Democratic peace and the norms of the public: a multilevel analysis of the relationship between regime type and citizens’ bellicosity, 1981–2008

Jakobsen, Jo; Jakobsen, Tor Georg; Ekevold, Eirin Rande

doi:10.1017/s0260210516000097

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implication of democratic peace theory at the micro-level is that individuals who have a strong preference for democracy should be less supportive of war especially when other democracies are involved. Previous works have found some evidence in support of this expectation (Inglehart, Puranen, and Welzel 2015;Jakobsen, Jakobsen, and Ekevold 2016;Puranen 2015). The variable support for democracy captures participants' views on whether a democratic political system is a good way to govern their country, with choice options anchored by 'Very good (coded 4)' and 'Very bad (coded 1)'.…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 76%

Nationalist cosmopolitanism: the psychology of cosmopolitanism, national identity, and going to war for the country

Bayram

2018

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A frequently expressed criticism of cosmopolitanism by liberal nationalist theorists is that its moral universalism is incompatible with national identity and patriotic obligations, defined as obligations to the nation and to fellow nationals. While some scholars of cosmopolitanism agree with this incompatibility argument, others contend that nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and patriotic duties are not rivals. However, few efforts have been made to examine the relationship between cosmopolitanism, nationalism, and patriotic obligations at the level of individual people. Drawing fresh insights from psychological approaches to social identity, I argue that cosmopolitan individuals have an integrated dual identity that embodies both nationalism and world citizenship, and this dual identity is compatible with patriotic obligations. Using data from the 2010–2014, round of the Word Values Survey, I show that cosmopolitans who identify as world citizens also identify with the nation and are willing to perform the ultimate patriotic sacrifice of going to war to defend their country. Upending certain convention wisdoms, this result indicates that cosmopolitan and national identities are compatible and cosmopolitan identity does not hinder patriotic obligations.

show abstract

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 76%

Nationalist cosmopolitanism: the psychology of cosmopolitanism, national identity, and going to war for the country

Bayram

2018

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A handful of empirical studies have investigated the determinants of war willingness (Anderson, Getmansky, & Hirsch-Hoefler, in press;Diener & Tov, 2007;Inglehart et al, 2015;Jakobsen et al, 2016;Paez et al, 2008;Puranen, 2014;Torgler, 2003). One of these, while focusing mainly on the impact of regime type, also includes a dummy for the presence of US troops (with a 1,000-troops threshold), which, in their multilevel analysis, is shown to suppress war willingness somewhat (Jakobsen et al, 2016). In the next section, we follow up on this finding, investigating more extensively the relationship between military-security ties with the US and non-material burden-sharing and free-riding.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the "rule of three," which recommends parsimonious models (Achen, 2005), the first batch uses three theoretically salient controls. First, we control for level of democracy, which is vital given previous findings that regime type helps shape cititzens' norms regarding the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy (Jakobsen et al, 2016). The Polity Democracy Index-named democracy here-is extracted from the Polity IV Project and runs from −10 (full autocracy) to + 10 (full democracy) (Marshall, Gurr, & Jaggers, 2010).…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tripwires and free-riders: Do forward-deployed U.S. troops reduce the willingness of host-country citizens to fight for their country?

Jakobsen

2018

Contemporary Security Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the relationship between U.S. overseas troops and the willingness of the citizens of host states to fight for their country. The study joins the long-running debate about burden-sharing and free-riding among U.S. allies. Unlike most previous empirical studies, we focus on non-material or intangible measures of the underlying concepts. Our dependent variable estimates the proportion of citizens expressing a willingness to fight for their country. Scores at the aggregate-national as well as the individual level are shaped by the presence of U.S. military forces, which act as a "tripwire" signaling credible security commitments. This increases opportunities of (nonmaterial) free-riding. We present both bivariate and multivariate analyses covering the period 1981-2014 to test this supposition. Findings indicate that once U.S. troop levels reach a certain threshold (between 100 and 500 troops), citizens' willingness to fight drops significantly. This likely reflects non-material free-riding. KEYWORDS Willingness to fight; U.S. troops; free-riding; burden-sharing; tripwire; U.S. military bases This article investigates to what extent the war willingness of a country's citizens, through processes of non-material or intangible "free-riding," is affected by the stationing of U.S. troops in that country. We will thus shed some light on the recent and ongoing debate about burden-sharing and free-riding among allies of the United States (Dombrowski & Reich, 2017; Kaufman, 2017). Current U.S. President Donald Trump has certainly ratcheted up the rhetoric on this issue, consistently lamenting the lack of defense efforts by allies and even issuing ambiguous threats to withdraw from alliance commitments unless defense efforts are shared more equitably (New York Times, 2017). Still, the debate represents nothing new; claims of free-riding (and counter-claims as well) have for decades affected Washington's alliance relationships (Ringsmose,

show abstract

“…Liberal theory argues that because of these differences in government organization, democracies will behave more peacefully than will authoritarian systems (Bausch 2015;Jakobsen et al 2016). The difficulty of building a consensus among a larger set of actors and mobilizing them for conflict constrains the war-making abilities of democratic leaders.…”

Section: Internal Factors and Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis

Lantis¹,

Beasley²

2017

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day foreign interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). Scholars explore the causes of these behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision making in comparative perspective. In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons to government leaders. This article surveys the evolution of CFP as a subfield over time, with special attention to its contributions to academic understanding and policymaking. It begins with a review of the characteristics and contributions of CFP, followed by acknowledgment of early works that helped establish this area of study. The next section of the article reviews major thematic focuses of CFP, including theories of international pressures and factors that may drive state foreign policy as well as strong foundations in studies of domestic politics. Key internal actors and conditions that can influence state foreign policies include individual leaders, institutions and legislatures, bureaucratic organizations and government agencies, and public opinion and nongovernmental organizations. Following this survey of actors and contemporary theories of their role in foreign policy decision-making, the article develops two illustrations of new directions in CFP studies focused on political party factions and role theory in comparative perspective.

show abstract

Democratic peace and the norms of the public: a multilevel analysis of the relationship between regime type and citizens’ bellicosity, 1981–2008

Cited by 19 publications

References 72 publications

Nationalist cosmopolitanism: the psychology of cosmopolitanism, national identity, and going to war for the country

Nationalist cosmopolitanism: the psychology of cosmopolitanism, national identity, and going to war for the country

Tripwires and free-riders: Do forward-deployed U.S. troops reduce the willingness of host-country citizens to fight for their country?

Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About