led Iraq's displeased Sunni Arab minority to shift support from the violent opposition to the government. In line with our argument, this realignment was due to rising optimism among Sunni Arabs that the new government would provide services and public goods-specifically security, electricity, and jobs.

No abstract

In this article, the history of regulation in pensions in the United Kingdom is analysed, in particular with respect to defined benefit occupational pension schemes. A framework of criteria for effective legislation is developed. The original prudent person rule provided a good framework for legislation, but most subsequent regulation that has been enacted does not meet our criteria. Recently regulation has increased the cost and risk of individual schemes and the systemic risk in the system as a whole. The article finds that, in totality, regulation has been disastrous for these schemes, contributing to their demise. The article concludes by briefly outlining how effective regulation might have developed to produce a flexible and resilient system.

No abstract

Power-sharing arrangements between a leader and a popular outsider can be mutually beneficial and threatening. The literature has focused primarily on the former’s trade-off where a leader gains legitimacy when sharing power with a respected outsider but also subsequently creates a rival who could challenge their rule. Yet this outsider also faces a simultaneous trade-off between power and credibility in acquiescing to the leadership. I incorporate both coinciding trade-offs in developing a formal model to examine such power-sharing arrangements which have been prevalent historically and currently. I illustrate a ‘discontinuity’ in optimal power sharing where a leader either shares nothing or shares a specific amount to compensate the rival for the rival’s lost credibility. Counterintuitively, I further show that the leader should share more power with less trustworthy rivals to reduce their strong incentives to challenge. I then revisit the Investiture Controversy in medieval Europe using these insights from the model.