This article uses an agent-based model and Selectorate Theory to explore the micro-foundations of the systemic democratic peace. Leaders engage in an international bargaining game that can escalate to conflict. Upon resolving the dispute, leaders distribute winnings to domestic constituencies and stand for reselection. The model’s assumptions about selectorate size in a democracy versus an autocracy make democratic leaders more accountable than autocrats and endogenously generates the dyadic democratic peace. The model shows no evidence of an autocratic peace, as mixed dyads are less likely to go to war than autocratic dyads. I further show that democratic leaders invest more resources in wars than predicted by the Nash equilibrium and also more than autocrats. This overinvestment by democratic leaders results in democracies winning more wars than autocrats. This model thus reinforces previous findings that democratic leaders respond to domestic reselection incentives by using more resources in conflict to gain a war-fighting advantage and help ensure victory. Finally, consistent with empirical results, I show that increasing the percentage of democracies in the system does not have a linear effect on the amount of conflict in the system. Below a certain threshold, increasing democracy has no effect on conflict, while after this threshold conflict decreases.
AndersonSallySouvaMark (2010) The accountability effects of political institutions and capitalism on interstate conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution54(4): 543–565.
2.
AxelrodRobert (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation, revised edn. New York: Basic Books.
3.
AxelrodRobert (1986) An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review80(4): 1095–1111.
4.
AxelrodRobert (1997) Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity3(2): 16–22.
BauschAndrew W (2014b) An experimental test of Selectorate Theory. International Interactions40(4): 533–553.
7.
BauschAndrew W (forthcoming) The geography of ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, DOI:10.1177/0022002713515401.
8.
BennettD Scott (2006) Toward a continuous specification of the democracy–autocracy connection. International Studies Quarterly50(2): 313–338.
9.
BremerStuart A (1992) Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 309–341.
10.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceMorrowJames DSiversonRandolph MSmithAlastair (1999a) An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review93(4): 791–807.
11.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceMorrowJames DSiversonRandolph MSmithAlastair (1999b) Policy failure and political survival: The contribution of political institutions. Journal of Conflict Resolution43(2): 147–161.
12.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceMorrowJames DSiversonRandolph MSmithAlastair (2004) Testing novel implications from the selectorate theory of war. World Politics56(3): 363–388.
13.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceSiversonRandolph M (1995) War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability. American Political Science Review89(4): 841–855.
14.
Bueno de MesquitaBruceSmithAlastairSiversonRandolph MMorrowJames D (2005) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
CedermanLars-Erik (1997) Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissolve. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
CedermanLars-Erik (2001a) Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the democratic peace as a macrohistorical learning process. American Political Science Association95(1): 15–31.
17.
CedermanLars-Erik (2001b) Modeling the democratic peace as a Kantian selection process. Journal of Conflict Resolution45(4): 470–502.
18.
CedermanLars-Erik (2002) Endogenizing geopolitical boundaries with agent-based modeling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(3): 7296–7303.
19.
CedermanLars-ErikGleditschKristian Skrede (2004) Conquest and regime change: An evolutionary model of the spread of democracy and peace. International Studies Quarterly48(3): 603–629.
20.
ChoiSeung Whan (2011) Re-evaluating capitalist and democratic peace models. International Studies Quarterly55(3): 759–769.
21.
ConradJustinSouvaMark (2011) Regime similarity and rivalry. International Interactions37(1): 1–28.
22.
CrescenziMark JCEnterlineAndrew J (1999) Ripples from the waves? A systemic, time-series analysis of democracy, democratization, and interstate war. Journal of Peace Research36(1): 75–94.
23.
CrocoSarah E (2011) The decider’s dilemma: Leader culpability, war outcomes, and domestic punishment. American Political Science Review105(3): 457–477.
24.
DafoeAllan (2011) Statistical critiques of the democratic peace: Caveat emptor. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 247–262.
25.
DafoeAllanOnealJohn RRussettBruce (2013) The democratic peace: Weighing the evidence and cautious inference. International Studies Quarterly57(1): 201–214.
26.
DeschMichael C (2002) Democracy and victory: Why regime type hardly matters. International Security27(2): 5–47.
27.
DeschMichael C (2003) Democracy and victory: Fair fights or food fights?International Security28(1): 180–194.
28.
DownesAlexander B (2009) How smart and tough are democracies? Reassessing theories of democratic victory in war. International Security33(4): 9–51.
29.
FearonJames D (1995) Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49(3): 379–414.
30.
GartzkeErik (2007) The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 166–191.
31.
GartzkeErikWeisigerAlex (2013a) Fading friendships: Alliances, affinities and the activation of international identities. British Journal of Political Science43(1): 25–52.
32.
GartzkeErikWeisigerAlex (2013b) Permanent friends? Dynamic difference and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly57(1): 171–185.
33.
GartzkeErikWeisigerAlex (2014) Under construction: Development, democracy, and difference as determinants of systemic liberal peace. International Studies Quarterly58(1): 130–145.
34.
GelpiChristopher F (2001) Winners or losers? Democracies in international crisis, 1918–94. American Political Science Review95(3): 633–647.
35.
GiblerDouglas M (2007) Bordering on peace: Democracy, territorial issues, and conflict. International Studies Quarterly51(3): 509–532.
36.
GiblerDouglas MMillerSteven V (2013) Quick victories? Territory, democracies, and their disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution57(2): 258–284.
37.
GleditschNils PetterHegreHåvard (1997) Peace and democracy: Three levels of analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(2): 283–310.
38.
GoemansHein E (2000) Fighting for survival: The fate of leaders and the duration of war. Journal of Conflict Resolution44(5): 555–579.
39.
GoemansHein E (2008) Which way out? The manner and consequences of losing office. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(6): 771–794.
40.
GoldsmithBenjamin E (2007) Defense effort and institutional theories of democratic peace and victory: Why try harder?Security Studies16(2): 189–222.
41.
GowaJoanne (2011) The democratic peace after the Cold War. Economics & Politics23(2): 153–171.
42.
HammondRoss AAxelrodRobert (2006) The evolution of ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(6): 926–936.
43.
HartOliver (2001) Norms and the theory of the firm. University of Pennsylvania Law Review149(6): 1701–1715.
44.
HehenkampBurkhardLeiningerWolfgangPossajennikovAlexandre (2004) Evolutionary equilibrium in Tullock contests: Spite and overdissipation. European Journal of Political Economy20(4): 1045–1057.
45.
HoffmannRobert (2000) Twenty years on: The evolution of cooperation revisited. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation3(2): 1390–1396.
46.
HollandJohn HHolyoakKeith JNisbettRichard EThagardPaul R (1989) Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
JohnsonPaul E (1999) Simulation modeling in political science. American Behavioral Scientist42(10): 1509–1530.
48.
KaderaKelly MCrescenziMark JCShannonMegan L (2003) Democratic survival, peace, and war in the international system. American Journal of Political Science47(2): 234–247.
49.
LakeDavid A (1992) Powerful pacifists: Democratic states and war. American Political Science Review86(1): 24–37.
50.
LakeDavid A (2003) Fair fights? Evaluating theories of democracy and victory. International Security28(1): 154–167.
51.
LaverMichaelSergentiErnest (2011) Party Competition: An Agent-Based Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
LeiningerWolfgang (2003) On evolutionarily stable behavior in contests. Economics of Governance4(3): 177–186.
53.
LeiningerWolfgang (2009) Evolutionarily stable preferences in contests. Public Choice140(3–4): 341–356.
54.
LinsterBruce G (1992) Evolutionary stability in the infinitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma played by two-state Moore machines. Southern Economic Journal58(4): 880–903.
55.
MacyMichael WWillerRobert (2002) From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology28: 143–166.
56.
MarneyJohn PTarbertHeather FE (2000) Why do simulation? Towards a working epistemology for practitioners of the dark arts. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation3(4) (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/3/4/4.html).
57.
MarshChristopher (2003) Learning from your comrade’s mistakes: The impact of the Soviet past on China’s future. Communist and Post-Communist Studies36(3): 259–272.
58.
MillerJohn HPageScott E (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
MitchellSara McLaughlin (2002) A Kantian system? Democracy and third-party conflict resolution. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 749–759.
60.
MitchellSara McLaughlinGatesScottHegreHåvard (1999) Evolution in democracy–war dynamics. Journal of Conflict Resolution43(6): 771–792.
61.
MorrowJames DMesquitaBruce Bueno deSiversonRandolph MSmithAlastair (2008) Retesting selectorate theory: Separating the effects of W from other elements of democracy. American Political Science Review102(3): 393–400.
62.
PantazisChristinaPembertonSimon (2009) Policy transfer and the UK’s ‘war on terror’: A political economy approach. Policy & Politics37(3): 363–387.
63.
PecenyMarkBeerCaroline CSanchez-TerryShannon (2002) Dictatorial peace?American Political Science Review96(1): 15–26.
64.
RayJames Lee (2001) Integrating levels of analysis in world politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics13(4): 355–388.
65.
RayJames Lee (2013) War on democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly57(1): 198–200.
66.
ReiterDanStamAllan C (1998) Democracy, war initiation, and victory. American Political Science Review92(2): 377–389.
67.
ReiterDanStamAllan C (2002) Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
ReiterDanStamAllan C (2003a) Identifying the culprit: Democracy, dictatorship, and dispute initiation. American Political Science Review97(2): 333–337.
69.
ReiterDanStamAllan C (2003b) Understanding victory: Why political institutions matter. International Security28(1): 168–179.
70.
RousseauDavid L (2005) Democracy and War: Institutions, Norms, and the Evolution of International Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
SouvaMark (2004) Institutional similarity and interstate conflict. International Interactions30(3): 263–280.
73.
TanBann S (2013) Regime change and conflict recidivism within rivalry: Interludes in disputes. Swiss Political Science Review19(2): 189–211.
74.
TangeråsThomas P (2009) Democracy, autocracy and the likelihood of international conflict. Economics of Governance10(2): 99–117.
75.
ValentinoBenjamin AHuthPaul KCrocoSarah E (2010) Bear any burden? How democracies minimize the costs of war. Journal of Politics72(2): 528–544.
76.
WaltzKenneth (1986) Reductionist and systemic theories. In: KeohaneRobert O (ed.) Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press, 47–69.
77.
WeeksJessica L (2012) Strongmen and straw men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review106(2): 326–347.
78.
WernerSuzanne (2000) The effects of political similarity on the onset of militarized disputes, 1816–1985. Political Research Quarterly53(2): 343–374.
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.
