Governments often supplement the regular military with paramilitaries and progovernment militias (PGMs). However, it is unclear what determines states’ selection of these auxiliary forces, and our understanding of how auxiliary force structures develop remains limited. The crucial difference between the two auxiliary types is their embeddedness in official structures. Paramilitaries are organized under the government to support/replace the regular military, whereas PGMs exist outside the state apparatus. Within a principal–agent framework, we argue that a state’s investment in a particular auxiliary force structure is shaped by available resources and capacity, accountability/deniability, and domestic threats. Our results based on quantitative analysis from 1981 to 2007 find that (a) state capacity is crucial for sustaining paramilitaries, but not PGMs; (b) PGMs, unlike paramilitaries, are more common in states involved in civil conflict; and (c) although both paramilitaries and PGMs are associated with regime instability, there is no significant difference between them in that context.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
2.
AhramA. (2011a). Origins and persistence of state-sponsored militias: Path dependent processes in third world military development. Journal of Strategic Studies, 34, 531-556.
3.
AhramA. (2011b). Proxy warriors: The rise and fall of state-sponsored militias. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
AhramA. (2014). The role of state-sponsored militias in genocide. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26, 488-503.
BanksA. (2001). Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive. Binghamton, NY: Computer Systems Unlimited.
9.
BarterS. J. (2013). State proxy or security dilemma? Understanding anti-rebel militias in civil war. Asian Security, 9(2), 75-92.
10.
BatesR. H. (2008). When things fell apart: State failure in late-century Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BeckN.KatzJ. N.TuckerR. (1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1260-1288.
12.
BelkinA.SchoferE. (2003). Toward a structural understanding of coup risk. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47, 594-620.
13.
BellC. (2016). Coup d’État and democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 1167-1200.
14.
BogaardsM. (2012). Where to draw the line? From degree to dichotomy in measures of democracy. Democratization, 19, 690-712.
15.
BöhmeltT.PilsterU. (2015). The impact of institutional coup-proofing on coup attempts and coup outcomes. International Interactions, 41, 158-182.
16.
BöhmeltT.RuggeriA.PilsterU. (2016). Counterbalancing, spatial dependence, and peer-group effects. Political Science Research and Methods.
17.
BranchD.CheesemanN. (2009). Democratization, sequencing, and state failure in Africa: Lessons from Kenya. African Affairs, 108, 1-26.
18.
BymanD. (2007). Understanding protoinsurgencies (RAND Counterinsurgency Study, Paper 3). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
19.
CampbellB. B.BrennerA. D. (2002). Death squads in global perspective: Murder with deniability. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
20.
CareyS. C.ColaresiM. P.MitchellN. J. (2015). Governments, informal links to militias, and accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59, 850-876.
21.
CareyS. C.ColaresiM. P.MitchellN. J. (2016). Risk mitigation, regime security, and militias: Beyond coup-proofing. International Studies Quarterly, 60(1), 59-72.
22.
CareyS. C.MitchellN. J. (2016). Progovernment Militias. Annual Review of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051915-045433
23.
CareyS. C.MitchellN. J.LoweW. (2013). States, the security sector, and the monopoly of violence: A new database on pro-government militias. Journal of Peace Research, 50, 249-258.
24.
CarterD. B.SignorinoC. S. (2013). Good times, bad times: Left censoring in grouped binary duration data. Unpublished Typescript.
25.
CeleskiJ. (2009). Policing and law enforcement in COIN. Hurlburt Field, FL: Joint Special Operations University.
26.
ChabalP.DalozJ. P. (1999). Africa works: Disorder as political instrument. Oxford, UK: James Currey.
27.
ChengS.LongJ. S. (2007). Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 583-600.
28.
ClarkeK. (2005). The phantom menace: Omitted variable bias in econometric research. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22, 341-352.
29.
ClaytonG.ThomsonA. (2014). The enemy of my enemy is my friend. . . the dynamics of self-defense forces in irregular war: The case of the sons of Iraq. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37, 920-935.
30.
ConradC. R.ConradJ.WalshJ. I.PiazzaJ. A. (2014). Who tortures the terrorists? Transnational terrorism and military torture. Foreign Policy Analysis.
31.
ConradC. R.HillD.MooreW. (2016). Torture and the limits of democratic institutions (Typescript). Merced: University of California, Merced.
32.
ConradC. R.RitterE. H. (2013). Treaties, tenure, and torture: The conflicting domestic effects of international law. Journal of Politics, 75, 397-409.
33.
CordesmanA. H. (1993). Iraq’s military forces: 1988-1993 (CSIS Middle East Dynamic Net Assessment). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
DixitA.GrossmanG. M.HelpmanE. (1997). Common agency and coordination: General theory and application to government policy making. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 752-769.
36.
DowdleA. J. (2007). Civil wars, international conflicts and other determinants of paramilitary strength in sub-Saharan Africa. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 18, 161-174.
37.
EckK. (2015). Repression by proxy: How military purges and insurgency impact the delegation of coercion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59, 924-946.
38.
FarrelT. (2005). World culture and military power. Security Studies, 14, 448-488.
39.
FearonJ.LaitinD. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97, 75-90.
40.
GalulaD. (2006). Counterinsurgency warfare: Theory and practice. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
41.
GandhiJ.PrzeworskiA. (2007). Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1279-1301.
42.
GeddesB. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115-144.
43.
GilliganM.SergentiE. (2008). Do UN interventions cause peace? Using matching to improve causal inference. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 89-122.
44.
GleditschK. S.RuggeriA. (2010). Political opportunity structures, democracy, and civil war. Journal of Peace Research, 47, 299-310.
45.
GleditschN. P.WallensteenP.ErikssonM.SollenbergM.StrandH. (2002). Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 615-637.
46.
HausmanJ.McFaddenD. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52, 1219-1240.
47.
HawkinsD. G.LakeD. A.NielsonD. L.TierneyM. J. (2006). Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
HegreH. (2014). Democracy and armed conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 51, 159-172.
49.
HendrixC. (2010). Measuring state capacity: Theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 47, 273-285.
50.
HillD. W.Jr. (2016). Democracy and the concept of personal integrity rights. The Journal of Politics, 78, 822-835.
51.
HughesG.TripodiC. (2009). Anatomy of a surrogate: Historical precedents and implications for contemporary counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 20, 1-35.
52.
HumphreysM.WeinsteinJ. (2006). Handling and manhandling civilians in civil war. American Political Science Review, 100, 429-447.
53.
International Institute for Strategic Studies. (1975-2015). The military balance. London, England: Author.
54.
JanowitzM. (1964). The military in the political development of new nations: An essay in comparative analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
JanowitzM. (1988). Military institutions and coercion in the developing nations: The military in the political development of new nations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
JentzschC.KalyvasS. N.SchubigerL. I. (2015). Militias in civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59, 755-769.
57.
KaldorM. (2006). New and old wars. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
58.
KalyvasS. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
KalyvasS. N.BalcellsL. (2010). International system and technologies of rebellion: How the end of the Cold War shaped internal conflict. American Political Science Review, 104, 415-429.
60.
KilcullenD. (2010). Counterinsurgency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61.
KingG.ZengL. (2006). The dangers of extreme counterfactuals. Political Analysis, 14, 131-159.
62.
KooningsK.KruijtD. (Eds.). (2004). Armed actors: Organized violence and state failure in Latin America. London, England: Zed Books.
63.
LaffontJ.-J.MartimortD. (2009). The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
LeitesN.WolfC.Jr. (1970). Rebellion and authority: An analytic essay on insurgent conflicts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
65.
LinzJ. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. London, England: Lynne Rienner.
LyallJ. (2009). Does indiscriminate violence incite insurgent attacks? Evidence from Chechnya. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53, 331-362.
68.
LyallJ. (2010). Are coethnics more effective counterinsurgents? Evidence from the Second Chechen War. American Political Science Review, 104, 1-20.
69.
LyallJ.WilsonI.III. (2009). Rage against the machines: Explaining outcomes in counterinsurgency wars. International Organization, 63, 67-106.
70.
MannM. (1988). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. In MannM. (Ed.), States, war and capitalism (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
71.
MansfieldE. C.PevehouseJ. C. (2006). Democratization and international organizations. International Organization, 60, 137-167.
72.
MansfieldE. C.PevehouseJ. C. (2008). Democratization and the varieties of international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 269-294.
73.
MarshallM.JaggersK. (2013). Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2002. Dataset user’s manual. College Park: University of Maryland.
74.
MearsheimerJ. J. (1983). Conventional deterrence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
75.
MitchellN. J. (2009). Agents of atrocity: Leaders, followers, and the violation of human rights in civil war. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
76.
MitchellN. J.CareyS. C.ButlerC. K. (2014). The impact of pro-government militias on human rights violations. International Interactions, 40, 812-836.
77.
MuellerS. D. (2008). The political economy of Kenya’s crisis. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 2, 185-210.
PilsterU.BöhmeltT. (2011). Coup-proofing and military effectiveness in interstate wars, 1967-99. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28, 331-350.
81.
PilsterU.BöhmeltT. (2012). Do democracies engage less in coup-proofing? On the relationship between regime type and civil-military relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8, 355-372.
82.
PilsterU.BöhmeltT.TagoA. (2016). The differentiation of security forces and the onset of genocidal violence. Armed Forces & Society, 42, 26-50.
83.
PowellJ. M. (2012). Determinants of the attempting and outcome of Coups d’état. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56, 1017-1040.
84.
QuackenbushS. L.MurdieA. (2015). We always fight the last war? Prior experiences in counterinsurgency and conventional warfare and war outcomes. International Interactions, 41, 183-200.
85.
QuinlivanJ. T. (1999). Coup-proofing: Its practice and consequences in the Middle East. International Security, 24, 131-165.
86.
RaleighC. (2016). Pragmatic and promiscuous: Explaining the rise of competitive political militias across Africa. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60, 283-310.
87.
RenoW. (1998). Warlord politics and African states. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
88.
RoesslerP. (2011). The enemy within: Personal rule, coups, and civil war in Africa. World Politics, 63, 300-346.
89.
RonJ. (1997). Varying methods of state violence. International Organization, 51, 275-300.
90.
RosenauW. (2008). “Low-cost trigger-pullers”: The politics of policing in the context of contemporary “state building” and counterinsurgency. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
91.
SanínF. G.BuitragoD.GonzálezA. (2013). Aggregating political dimensions: Of the feasibility of political indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110, 305-326.
92.
SchneckenerU. (2007). Fragile statehood, armed non-state actors and security governance. In BrydenA.CapariniM. (Eds.), Private actors and security governance (pp. 25-40). Geneva, Switzerland: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).
93.
SechserT.SaundersE. (2010). The army you have: The determinants of military mechanization, 1979-2001. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 481-511.
94.
StanilandP. (2014). Networks of rebellion: Explaining insurgent cohesion and collapse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
95.
StanilandP. (2015). Armed groups and militarized elections. International Studies Quarterly, 59, 694-705.
96.
TillyC. (1992). Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990–1992. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
97.
TrinquierR. (2006). Modern warfare: A French view of counterinsurgency. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
98.
VreelandJ. R. (2008). The effect of political regime on civil war: Unpacking anocracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 401-425.
99.
WeberM. (2013). Economy and society (Vol. 1). Berkeley: University of California Press.
100.
WimmerA.CedermanL.-E.MinB. (2009). Ethnic politics and armed conflict: A configurational analysis of a new global data set. American Sociological Review, 72, 316-337.
101.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85, 801-828.
102.
WoodE. J. (2008). The social processes of civil war: The wartime transformation of social networks. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 539-561.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
