Although centralization is thought to be a common response to external threats to the state, few theories develop the mechanisms by which domestic centralization occurs. Fewer still consistently demonstrate that centralization is indeed a common response to external threats in all states. This article therefore develops a comprehensive theory of domestic change in the shadow of external threat. Salient threats to the state create strong incentives for opposition forces to support the leader in power, even in non-democracies. The leadership then uses these favorable domestic political climates to decrease the number of institutional veto points that can stop future leader-driven policy changes. Collectively, this two-part theory provides a unified model of domestic behavioral change (also known as rally effects) and institutional centralization (defined by a declining number of veto players). In addition, by defining salient threats as challenges to homeland territory, the article provides some of the first domestic-level evidence that territorial disputes are fundamentally different from other types of international conflicts.
Baker, W.D., and J.R. Oneal.2001. Patriotism or opinion leadership? The nature and origins of the ‘‘Rally ‘Round the Flag’’ Effect. Journal of Conflict Resolution45 (October):661-87.
2.
Berrebi, Claude, and Esteban F. Klor .2008. Are voters sensitive to terrorism? Direct evidence from the Israeli electorate. American Political Science Review102:279-301.
3.
Brody, Richard, and Catherine Shapriro .1989. A reconsideration of the rally phenomenon in public opinion. In Political behavior annual , ed. Samuel Long.Boulder, CO: Westview.
4.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow .2003. The logic of political survival . Cambridge: MIT Press .
5.
Coser, Lewis A.1956. The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
6.
DeRouen Jr, K.R.1995. The indirect link: Politics, the economy, and the use of force. The Journal of Conflict Resolution39(4):671-95.
7.
DeRouen, K., Jr.2000. Presidents and the diversionary use of force: A research note. International Studies Quarterly44 (June):317-28.
8.
Desch, Michael C.1996. War and strong states, peace and weak states?International Organization50 (2):237-68.
9.
Epstein, David, Robert Bates, Jack Goldstone, Ida Kristensen, and Sharyn O’Halloran .2006. Democratic transitions . American Journal of Political Science50:551-69.
10.
Erikson, R.S., M.B. MacKuen, and J.A. Stimson.2002. The macro polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Gelpi, Christopher.1997. Democratic diversions: Governmental structure and the externalization of domestic conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution41:255-82.
12.
Gibler, Douglas M.1996. Alliances that never balance: The territorial settlement treaty. Conflict Management and Peace Science16 (1): 75-97.
13.
------. 1997. Control the issues, control the conflict: The effects of alliances that settle territorial issues on interstate rivalries . International Interactions22 (4): 341-68.
14.
------. 2007. Bordering on peace: Democracy, territorial issues, and conflict. International Studies Quarterly51:509-32.
15.
Gleditsch, Kristian.2002. All international politics is local: The diffusion of conflict, integration, and democratization. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
16.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl .1992. Territorial changes and international conflict. New York: Routledge.
17.
Gourevitch, Peter.1978. The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics. International Organization32 (4):881-912.
18.
Henisz, W.J.2002. The institutional environment for infrastructure investment . Industrial and Corporate Change11 (2):355-89.
19.
Hensel, Paul R.1994. One thing leads to another: Recurrent militarized disputes in Latin America, 1816-1986. Journal of Peace Research31 (3): 281-97.
20.
------. 1996. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816- 1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15 (1): 43-73.
21.
------. 1998. Interstate rivalry and the study of militarized conflict . In New directions in the study of international conflict, crises, and war, ed. F. Harvey and B. Mor.London: Macmillan.
22.
Heston, Alan, Robert Summers, and Bettina Aten.2006. Penn World Table Version 6.2, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, September.
23.
Hintze, Otto.1975. Military organization and state organization. In The historical essays of Otto Hintze, ed. F. Gilbert.New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Holsti, Kalevi J.1991. Peace and war: Armed conflicts and international order, 1648-1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Huth, Paul.1996. Standing your ground. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
26.
James, Patrick.1987. Conflict and cohesion: A review of the literature and recommendations for future research. Cooperation and Conflict22:21-33.
27.
James, P., and J.S. Rioux.1998. International crises and linkage politics: The experiences of the United States, 1953-1994. Political Research Quarterly51 (September):781-812.
28.
Keefer, Philip, and David Stasavage .2003. The limits of delegation: Veto players, Central Bank independence and the credibility of monetary policy . American Political Science Review97 (3): 407-23.
29.
Kocs, S.1995. Territorial disputes and interstate war. Journal of Politics57 (1):159-75.
30.
Lian, B., and J.R. Oneal.1993. Presidents, the use of military force, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution37 (June):277-300.
31.
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith. ( 2002). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-1999. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, Center for International Development and Conflict Management .
32.
Mayhew, David.1974. The electoral connection. New Haven : Yale University Press.
33.
Meernik, J.2000. Modeling international crises and the political use of military force by the USA. Journal of Peace Research37(5):547.
34.
Mueller, J.1994. Policy and opinion in the Gulf war. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Olson, Mancur.1993. Dictatorship, democracy, and development. The American Political Science Review87 (3):567-76.
36.
Oneal, John, and Jaroslav Tir .2006. Does the diversionary use of force threaten the democratic peace? Assessing the effect of economic growth on interstate conflict, 1921-2001. International Studies Quarterly50:755-79.
37.
Ostrom, C.W. and B.L. Job.1986. The president and the political use of force. The American Political Science Review80(2):541-66.
38.
Parker, S.L.1995. Toward an understanding of ‘‘Rally’’ effects: Public opinion in the Persian Gulf War. Public Opinion Quarterly59 (Winter):526-46.
39.
Poe, Steven C., and Tate C. Neal .1994. Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. The American Political Science Review88 (4): 853-72.
40.
Poe, Steven C., Tate C. Neal, and Linda Camp Keith .1999. Repression of the human right to personal integrity revisited: A global cross-national study covering the years 1976-1993. International Studies Quarterly43 (2): 291-313.
41.
Przeworkski, A., M.E. Alvarez, J.A. Cheibub, and F. Limongi. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. 1-30. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
42.
Rasler, Karen A., and William R. Thompson .1989. War and state making: The shaping of the global powers. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
43.
Rasler, Karen, and William Thompson .2004. The democratic peace and a sequential, reciprocal, causal arrow hypothesis. Comparative Political Studies37 (8): 879-908.
44.
Roy, A.B.1997. Intervention across bisecting borders. Journal of Peace Research34 (3): 303-14.
45.
Senese, Paul D.1996. Geographic proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(1):133-61.
46.
Senese, Paul D., and John A. Vasquez .2003. A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919-1992. International Studies Quarterly47:275-98.
47.
------. 2005. Assessing the steps to war. British Journal of Political Science35 (4): 607-633.
48.
------. 2007. The steps to war: An empirical analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thies, Cameron G.2005. War, rivalry, and state building in Latin America . American Journal of Political Science49 (3): 451-65.
51.
Thompson, William R.1996. Democracy and peace: Putting the cart before the horse?International Organization50 (1): 141-74.
52.
Thompson, W.R.2001. Identifying rivals and rivalries in world politics . International Studies Quarterly45(4):557-86.
53.
Tilly, Charles.1985. War making and state making as organized crime . In Bringing the State back in, ed. P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol, 169-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
Tsebelis, George.2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press .
55.
Vasquez, John A.1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
_____. 1995. Why do neighbors fight? Proximity, interaction, or territoriality?Journal of Peace Research32 (3): 277-93.
57.
_____. 2004. The Probability of war, 1816-1992. International Studies Quarterly pp. 1-27.
58.
_____. 2008. The war puzzle revisited. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
59.
Waltz, Kenneth.1967. Foreign policy and democratic politics: The American and British experience. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
60.
Zaller, J.1993. The Converse-McGuire model of attitude change and the Gulf War opinion rally. Political Communication10:369-88.
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.
