Where were coups more likely to occur in the US world order? The US has occasionally resorted to coups to realign the foreign policy preferences in allied nations with its own preferences. This article explains why coups were more likely in countries where the leaders enjoyed an incumbency advantage that thwarted the ability of potential successors to gain power through regular channels of leadership turnover. That was more likely to be the case in presidential than in parliamentary democracies, and more likely in personalistic, military, or single-party regimes than in autocracies with multiparty legislatures.
AbrahamianE (2013) The coup: 1953, the CIA, and the roots of modern U.S.–Iranian relations. New York: The New Press.
2.
AlbrechtH (2015) The myth of coup-proofing: Risk and instances of military coups d’état in the Middle East and North Africa, 1950–2013. Armed Forces & Society41(4): 659–687.
3.
AlesinaAOzlerSRoubiniN, et al. (1996) Political instability and economic growth. Journal of Economic Growth1(2): 189–211.
4.
AllenMACampbellTHernandezN, et al. (2023) US Military deployments and the risk of coup d’État. Foreign Policy Analysis19(1): orac027.
5.
Arel-BundockV (2021) WDI: World Development Indicators and other World Bank data [Computer software manual]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=WDI (R package version 2.7.2).
6.
AtkinsonCChiozzaG (2021) Hybrid threats and the erosion of democracy fromwithin: US surveillance and European security. Chinese Political Science Review6(1): 119–142.
7.
BelkinASchoferE (2003) Toward a structural understanding of coup risk. Journal of Conflict Resolution47(5): 594–620.
8.
BellC (2016) Coup d’état and democracy. Comparative Political Studies49(9): 1167–1200.
BesleyTKudamatsuM (2008) Making autocracy work. In: HelpmanE (eds) Institutions and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 452–510.
11.
BevinsV (2020) The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped our World. New York: PublicAffairs.
12.
BiddleSMacdonaldJBakerR (2018) Small footprint, small payoff: The military effectiveness of security force assistance. Journal of Strategic Studies41(1–2): 89–142.
13.
BlackJK (1977) United States Penetration of Brazil. Philadelphi, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
14.
BöhmeltTPilsterU (2015) The impact of institutional coup-proofing on coup attempts and coup outcomes. International Interactions41(1): 158–182.
BouttonA. (2019). Coup-proofing in the shadow of intervention: Alliances, moral hazard, and violence in authoritarian regimes. International Studies Quarterly, 63(1), 43–57.
17.
Box-SteffensmeierJMJonesBS (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BrownleeJ (2012) Democracy Prevention: The Politics of the U.S.–Egyptian Alliance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
BürknerP-C (2017) Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software80(1): 1–28.
20.
BürknerP-C (2018) Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal10(1): 395–411.
21.
CarterJ (2024) Political leaders and military spending. Conflict Management and Peace Science41(2): 132–154.
22.
CarterJChiozzaG (2018) State leaders and foreign policy. In: ThiesCG (eds) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.487
23.
CaseyAE (2020) The durability of client regimes: Foreign sponsorship and military loyalty, 1946–2010. World Politics72(3): 411–447.
24.
CheibubJA (2007) Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
CheibubJAGandhiJVreelandJR (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice143(1–2): 67–101.
26.
ChiozzaG (2023) Leverage and Cooperation in the US World Order: The Shrewd Sheriff. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
ChiozzaGGoemansHE (2011) Leaders and International Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
CullatherN (2006) Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of its Operations in Guatemala, 1952–1954, 2nd ed.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
DesmetKOrtuño-OrtínIWacziargR (2012) The political economy of linguistic cleavages. Journal of Development Economics97(2): 322–338.
34.
DondiM (2015) L’eco del boato: Storia della strategia della tensione 1965–1974. Roma: Editori Laterza.
35.
EriksonRS (1971) The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity3(3): 395–405.
36.
FigesO (2022) The Story of Russia. New York: Henry Holt.
37.
FrantzESteinEA (2017) Countering coups: Leadership succession rules in dictatorships. Comparative Political Studies50(7): 935–962.
38.
GandhiJ (2008) Political Institutions under Dictatorship. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
GandhiJPrzeworskiA (2007) Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies40(11): 1279–1301.
40.
GardnerRN (2005) Mission Italy: On the Front Lines of the Cold War. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
41.
GeddesB (1999) What do we know about democratization after twenty years?Annual Review of Political Science2: 115–144.
42.
GeddesBWrightJFrantzE (2018) How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
GehlbachSKeeferP (2012) Private investment and the institutionalization of collective action in autocracies: Ruling parties and legislatures. Journal of Politics74(2): 621–635.
44.
GelmanAJakulinAPittauMG, et al. (2008) A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics2(4): 1360–1383.
45.
GerringJThackerSCMorenoC (2009) Are parliamentary systems better?Comparative Political Studies42(3): 327–359.
46.
GiannuliA (2018) La strategia della tensione: Servizi segreti, partiti, golpe falliti, terrore fascista, politica internazionale: Un bilancio definitivo. Milano: Ponte Alle Grazie.
47.
GleditschKS (2002) Expanded trade and gdp data. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(5): 712–724.
48.
GoemansHE (2008) Which way out? The manner and consequences of losing office. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(6): 771–794.
49.
GreeneZDLichtAA (2024) Donor political preferences and the allocation of aid: Patterns in recipient type. Conflict Management and Peace Science41(2): 155–176.
50.
GreenlandSSennSJRothmanKJ, et al. (2016) Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology31: 337–350.
51.
GrigoryanA (2020) Selective Wilsonianism: Material interests and the West’s support for democracy. International Security44(4): 158–200.
52.
HadeniusATeorellJ (2007) Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy18(1): 143–157.
53.
HarmerT (2011) Allende’s Chile and the inter-American cold war. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
54.
HelmsL (2020) Leadership succession in politics: The democracy/autocracy divide revisited. British Journal of Politics and International Relations22(2): 328–346.
55.
HiroiTOmoriS (2013) Causes and triggers of coups d’état: An event history analysis. Politics & Policy41(1): 39–64.
56.
HolmesAA (2019) Coups and revolutions: Mass mobilization, the Egyptian military, and the United States from Mubarak to Sisi. New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
HouleCBodeaC (2017) Ethnic inequality and coups in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Peace Research54(3): 382–296.
58.
IkenberryGJ (2011) Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
JacobsS (2006) Cold War Mandarin: Ngo Dinh Diem and the Origins of America’s War in Vietnam, 1950–1963. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
60.
JohnsonJThyneCL (2018) Squeaky wheels and troop loyalty: How domestic protests influence coups d’état, 1951–2005. Journal of Conflict Resolution62(3): 597–625.
61.
KarrethJ (2018) The economic leverage of international organizations in interstate disputes. International Interactions44(3): 463–490.
62.
KarrethJScoginSWilliamsR, et al. (2021) BayesPostEst: Generate postestimation quantities for Bayesian MCMC estimation [Computer software manual]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesPostEst (R package version 0.3.1).
63.
KassRERafteryAE (1995) Bayes Factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association90(430): 773–795.
64.
KeeleyRV (2010) The Colonels’ Coup and the American Embassy: A Diplomat’s View of the Breakdown of Democracy in Cold War Greece. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp0sr
65.
Kendall-TaylorAFrantzE (2014) How autocracies fall. Washington Quarterly37(1): 35–47.
66.
KeysersCGazzolaVWagenmakersE-J (2020) Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence. Nature Neuroscience23: 788–799.
67.
KimNK (2016) Revisiting economic shocks and coups. Journal of Conflict Resolution61(1): 3–31.
68.
KimTBaikCJ (2011) Taming and tamed by the United States. In: KimB-KVogelEF (eds) The Park Chung Hee Era: The Transformation of South Korea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 58–84.
69.
LakeDA (1993) Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential?International Studies Quarterly37(4): 459–489.
70.
LakeDA (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
71.
LevinDH (2020) Meddling in the Ballot Box: The Causes and Effects of Partisan Electoral Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.
72.
LinzJJ (1994) Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? In: LinzJJValenzuelaA (eds) The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 3–87.
73.
LondreganJBPooleKT (1990) Poverty, the coup trap, and the seizure of executive power. World Politics42(2): 151–183.
74.
LührmannATannenbergMLindbergSI (2018) Regimes of the world (RoW): Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance6(1): 60–77.
75.
LundestadG (1986) Empire by invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945–1952. Journal of Peace Research23(3): 263–277.
76.
LytteltonA (2006) Italia nostra. New York Review of Books53(4): 49–53.
77.
MakowskiDBen-ShacharMSLüdeckeD (2019) Bayestestr: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software4(40): 1541.
78.
MansourniaMAGeroldingerAGreenlandS, et al. (2018) Separation in logistic regression: Causes, consequences, and control. American Journal of Epidemiology187(4): 864–870.
79.
MárquezX (2017) Non-democratic Politics: Authoritarianism, Dictatorship and Democratization. London: Palgrave.
O’KaneRHT (1981) A probabilistic approach to the causes of coups d’etat. British Journal of Political Science11(3): 287–308.
88.
O’RourkeLA (2018) Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
89.
PalmerGMorganTC (2006) A Theory of Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
90.
PerssonTTabelliniG (2003) The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91.
PeytonBBajjaliehJShalmonD, et al. (2020) Cline Center coup d’état project dataset. Cline Center for Advanced Social Research. V.2.0.0, 16 November. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. doi: 10.13012/B2IDB-9651987_V2.
92.
PowellJ (2012) Determinants of the attempting and outcome of coups d’état. Journal of Conflict Resolution56(6): 1017–1040.
93.
RafteryAE (1995) Bayesian Model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology25: 111–163.
94.
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
95.
RoesslerP (2011) The enemy within: Personal rule, coups, and civil war in Africa. World Politics63(2): 300–346.
96.
SchmitterPCKarlTL (1991) What democracy is … and is not. Journal of Democracy2(3): 75–88.
97.
ShepsleKA (1986) Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. In: WeisbergHF (eds) Political Science: The Science of Politics. New York: Agathon Press, 51–82.
98.
ShikanoS (2019) Hypothesis testing in the Bayesian framework. Swiss Political Science Review25(3): 288–299.
99.
SinghN (2014) Seizing power: The strategic logic of military coups. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
100.
SpielmanR (1985) The eighteenth brumaire of general Wojciech Jaruzelski. World Politics37(4): 562–585.
101.
SudduthJK (2017) Coup risk, coup-proofing and leader survival. Journal of Peace Research54(1): 3–15.
102.
SudduthJKBellC (2018) The rise predicts the fall: How the method of leader entry affects the method of leader removal in dictatorships. International Studies Quarterly62(1): 145–159.
103.
SvolikMW (2012) The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.
104.
SylvanDMajeskiS (2009) U.S. Foreign Policy in Perspective: Clients, Enemies and Empire. New York: Routledge.
105.
ThyneCPowellJParrottS, et al. (2018) Even generals need friends: How domestic and international reactions to coups influence regime survival. Journal of Conflict Resolution62(7): 1406–1432.
106.
ThyneCL (2010) Supporter of stability or agent of agitation? The effect of US foreign policy on coups in Latin America, 1960–99. Journal of Peace Research47(4): 449–461.
107.
TroegerVE (2019) To P or not to P? The usefulness of P-values in quantitative political science research. Swiss Political Science Review25(3): 281–287.
108.
WassersteinRLLazarNA (2016) The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician70(2): 129–133.
109.
WassersteinRLSchirmALLazarNA (2019) Moving to a world beyond “p<0.05”. The American Statistician73(suppl. 1): 1–19.
110.
WelchRM (2019) Domestic politics and the power to punish: The case of national human rights institutions. Conflict Management and Peace Science36(4): 385–404.
111.
WestadOA (2007) The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times. New York: Cambridge University Press.
112.
ZhuJMukhinN (2021) The modern regency: Leadership transition and authoritarian resilience of the former Soviet Union and China. Communist and Post-Communist Studies54(1–2): 22–44.
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.
