Format:
graph. Darst., Tab., Lit.Hinw.
ISSN:
0043-8871
Content:
The authors tested five novel hypotheses derived from the selectorate theory of war with data for up to about 140 states and spanning the years 1816 - 1993. The hypotheses point to subtle differences in selection effects across regime types that should operate during crises that fall short of war and also during wars. Leaders who rely on a large coalition (such as democrats) to remain in office are shown to be more selective than their small-coalition counterparts in their willingness to fight wars when the odds of victory are not overwhelming. They are also more selective than their small-coalition counterparts in their willingness to take part in disputes that fall short of war when the odds are not exceptionally favorable. However, they are less selective about this form of participation than they are about war. Small-coalition leaders show no such selectivity in their preparedness to engage in disputes short of war or in war as a function of their odds of victory. These results hold whether the odds of victory are assessed continuously or whether they are based on a specific threshold. The authors also find, in keeping with the selectorate theory, that if a war fails to resolve quickly, democrats try harder than autocrats to win. And when the war is over, democrats demobilize much more slowly than autocrats. (World Politics / SWP)
In:
World politics, Baltimore, MD : John Hopkins University Press, 1949, 56(2004), 3, Seite 363-388, 0043-8871
In:
volume:56
In:
year:2004
In:
number:3
In:
pages:363-388
Language:
English
