Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:49:55.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revolution, Personalist Dictatorships, and International Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2014

Jeff D. Colgan  and
Jessica L.P. Weeks
Get access

Abstract

A consensus exists that countries that have recently undergone domestic political revolutions are particularly likely to become involved in military conflicts with other states. However, scholars seek to understand when and why revolutions increase the likelihood of international violence. In contrast to existing work focusing on international systemic factors, we argue that revolution fosters conflict in part by affecting states’ domestic political structures. Previous research has shown that revolution tends to bring particularly aggressive leaders to power. We demonstrate that revolutions also frequently result in personalist dictatorships, or regimes that lack powerful institutions to constrain and punish leaders. By empowering and ensconcing leaders with revisionist preferences and high risk tolerance, revolutions that result in personalist dictatorships are significantly more likely to lead to international conflict than revolutions that culminate in other forms of government. Our arguments and evidence help explain not only why revolution so commonly leads to conflict, but also why some revolutions lead to conflict whereas others do not.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Organization , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , Winter 2015 , pp. 163 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors are grateful for feedback on earlier drafts from panel participants at the 2010 APSA annual meeting, the 2011 Peace Science Society meeting, and the 2012 ISA meeting. We also thank Michael Horowitz, Michael McKoy, Cliff Morgan, Dustin Tingley, Silvana Toska, Nicole Weygandt, and our anonymous reviewers for invaluable feedback. Finally, we appreciate the excellent research assistance of Joud Fariz and Kira Mochal. All errors remain our own.

Editor's note: This manuscript was evaluated by the previous editorial team based at the University of Toronto.

References

Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4):1260–88.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott. 1998. Integrating and Testing Models of Rivalry Duration. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4):1200–32.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan. 2003. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bratton, Michael, and Van de Walle, Nicolas. 1997. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byman, Daniel L., and Pollack, Kenneth M.. 2001. Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security 25 (4):107–46.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R. Charli. 2007. Studying Issue (Non)-Adoption in Transnational Networks. International Organization 61 (3):643–67.Google Scholar
Carter, David B., and Signorino, Curtis S.. 2010. Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data. Political Analysis 18 (3):271–92.Google Scholar
Carter, Jeff, Bernhard, Michael, and Palmer, Glenn. 2012. Social Revolution, the State, and War: How Revolutions Affect War-Making Capacity and Interstate War Outcomes. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56 (3):439–66.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T., ed. 2013. Transnational Dynamics of Civil War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chiozza, Giacomo, and Goemans, H.E.. 2011. Leaders and International Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2011. Oil and Resource-Backed Aggression. Energy Policy 39:1669–76.Google Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2012. Measuring Revolution. Conflict Management and Peace Science 29 (4):444–67.Google Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2013a. Domestic Revolutionary Leaders and International Conflict. World Politics 65 (4):656–90.Google Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2013b. Petro-Aggression: When Oil Causes War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enterline, Andrew J. 1998. Regime Changes and Interstate Conflict, 1816–1992. Political Research Quarterly 51 (2):385–409.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49 (3):379–414.Google Scholar
Frantz, Erica. 2008. Tying the Dictator's Hands: Elite Coalitions in Authoritarian Regimes. PhD diss., University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara, Wright, Joseph, and Frantz, Erica. 2011. Global Political Regimes Data Set. Available at <http://dictators.la.psu.edu/>. Accessed 22 November 2011..+Accessed+22+November+2011.>Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede. 2002. Expanded Trade and GDP Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (5):712–24.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, and Ward, Michael D.. 2006. Diffusion and the International Context of Democratization. International Organization 60 (4):911–33.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, Idean Salehyan, and Schultz, Kenneth. 2008. Fighting at Home, Fighting Abroad: How Civil Wars Lead to International Disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (4):479–506.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Peter Wallensteen, Mikael Eriksson, Margareta Sollenberg, and Strand, Håvard. 2002. Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset. Journal of Peace Research 39 (5):615–37.Google Scholar
Goemans, Henk E., Skrede Gleditsch, Kristian, and Chiozza, Giacomo. 2009. Introducing Archigos: A Data Set of Political Leaders. Journal of Peace Research 46 (2):269–83.Google Scholar
Goldgeier, James M., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 2001. Psychology and International Relations Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 4:67–92.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. 1997. Revolution, War, and Security. Security Studies 6 (2):127–51.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff. 2001. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne S. 2000. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gurr, Ted R. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gurr, Ted R. 1988. War, Revolution, and the Growth of the Coercive State. Comparative Political Studies 21 (1):45–65.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie. 2013. Making Human Rights a Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hegre, Håvard. 2000. Development and the Liberal Peace: What Does It Take to Be a Trading State? Journal of Peace Research 37 (1):5–30.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Michael C., and Stam, Allan C.. 2014. How Prior Military Experience Influences The Future Militarized Behavior of Leaders. Working paper. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. 2011. The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jenne, Erin, and Mylonas, Harris. 2012. Taking Sides in Revolutionary Times: Explaining Major Power Interventions in Regime Conflicts. Paper prepared for the 108th annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
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):163–213.Google Scholar
Klein, James P., Goertz, Gary, and Diehl, Paul F.. 2006. The New Rivalry Dataset: Procedures and Patterns. Journal of Peace Research 43 (3):331–48.Google Scholar
Lai, Brian, and Slater, Dan. 2006. Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):113–26.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James H., and Voeten, Erik. 2009. The Cost of Shame: International Organizations and Foreign Aid in the Punishing of Human Rights Violators. Journal of Peace Research, 46 (1):79–97.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2008. Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule. Comparative Political Studies 41 (4/5):715–41.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Snyder, Jack L.. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev. 1996. Domestic Sources of Global Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev. 2005. Dyadic Militarized Interstate Disputes Dataset Version 2.0. Available at <http://vanity.dss.ucdavis.edu/~maoz/dyadmid.html>. Accessed 16 November 2012..+Accessed+16+November+2012.>Google Scholar
Masterson, Daniel M. 1991. Militarism and Politics in Latin America: Peru from Sánchez Cerro to Sendero Luminoso. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. Clifton, and Campbell, Sally Howard. 1991. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight? Journal of Conflict Resolution 35(2):187–211.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Most, Benjamin A., and Starr, Harvey. 1989. Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Oneal, John R., Russett, Bruce M., and Berbaum, Michael L.. 2003. Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992. International Studies Quarterly 47 (3):371–93.Google Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Tir, Jaroslav. 2006. Does the Diversionary Use of Force Threaten the Democratic Peace? Assessing the Effect of Economic Growth on Interstate Conflict, 1921–2001. International Studies Quarterly 50 (4):755–79.Google Scholar
Reiter, Dan, and Stam, Allan C.. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M., and Oneal, John R.. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Salehyan, Idean. 2009. Rebels Without Borders: Transnational Insurgencies in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, Elizabeth N. 2011. Leaders at War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn. 2011. The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1988. Social Revolutions and Mass Military Mobilization. World Politics 40(2):147–68.Google Scholar
Slantchev, Branislav L. 2003. The Principle of Convergence in Wartime Negotiations. American Political Science Review 97 (4):621–32.Google Scholar
Steinberg, David, and Malhotra, Krishan. 2014. The Effect of Authoritarian Regime Type on Exchange Rate Policy. World Politics. 66(3): 491–529.Google Scholar
Stinnett, Douglas M., and Diehl, Paul F.. 2001. The Path(s) to Rivalry: Behavioral and Structural Explanations of Rivalry Development. Journal of Politics 63 (3):717–40.Google Scholar
Stinnett, Douglas M., Tir, Jaroslav, Schafer, Philip, Diehl, Paul F., Schafer, Philip, and Gochman, Charles. 2002. The Correlates of War (COW) Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19 (2):59–67.Google Scholar
Svolik, Milan W. 2009. Power Sharing and Leadership Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):477–94.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (1):1–30.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1996. Revolution and War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Walter, Barbara F. 2009. Reputation and Civil War: Why Separatist Conflicts Are So Violent. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weeks, Jessica L. 2008. Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve. International Organization 62 (1):35–64.Google Scholar
Weeks, Jessica L. 2012. Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict. American Political Science Review 106 (2):326–47.Google Scholar
Weeks, Jessica L. 2014. Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Colgan and Weeks replication data

Colgan/Weeks replication

http://iojournal.org/revolution-personalist-dictatorships-and-international-conflict
Link
Supplementary material: File

Colgan and Weeks supplementary material

Supplementary Appendix and data

Download Colgan and Weeks supplementary material(File)
File 167.4 MB