Do democratic institutions enhance a country’s compliance with international commitments? The author develops a game-theoretic model that highlights the conditional nature of democratic institutions’ effect on compliance. Rather than assuming that the electorate in a democracy benefits from compliance uniformly, the author considers domestic distributional consequences of compliance. The model thus incorporates the preferences of competing domestic constituents as well as their politically relevant attributes such as electoral leverage and informational advantage. The model shows that, although electoral institutions intensify politicians’ accountability to domestic constituents, the direction of this electoral effect on compliance is determined by the political attributes of competing interests. The author illustrates this theory with examples of international economic and environmental policies.
Alter, Karen J.2000. The European Union’s legal system and domestic policy: Spill over or backlash? International Organization54(3): 489-518.
2.
Ames, Barry. 1987. Politics and survival: Politicians and public policy in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
4.
Barro, Robert. 1973. The control of politicians: An economic model. Public Choice14(2): 19-42.
5.
Bernhard, William, and David Leblang. 1999. Democratic institutions and exchange rate commitments. International Organization53(1): 71-79.
6.
Bernhard, William, and David Leblang. 2002. Democratic processes and exchange rate risk: Evidence from exchange rate markets. American Journal of Political Science46(2): 316-333.
7.
Broz, Lawrence. 2002. The political economy of commitment to gold standard. Mimeo, University of California, San Diego.
8.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James D.Morrow, Randolph M.Siverson, and Alastair Smith. 1999. An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review93: 791-807.
9.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and R. Siverson. 1995. War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability. American Political Science Review89: 841-855.
10.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M.Siverson, and James D. Morrow. 2003. The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Burley, Anne-Marie, and Walter Mattli. 1993. Europe before the court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization47(1): 41-76.
12.
Busch, Marc L., and Eric Reinhardt. 2002. Testing international trade law: Empirical studies of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. In The political economy of international trade law: Essays in honor of Robert E. Hudec, edited by Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick, 457-481. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Chayes, Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1995. The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Checkel, Jeffery. 2001. Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization55(3): 553-588.
15.
Cortell, Andrew P., and James W. Davis. 1996. How do international institutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules and norms. International Studies Quarterly40(4): 451-478.
16.
Cowhey, Peter F.1993. Domestic institutions and the credibility of international commitments: Japan and the United States. International Organization47(2): 299-326.
17.
Dai, Xinyuan. 2002a. Information systems in treaty regimes. World Politics54(4): 405-436.
18.
Dai, Xinyuan. 2002b. Political regimes and international trade: The democratic difference revisited. American Political Science Review96(1): 159-165.
19.
Dai, Xinyuan. 2005. Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanism. International Organization59(2): 363-398.
20.
Dixon, William. 1994. Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political Science Review88: 14-32.
21.
Downs, George W., and David M. Rocke. 1995. Optimal imperfection: Domestic uncertainty and institutions in international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Downs, George W., David M. Rocke, and Peter N. Barsoom. 1996. Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization50(3): 379-406.
23.
Duffield, John S.1992. International regimes and alliance behavior: Explaining NATO conventional force levels. International Organization46(4): 819-855.
24.
Farber, Henry S., and Joanne Gowa. 1997. Common interests or common polities? Reinterpreting the democratic peace. Journal of Politics59(2): 393-417.
25.
Fearon, James D.1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88(3): 577-592.
26.
Fearon, James D.1999. Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In Democracy, accountability, and representation, edited by Bernard Manin, Adam Przeworski, and Susan Stokes, 55-97. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Ferejohn, J.1986. Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50(1-3): 5-25.
28.
Gabel, Matthew J.2001. Divided opinion, common currency: The political economy of public support for the EMU. In Political economy of European monetary unification, edited by Barry Eichengree and Jeffrey Frieden, 42-57. Boulder, CO: Westview.
29.
Gartzke, Erik. 1998. Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 1-27.
30.
Gartzke, Erik. 2000. Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly44(2): 191-210.
31.
Gartzke, Erik, and Kristian Gleditsch. 2004. Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 775-795.
32.
Gaubatz, Kurt T.1996. Democratic states and commitment in international relations. International Organization50(1): 109-139.
33.
Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician’s dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
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, September 2-5, Atlanta, GA.
35.
Gowa, Joanne. 1999. Ballots and bullets: The elusive democratic peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Haas, Peter. 1989. Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization43(3): 377-403.
37.
Haas, Peter. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean. New York: Columbia University Press.
38.
Haggard, Stephan, and Robert Kaufman. 1992. The politics of economic adjustment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Hicken, Allen, Shanker Satyanath, and Ernest Sergenti. 2005. Political institutions and economic performance: The effects of accountability and obstacles to policy change. American Journal of Political Science49(4): 897-907.
40.
Huth, Paul K., and Todd L. Allee. 2002. Domestic political accountability and the escalation and settlement of international disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(6): 754-790.
41.
Jensen, Nathan. 2003. Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International Organization57(3): 587-616.
42.
Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
43.
Keohane, Robert O.1984. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
Keohane, Robert O., Andrew Moravcsik, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 2000. Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization54(3): 457-488.
45.
Kinsella, David. 2005. No rest for the democratic peace. American Political Science Review99(3): 453-457.
46.
Kreps, David. 1990. Corporate culture and economic theory. In Perspectives on positive political economy, edited by James Alt and Kenneth Shepsle, 90-143. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Lake, David, and Robert Powell. 1999. Strategic choice and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
Leeds, B. Ashley. 1999. Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation. American Journal of Political Science43(4): 979-1002.
49.
Lipson, Charles. 2003. Reliable partners: How democracies have made a separable peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
Lohmann, Susanne. 1998. An information rationale for the power of special interests. American Political Science Review92(4): 809-828.
51.
Mansfield, Edward D., Helen V. Milner, and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2002. Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization56(3): 477-513.
52.
Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. 1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review87: 624-638.
53.
Martin, Lisa L.2000. Democratic commitments: Legislatures and international cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
McGillivray, Fiona, and Alastair Smith. 2000. Trust and cooperation through agent specific punishments. International Organization54 (4): 809-824.
55.
Milner, Helen V.1997. Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
Milner, Helen V.2002. International trade. In The handbook of international relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 448-461. London: Sage.
57.
Mitchell, Ronald B.1994. Regime design matters: Intentional oil pollution and treaty compliance. International Organization48(3): 425-458.
58.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization51(4): 513-553.
59.
Neumayer, Erik. 2002. Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research39: 139-164.
60.
Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett. 1999. Is the liberal peace just an artifact of cold war interests? Assessing recent critiques. International Interactions25(3): 213-241.
61.
Oye, Kenneth, ed. 1986. Cooperation under anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62.
Powell, Bingham G.2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
63.
Ramsay, Robert F.2004. Politics at the water’s edge: Crisis bargaining and electoral competition. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(4): 459-486.
64.
Raustiala, Kal, and David Victor. 1998. Conclusions. In The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: Theory and practice, edited by David Victor, Kal Raustiala, and Eugene Skolnikoff, 659-707. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
Reiter, Dan, and Allan Stam. 2002. Democracies at war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review97(4): 585-602.
67.
Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-cold war world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.
69.
Schamis, Hector E., and Christopher R. Way. 2003. Political cycles and exchange rate-based stabilization. World Politics56(1): 43-78.
70.
Scheve, Kenneth F.2004. Public inflation aversion and the political economy of macroeconomic policy-making. International Organization58(1): 1-34.
71.
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2001. What determines individual trade policy preferences? Journal of International Economics54(2): 267-292.
72.
Schultz, Kenneth A.1998. Domestic opposition and signaling in international crises. American Political Science Review92: 829-844.
73.
Schultz, Kenneth A.1999. Do democratic institutions constrain or inform? Contrasting two institutional perspectives on democracy and war. International Organization53(2): 233-266.
74.
Schultz, Kenneth A., and Barry R. Weingast. 2003. The democratic advantage: Institutional foundations of financial power in international competition. International Organization57(1): 3-42.
75.
Sikkink, Kathryn. 1993. Human rights, principled issue-networks, and sovereignty in Latin America. International Organization47(3): 411-441.
76.
Simmons, Beth A.1994. Who adjusts: Domestic sources of foreign economic policy during the interwar years. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
77.
Simmons, Beth A.2000. International law and state behavior: Commitment and compliance in international monetary affairs. American Political Science Review94(4): 819-835.
78.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 1995. International law and international relations theory: A dual agenda. European Journal of International Law87(2): 205-239.
79.
Smith, Alastair. 1996. To intervene or not to intervene: A biased decision. Journal of Conflict Resolution40(1): 16-40.
80.
Smith, Alastair. 1998. International crises and domestic politics. American Political Science Review92: 623-638.
81.
Stallings, Barbara. 1990. Politics and economic crisis: A comparative study of Chile, Peru, and Colombia. In Economic crisis and policy choice: The politics of adjustment in the Third World, edited by Joan M. Nelson, 113-167. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
82.
Tomz, Michael. 2002. Democratic default: Domestic audience and compliance with international agreements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, Boston.
83.
Victor, David, Kal Raustiala, and Eugene Skolnikoff, eds. 1998. The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
84.
Vreeland, James. 2003. The IMF and economic development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
85.
Weiss, Edith Brown, and Harold K. Jacobson, eds. 1998. Engaging countries: Strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
86.
Young, Oran R.1979. Compliance and public authority: A theory with international applications. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
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.
