Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:54:37.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peaceful Parties and Puzzling Personalists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2003

MARK PECENY  and
CAROLINE C. BEER
MARK PECENY
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1121 ([email protected]).
CAROLINE C. BEER
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Vermont, Old Mill, Room 516, 94 University Place, Burlington, VT 05405-0114 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reiter and Stam advance the study of the conflict behavior of authoritarian regimes in two ways. First, they clearly demonstrate the importance of using directed dyad data sets for studying mixed pairs of political regimes. Second, they have refocused our attention on the question of decisional constraints and international conflict. This response examines the dispute patterns of a specific mixed pair of authoritarian regimes, single-party regimes, and personalist dictatorships. We find that single-party regimes are significantly less likely to start militarized disputes against personalist dictatorships than is true of other types of regime dyads. In contrast, personalist regimes are somewhat more likely to initiate militarized disputes against single-party regimes than is the norm for other regime dyads. These findings indicate that the relationships among specific types of authoritarian regimes may be as consequential as the relationships between democracies and authoritarian regimes of any type. They also indicate that we need to examine further the role that institutional constraints play in shaping the conflict behavior of authoritarian regimes.We thank Chris Butler for his comments and Dan Reiter for sharing his data.

Type
FORUM
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 97 , Issue 2 , May 2003 , pp. 339 - 342
Copyright
© 2003 by the American Political Science Association

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.)

References

Bueno de Mesquita Bruce Siverson Randolph 1995 War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability American Political Science Review 89 4 841-55Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita Bruce Morrow James Siverson Randolph Smith Alastair 1999 An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace American Political Science Review 93 4 791 807Google Scholar
Fearon James D. 1994 Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes American Political Science Review 88 3 577-92Google Scholar
Gaubatz Kurt Taylor 1999 Elections and War: The Electoral Incentive in the Democratic Politics of War and Peace Stanford, CA Stanford University Press
Geddes Barbara 1999 Authoritarian Breakdown: Empirical Test of a Game Theoretic Argument Paper presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Atlanta, GA
Lake David 1992 Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War American Political Science Review 86 1 24 37Google Scholar
Peceny Mark Beer Caroline Sanchez-Terry Shannon 2002 Dictatorial Peace American Political Science Review 96 1 15 26Google Scholar
Reiter Dan C. Stam Allan 2002 Democracies at War Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
Reiter Dan C. Stam Allan 2003 Identifying the Culprit: Democracy, Dictatorship, and Dispute Initiation American Political Science Review 97 2 333-37Google Scholar
Russett Bruce 1993 Grasping the Democratic Peace Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press
Schultz Kenneth A. 2001 Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.