Nav: Home

Democracies are more prone to start wars -- except when they're not

July 23, 2018

What kind of political leader is most likely to start a war--an invective-spewing dictator or the elected head of a democratic nation? Surprisingly, science says it's probably not the autocrat.

Leaders of democratic nations actually have stronger incentives to start and exacerbate conflicts with other countries than their autocratic counterparts, suggests a new study to be published by the American Journal of Political Science.

The difference boils down to public pressure, say the study's authors, Michael Gibilisco of Caltech and Casey Crisman-Cox of Texas A&M University. Because of pressure from voters to not back down and appear weak, democratic leaders tend to act more aggressively in international conflicts. An autocrat, on the other hand, is answerable to no one and can back down from a conflict without facing personal consequences.

"If an elected leader makes a threat during a conflict with another country and the threat isn't followed through, they may face a decrease in approval ratings, or they may lose an election," says Gibilisco, assistant professor of political science. In democracies, he notes, voters can punish their leaders for appearing weak--these punishments or consequences are known as "audience costs" in political science parlance. To avoid those costs, leaders in representative governments become more aggressive during disputes.

In their study, Gibilisco and Crisman-Cox, who is also an assistant professor of political science, first developed a mathematical model of dispute initiation between countries and then fit the model to data of actual conflicts that occurred among 125 countries between 1993-2007.

They also estimated audience costs for the countries in their sample using existing databases containing country-by-country information on levels of democracy and press freedom. In general, they found that audience costs are highest in democracies with strong protections for a free press.

However, they also found that audience costs are much lower in democracies that have a rival that threatens their existence. (For example, South Korea's existential rival is North Korea.) One reason, the researchers say, is that a nation's voters will give their leader more leeway in deciding how to resolve a conflict with an existential rival, because survival is more of a concern than saving face.

In contrast to democracies, dictatorships tend to have low audience costs, but here, too, Gibilisco and Crisman-Cox found an exception. Dictatorships that provide a legal mechanism for removing a leader--as was the case in China before it abolished term limits this past March--have higher audience costs.

Once the researchers produced an audience-cost estimate for each country, they considered how changing a country's audience costs affects its willingness to engage in conflict. Overall, they found, increasing a country's audience costs, perhaps by strengthening democratic institutions, makes it more likely to start a conflict.

However, Gibilisco and Crisman-Cox found that other dynamics are at play that create more nuanced international dynamics.

For example, while democratic leaders may be less likely to back down during a crisis, they can also be more aggressive and prone to initiate conflict, because they know their opponent won't want to get in a fight against a country that will hold its ground, even if it leads to war. Alternatively, a democratic leader may be less likely to initiate a conflict in the first place, as they know that they won't be able to easily stand down from it.

Lastly, the researchers found a sort of mutually assured destruction effect with audience costs. Two countries that each have high levels of audience cost know the other cannot back down and thus avoid conflicts with each other; if they do end up in a dispute, however, the countries will have a harder time resolving it peacefully.

"The model kind of explains this behavior where peace and conflict are both self-enforcing," Gibilisco says. "So, if we're in peace today, none of us want to escalate a dispute into war tomorrow. But once we're at war, we want to avoid de-escalating."
-end-
"Audience Costs and the Dynamics of War and Peace" is available online and will appear in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Political Science.

A draft of this study was made available online in December 2017. The peer-reviewed version appears in the July 2018 issue of the American Journal of Political Science.

California Institute of Technology

Related Conflict Articles:

Violence against conflict-affected teenage girls in Africa is widespread
A majority of displaced adolescent girls are victimized by violence, according to a new study in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia by researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
When the smoke clears... tobacco control in post-conflict settings
In new research published today by King's College London - Institute of Cancer Policy and the Conflict & Health Research Group in the journal ecancermedicalscience, the difficulties of prioritizing preventable disease and long term health issues in post conflict zones are explored.
Brain circuit enables split-second decisions when cues conflict
MIT researchers have identified a circuit in the brain that is critical for governing how we respond to conflicting environmental cues.
When people prepare for conflict, dominant leaders take the stage
One popular theory holds that dominant leaders are supported by those who fear new situations and threats.
Why do killer whales go through menopause? Mother-daughter conflict is key
Killer whales are one of only three species that are known to go through menopause, surviving long after they've stopped reproducing.
The conflict between science and religion lies in our brains
The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains.
Hope for peace may be encouraged by enemies in Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Jewish Israelis may feel more hopeful when they hear messages of hope from Palestinians regardless of whether they are portrayed as peace activists or former militia members who had attacked Israeli military targets, according to new research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.
HIV spreads faster as violent conflict looms
A new Brown University analysis of HIV incidence in 36 sub-Saharan African countries finds that new HIV infections rise significantly in the five years before armed conflict breaks out.
Highly religious Americans are less likely to see conflict between faith and science
Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science.
Reduced conflict-related brain activity may indicate risk for psychosis
Researchers led by Bradley S. Peterson, M.D., director of the Institute for the Developing Mind at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, have shown that lower levels of conflict-related brain activity are associated with a higher risk for later psychosis.

Related Conflict Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Bias And Perception
How does bias distort our thinking, our listening, our beliefs... and even our search results? How can we fight it? This hour, TED speakers explore ideas about the unconscious biases that shape us. Guests include writer and broadcaster Yassmin Abdel-Magied, climatologist J. Marshall Shepherd, journalist Andreas Ekström, and experimental psychologist Tony Salvador.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#513 Dinosaur Tails
This week: dinosaurs! We're discussing dinosaur tails, bipedalism, paleontology public outreach, dinosaur MOOCs, and other neat dinosaur related things with Dr. Scott Persons from the University of Alberta, who is also the author of the book "Dinosaurs of the Alberta Badlands".