Democracy has been the primary focus of our efforts to understand the impact of domestic institutions on processes of international conflict. In this article, we examine how a particular nondemocratic regime type, postrevolutionary states, affects military capabilities and war outcomes. Drawing on scholarship that conceptualizes revolutions as a unique class of modernizing events that result in stronger state structures, we argue that postrevolutionary states should be better able to mobilize populations and economic resources for military purposes. Tests performed on a comprehensive sample of twentieth-century states and interstate wars confirm our predictions: postrevolutionary states have larger, better funded militaries and achieve more successful war outcomes.
AchenChristopher. 2000. “Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables.”Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
2.
AshTimothy Garton. 1990. The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and Prague. New York: Random House.
3.
BaumanZygmunt. 1994. “A Revolution in the Theory of Revolutions?”International Political Science Review15 (1): 15–24.
4.
BayerResatBernhardMichael. 2010. “The Operationalization of Democracy and the Strength of the Democratic Peace: A Test of the Relative Utility of Scalar and Dichotomous Measures.”Conflict Management and Peace Science27 (1): 85–101.
5.
BeckNathaniel L.2008. “Time-Series—Cross-Section Methods.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Box-SteffensmeierJanetBradyHenryCollierDavid, 475–93. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
BeissingerMark R.2002. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BiddleStephenLongStephen. 2004. “Democracy and Military Effectiveness–A Deeper Look.”Journal of Conflict Resolution48 (4): 525–46.
9.
Bueno deMesquitaJames MorrowBruce,SiversonRandolph M.SmithAlastair. 2004. “Testing Novel Implications of the Selectorate Theory of War.”World Politics56 (3): 363–88.
10.
CameronColin A.TrivediPravin K.. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CarterDavid B.SignorinoCurtis S.. 2010. “Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data.”Political Analysis18 (3): 271–92.
12.
ClarkDavid H.ReedWilliam. 2003. “A Unified Model of War Onset and Outcome.”Journal of Politics65 (1): 69–91.
13.
EkiertGrzegorzKubikJan. 1999. Rebellious Civil Society: Popular Protest and Democratic Consolidation in Poland, 1989-1993. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
14.
ElsterJon, ed. 1996. The Roundtable Talks and the Breakdown of Communism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
FearonJames D.1994. “Signaling versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model.”Journal of Conflict Resolution38: 236–69.
16.
FeaverPeter D.1999. “Civil-Military Relations.”Annual Review of Political Science2:211–41.
17.
ForanJohn. 1992. “A Theory of Third World Revolutions: Iran, Nicaragua, and El Salvador Compared.”Critical Sociology19 (2): 3–27.
18.
FordhamBenjamin O.WalkerThomas C.. 2005. “Kantian Liberalism, Regime Type and Military Resource Allocation: Do Democracies Spend Less?”International Studies Quarterly49 (1): 141–57.
19.
GeddesBarbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
20.
GerschenkronAlexander. 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
21.
GhosnFatenPalmerGlennBremerStuart. 2004. “The MID3 Data Set, 1993-2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description.”Conflict Management and Peace Science21 (3): 133–54.
22.
GoldsmithBenjamin E.2003. “Bearing the Defense Burden, 1886-1989: Why Spend More?”Journal of Conflict Resolution47: 551–73.
23.
GoldstoneJack. 2003. “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by MahoneyJamesRueschemeyerDietrich, 41–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GoodwinJeff. 2001. No Other Way Out. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HuntingtonSamuel P.1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
JowittKenneth. 1993. New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
KeeleLukeKellyNathan J.. 2006. “Dynamic Models for Dynamic Theories: The Ins and Outs of Lagged Dependent Variables.”Political Analysis14 (2): 186–205.
29.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.”American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 341–55.
30.
LeviMargaret. 1989. Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
LinzJuanStepanAlfred. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
MansfieldEdward D.SnyderJack. 1995. “Democratization and the Danger of War.”International Security54 (1): 775–808.
33.
MaozZeevRussettBruce. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986.”American Political Science Review87 (3): 640–54.
34.
MarshallMontyJaggersKeith. 2005. “Polity IV Dataset Users’ Manual.”Accessedwww.cidcm.umd.edu//polity.
35.
MorgenthauHans J.1957. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 2nd ed. New York: Alford K. Knopf.
36.
NorthDouglass C.1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
37.
OrganskiA. F. K.KuglerJacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
38.
PecenyMarkBeerCaroline C.Sanchez-TerryShannon. 2002. “Dictatorial Peace?”American Political Science Review96 (1): 15–26.
39.
ReedWilliam. 2000. “A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation.”American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 84–93.
40.
ReedWilliamClarkDavid H.. 2000. “War Initiators and War Winners: The Consequences of Linking Theories of Democratic War Success.”Journal of Conflict Resolution44: 378–395.
41.
ReiterDanStamAllan C.. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
RueschemeyerDietrichStephensEvelyne HuberStephensJohn D.. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
SarkeesMeredith Reid. 2000. “The Correlates of War Data on War: An Update to 1997.”Conflict Management and Peace Science. 18(1): 123–144.
44.
ShadishWilliam R.CookThomas D.CampbellDonald T.. 2001. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Beverly, MA: Wadsworth.
45.
SingerJ. DavidBremerStuartStuckeyJohn. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965.” In Peace, War, and Numbers, edited by RussettBruce, 19–48. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
46.
SkocpolTheda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
SkocpolTheda. 1988. “Social Revolutions and Mass Military Mobilization.”World Politics40 (2): 147–68.
48.
SmallMelvinSingerJ. David. 1982. Resort to Arms: International and Civil War, 1816-1980, 205–206. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
49.
StamAlan. 1996. Win, Lose, or Draw: Domestic Politics and the Crucible of War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
50.
StinnettDouglas M.TirJaroslavSchaferPhilipDiehlPaul F.GochmanCharles. 2002. “The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3.”Conflict Management and Peace Science19 (2): 58–66.
51.
TillyCharles. 1993. European Revolutions, 1492-1992. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
52.
WardMichael D.GleditschKristian Skrede. 1998. “Democratizing for Peace.”American Political Science Review92 (1): 51–61.
53.
WeberMax. 1968. Charismatic Authority, Economy and Society, 241–65. New York: Bedminister Press.
54.
WeeksJessica L.2008. “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve.”International Organization62 (1): 35–64.
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.
