Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:39:20.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Opportunity for Backing Down: Looking for an Electoral Connection to Audience Costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2016

KIYOTAKA YASUI  and
RYO NAKAI
KIYOTAKA YASUI
Affiliation:
Organization for Regional and Inter-regional Studies, Waseda [email protected]
RYO NAKAI
Affiliation:
College of Law and Politics, Rikkyo [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the time-inconsistency problem of audience costs in international disputes. The nature of democracy makes it difficult for leaders to back down from earlier diplomatic positions in an international dispute, out of fear of domestic political costs. Few studies have addressed the temporal aspect of such costs. This study argues that election timing impinges on the extent to which the audience cost mechanism works, and consequently, on state conflict behavior. While competitive elections are central to the political accountability inherent in a democracy, voters typically lack enough opportunities to punish unsatisfactory leaders in a timely way, because of fixed election timing, and also may disregard foreign policy missteps that occurred in the distant past. Democratic leaders therefore have an incentive to choose strategically, with the electoral calendar in mind, when selecting a form of conflict behavior. Leaders can retreat from their demands without paying high audience costs when the upcoming election is in the distant future. To test this argument, the authors conduct a natural experiment featuring territorial disputes between Russia and two Baltic republics – Estonia and Latvia. Despite the commonalities in the disputes, as well as in their political systems and socioeconomic backgrounds, the governments of the two Baltic countries showed a sharp contrast in their diplomatic decisions. This paper argues that only the temporal gap in electoral timing can explain this variation, imparting the ironical implication that frequent democratic elections can obstruct peaceful conflict resolutions, and that excessive democratization may well hinder the very goal of peace.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 168 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Achen, Christopher H. and Bartels, Larry M. (2004), ‘Musical Chairs: Pocketbook Voting and the Limits of Democratic Accountability’, paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1–5 September 2004.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Nouriel, Roubini, and Cohen, Gerald D. (1997), Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Robert, Tilley, James, and Heath, Anthony F. (2005), ‘Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: Party Choice Through the Electoral Cycle’, British Journal of Political Science, 35: 285–302.Google Scholar
Archdeacon, Talis S. (2007a), ‘Border Treaty raises Fierce Debate’, The Baltic Times, 1 February 2007, 1, 3.Google Scholar
Archdeacon, Talis S. (2007b), ‘Parliament Divided Over Border Treaty’, The Baltic Times, 8 February 2007, 3.Google Scholar
Archdeacon, Talis S. (2007c), ‘Border Treaty Passes Final Reading in Parliament’, The Baltic Times, 15 February 2007, 1.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. (2008), Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
BNS (2005a), ‘Estonia not to Issue Unilateral Declaration before Signing Border Treaty with Russia’, Baltic News Service, 5 May 2005.Google Scholar
BNS (2005b), ‘Estonian Premier Says Border Treaty Allows to Solve Problems of Seto People’, Baltic News Service, 19 May 2005.Google Scholar
BNS (2007a), ‘Appeal against Border Treaty with Russia Signed by 7,000 Estonians’, Baltic News Service, 28 February 2007.Google Scholar
BNS (2007b), ‘Latvian Security Police Asked to Evaluate Letter with Alleged Threat to Top Officials’, Baltic News Service, 8 January 2007.Google Scholar
BNS (2007c), ‘Latvia's Opposition New Era Party might Demand Referendum on Border Treaty with Russia’, Baltic News Service, 9 January 2007.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David (1992), War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Courtenay R. and Golder, Sona N. (2010), ‘Measuring Government Duration and Stability in Central Eastern European Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 49: 119–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpini, Delli, Michael, X. and Keeter, Scott (1996), What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. (1986), ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80 (4): 1151–69.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad (2012), Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
East, Roger, Jagger, Catherin, Postgate, Carolyn, and Thomas, Richard J. (2007), A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe: An Essential Guide to the Politics and Economics of Eastern Europe, 2nd edn, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin (2009), ‘The Bronze Soldier: Identity Threat and Maintenance in Estonia’, Journal of Baltic Studies, 40 (1): 139–58.Google Scholar
European Comission, DG External Policies Delegations Europe (2006), Information Note: Border Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Latvia, 8 June 2006, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/fd/d-ru20060615_07/d-ru20060615_07en.pdf].Google Scholar
Eyerman, Joe and Hart, Robert A. (1996), ‘An Empirical Test of the Audience Cost Proposition’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40 (4): 597–616.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. (1994), ‘Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes’, American Political Science Review, 8 (3): 577–92.Google Scholar
Frederick, Shane, Loewenstein, George, and O'Donoghue, Ted (2002), ‘Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review’, Journal of Economic Literature, 40 (2): 351–401.Google Scholar
Fukumoto, Kentaro and Horiuchi, Yusaku (2011), ‘Making Outsiders’ Votes Count: Detecting Electoral Fraud through a Natural Experiment’, American Political Science Review, 105 (3): 586–603.Google Scholar
Gartzke, Eric and Lupu, Yonatan (2012), ‘Still Looking for Audience Costs’, Security Studies, 21 (3): 391–97.Google Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher F. and Griesdorf, Michael (2001), ‘Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–1994’, American Political Science Review, 95 (3): 633–47.Google Scholar
Grigas, Agnia (2012), The Politics of Energy and Memory between the Baltic States and Russia, Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Gryaznevich, Vladimir (2005), ‘Border Dispute has no Substance, But is Democracy in Action’, The St Petersburg Times, 26 July, http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=100&story_id=261.Google Scholar
Guisinger, Alexandra and Smith, Alastair (2002), ‘Honest Threats: The Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46 (2): 175–200.Google Scholar
Hatoyama, Ichiro (1957), Hatoyama Ichiro Kaiko-roku (Memoir of Hatoyama Ichiro), Tokyo: Bungei Shunju Shinsha.Google Scholar
Holsti, Ole R. (2004), Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., Hill, Seth J., and Lenz, Gabriel S. (2012), ‘Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents’, American Political Science Review, 106 (4): 720–41.Google Scholar
Key, Vernon O. (1966), The Responsible Electorate, New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Kinne, Brandon J. and Marinov, Nikolay (2012), ‘Electoral Authoritarianism and Credible Signaling in International Crises’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40 (4): 597–616.Google Scholar
Kohno, Masaru and Iida, Kunihiko (2012), ‘Audience Costs in Japan?’, the Paper Prepared for the World Congress of Political Science, International Political Science Association, Madrid, 8–12 July 2012.Google Scholar
Kurizaki, Shuhei and Whang, Taehee (2015), ‘Detecting Audience Costs in International Crisee’, International Organization, 69 (4): 949–80.Google Scholar
Kydland, Finn E. and Prescott, Edward C. (1977), ‘Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans’, Journal of Political Economy, 85 (3): 4730–9.Google Scholar
Saeima, Latvijas Republikas (2005) ‘Projekts ‘Deklarācija par Latvijā Īstenotā PSRS Totalitārā Komunistiskā Okupācijas Režīma Politikas Nosodījumu’ (Draft: Declaration on Condemnation of the Totalitarian Communist Occupation Regime Implemented in Latvia by the USSR), Latvijas Republikas Saeimas Dokumenta Nr. 4092. 2005-04-22, http://helios-web.saeima.lv/bi8/lasa?dd=LM0723_0.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. and Horowitz, Michael C. (2012), ‘When Backing Down is the Right Decision’, Journal of Politics, 74 (2): 323–38.Google Scholar
Lipson, Charles (2003), Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard (1997), The Principles of Representative Government, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Margēviča, Agnese (2005) ‘Vairums Pilsoņu Gatavi Atteikties no Abrene (Many Citizens Prepare for Abandoning Abrene)’, TVNET, 29 June 2005, www.tvnet.lv/zinas/latvija/207391-vairums_pilsonu_gatavi_atteikties_no_abrenes.Google Scholar
Ministru, Kabineta (2005), Par Deklarāciju ‘Par Latvijas Republikas un Krievijas Federācijas Līgumu par Latvijas Republikas un Krievijas Federācijas Valsts Robežu’ (About the Declaration ‘For the Republic of Latvia and Russian Federation Treaty for the State Border between the Republic of Latvia and Russian Federation’), Ministru Kabineta Rīkojumus, Nr. 263, 26 April 2005, http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=106929 (English version available at the website of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.am.gov.lv/en/polic).Google Scholar
Mole, Richard (2012), The Baltic States from the Soviet Union to the European Union: Identity, Discourse and Power in the Post-communist Transition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Oxford and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Etsuhiro (2014), ‘Mariko no Seito Siji: Gourika sareta “Sono tsudo Siji”’, Mimeo, Ehime Universtity.Google Scholar
Nicolson, Harold (1969), Diplomacy, 3rd edn, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Partell, Peter J. and Palmer, Glenn (1999), ‘Audience Costs and Interstate Crises: An Empirical Assessment of Fearon's Model of Dispute Outcomes’, International Studies Quarterly, 43 (2): 389–405.Google Scholar
Potter, Philip B. K. and Baum, Matthew A. (2014), ‘Looking for Audience Costs in all the Wrong Places: Electoral Institutions, Media Access, and Democratic Constraint’, The Journal of Politics, 76 (1): 167–81.Google Scholar
Posner, Daniel N. (2004), ‘The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi’, American Political Science Review, 98 (4): 529–45.Google Scholar
Reiter, Dan and Stam, Allan C.. (2002), Democracies at War, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rikveilis, Airis (2008), ‘The Interstate border and Latvian-Russian Relations: The Past as an Impediment to Bilateral Cooperation’, in Ozoliņa, Žaneta (ed.), Latvia-Russia-X, Riga: Zinatne, pp. 284–331.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce (1993), Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. (1999), ‘Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War’, International Organization, 53 (2): 233–66.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. (2001a), Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. (2001b), ‘Looking for Audience Costs’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45: 32–60.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. (2003), ‘Implications of Rational Inattention’, Journal of Monetary Economics, 50 (3): 665–69.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. (2006), ‘Rational Inattention: Beyond the Linear-quadratic Case’, American Economic Review, 96 (2): 158–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slantchev, Branislav L. (2006), ‘Politicians, the Media, and Do- mestic Audience Costs’, International Studies Quarterly, 50 (2): 445–77.Google Scholar
Smith, Alastair (1998), ‘International Crises and Domestic Politics’, American Political Science Review, 92 (3):623–38.Google Scholar
Smith, David J. (2002), Estonia: Independence and European Integration, Oxford and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, David J. (2008), ‘Woe from Stones: Commemoration, Identity Politics and Estonia's “War of Monuments”’, Journal of Baltic Studies, 39 (4): 419–30.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack and Borghard, Erica D. (2011), ‘The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound’, American Political Science Review, 105 (3): 437–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strezhnev, Anton and Voeten, Erik (2013), ‘United Nations General Assembly Voting Data’, http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/12379.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Taiki (2007), ‘A Comparison of Intertemporal Choices for Oneself versus Someone Else Based on Tsallis’ Statistics’, Physica A, 385: 637–44.Google Scholar
The Baltic Times (2005a) ‘Prime Minister Rebukes Nationalists over Border’, The Baltic Times, 20 April, http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/12492.Google Scholar
The Baltic Times (2005b) ‘Latvia in Brief’, The Baltic Times, 20 April, http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/12504.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael (2007), ‘Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach’, International Organization, 61 (4): 821–40.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael (2009), ‘The Foundations of Domestic Audience Costs: Attitudes, Expectations, and Institutions’, in Kohno, Masaru and Tanaka, Aiji (eds.), Kitai, Seido, Gurobaru-shakai, Tokyo: Keiso-Shobo, pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Mark (2012), ‘Audience Costs: An Historical Analysis’, Security Studies, 21 (1): 3–42.Google Scholar
Trager, Robert F. and Vavreck, Lynn (2011), ‘The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Presidential Rhetoric and the Role of Party’, American Journal of Political Science, 55 (3): 526–45.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. (1999), ‘Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies’, International Security, 23 (4): 5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Jessica L. (2008), ‘Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve’, International Organization, 62 (1): 35–64.Google Scholar
Yi, Richard, Gatchalian, Kirtin M. and Bickel, Warren K. (2006), ‘Discounting of Past Outcomes’, Experimental and Clinical Pshchopharmacology, 14 (3): 311–17.Google Scholar
Zaller, John (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zelče, Vita (2007), ‘Vēsture un Vēsture, un 9. Saeimas Vēlēšanas (History and History, and 9th Latvian Parliament Elections)’, in Brikše, Inta and Zelče, Vita (eds.), Latvijas Republikas 9. Saeimas Vēlēšanu Kampaņa: Priekšvēlēšanu Publiskā Teopā; (The Electoral Campaingn for 9th Parliament of the Republic of Latvia), Rīga: Zinātne, pp. 193–216.Google Scholar