This article argues that the effect of a democratic leader’s electoral margin of victory on their conflict behaviour once in office is highly dependent upon the state’s institutional structure. I show that, uniquely in parliamentary democracies, governments that win a larger share of the vote are significantly less likely to initiate disputes abroad. Such governments entail broad coalitions that, combined with the ever-present possibility of governmental collapse and new elections, require leaders to pursue a more cautious, lowest-common-denominator foreign policy. This effect is significantly stronger for right-wing governments. Conversely, in presidential democracies, I find that electoral vote share has no effect on a leader’s subsequent conflict propensity. Vote shares thus function very differently in parliamentary and presidential systems, with important implications for conflict behaviour abroad.
AuerswaldD (1999) Inward bound: Domestic institutions and military conflicts. International Organization53(3): 469–504.
2.
BeasleyRKaarboJ (2014) Explaining extremity in the foreign policies of parliamentary democracies. International Studies Quarterly58: 729–740.
3.
BeckTClarkeGGroffA, et al. (2001) New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review15(1): 165–176.
4.
BennettDSRupertMC (2003) Comparing measures of political similarity: An empirical comparison of S versus Tau-b in the study of international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution47(3): 367–393.
5.
BruleDWilliamsL (2009) Democracy and diversion: Government arrangements, the economy, and dispute initiation. Journal of Peace Research46(6): 777–798.
6.
BuenodeMesquitaBSiversonRM (1995) War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability. American Political Science Review89(4): 841–855.
7.
BuenodeMesquitaBMorrowJSiversonR, et al. (1999) An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review93(4): 791–807.
8.
BuenodeMesquitaBSmithASiversonRM, et al. (2003) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
9.
CarterDBSignorinoCS (2010) Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis18(3): 271–292.
10.
ChiozzaGGoemansH (2004) International conflict and the tenure of leaders: Is war still ex-post inefficient?American Journal of Political Science48(3): 604–619.
11.
ChiozzaGGoemansH (2011) Leaders and International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ClareJ (2010) Ideological fractionalization and the international conflict behavior of parliamentary democracies. International Studies Quarterly54(4): 965–987.
13.
ConleyPH (2001) Presidential Mandates: How Elections Shape the National Agenda. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
CrocoS (2011) The decider’s dilemma: Leader culpability, domestic politics and war termination. American Political Science Review105(3): 457–477.
15.
ElmanMF (2000) Unpacking democracy: Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and theories of democratic peace. Security Studies9(4): 91–126.
16.
FearonJD (1994) Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88(3): 577–592.
17.
GaubatzKT (1991) Election cycles and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution35(2): 212–244.
18.
GhosnFPalmerGBremerS (2004) The MID3 data set, 1993-2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science21: 133–154.
19.
GleditschKS (2002) Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(5): 712–724.
20.
GrossbackLJPetersonDAMStimsonJA (2006) Mandate Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HuthPAlleeT (2002) Domestic political accountability and the escalation and settlement of international disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(6): 754–790.
22.
IrelandMJGartnerSS (2001) Time to fight: Government type and conflict initiation in parliamentary systems. The Journal of Conflict Resolution45(5): 547–568.
23.
JanisIL (1989) Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management. New York: The Free Press.
24.
JonesDMBremerSSingerJD (1996) Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15(2): 163–213.
25.
KaarboJ (2012) Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
26.
KaarboJBeasleyRK (2008) Taking it to the extreme: The effect of coalition cabinets on foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis4: 67–81.
27.
KochMT (2009) Governments, partisanship, and foreign policy: The case of dispute duration. Journal of Peace Research46(6): 799–817.
28.
KochMTSullivanP (2010) Should I stay or should I go now? Partisanship, approval, and the duration of major power democratic military interventions. Journal of Politics72(3): 616–629.
29.
LaverMSchofieldN (1991) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
LeblangDChanS (2003) Explaining wars fought by established democracies: Do institutional constraints matter?Political Research Quarterly56(4): 385–400.
31.
MarshallMGJaggersK (2002) Polity IV Project: Dataset User’s Manual. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Available at: http://systemicpeace.org (accessed 9 January 2016).
32.
MullerWCStromK (eds) (2000) Coalition Governments in Western Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
OakesA (2012) Diversionary War: Domestic Unrest and International Conflict. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
OktayS (2014) Constraining or enabling? The effects of government composition on international commitments. Journal of European Public Policy21(6): 860–884.
35.
PalmerGLondonTRReganPM (2004) What’s stopping you? The sources of political constraints on international conflict behavior in parliamentary democracies. International Interactions30(1): 1–24.
36.
PalmerGD’OrazioVKenwickM. et al. (2015) The MID4 dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(2): 222–242.
37.
PotterPBK (2007) Does experience matter?Journal of Conflict Resolution51(3): 351–378.
38.
PotterPBK (2013) Electoral margins and American foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly57: 505–518.
39.
PrinsBCSprecherC (1999) Institutional constraints, political opposition, and interstate dispute escalation: Evidence from parliamentary systems, 1946-89. Journal of Peace Research36(3): 271–287.
40.
ReiterDTillmanER (2002) Public, legislative, and executive constraints on the democratic initiation of conflict. The Journal of Politics64(3): 810–826.
41.
SignorinoCSRitterJM (1999) Tau-b or not Tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115–144.
42.
SingerJD (1987) Reconstructing the Correlates of War dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816-1985. International Interactions 14: 115–132.
43.
SnyderJ (1991) Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44.
WarwickP (1992) Ideological diversity and government survival in Western European parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies25(3): 332–361.
45.
WarwickP (1994) Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
WeeksJL (2012) Strongmen and straw men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review106(2): 326–347.
47.
WeeksJL (2014) Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
48.
WilliamsLK (2013) Flexible election timing and international conflict. International Studies Quarterly57(3): 449–461.
49.
YanivA (1990) Israeli national security in the 1980s: The crisis of overload. In: MahlerG (ed.) Israel After Begin. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.93–110.
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.
