nach oben

Political Behavior

Erschienen in:

28.06.2018 | Original Paper

The Effects of Militarized Interstate Disputes on Incumbent Voting Across Genders

verfasst von: Shane P. Singh, Jaroslav Tir

Erschienen in: Political Behavior | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Gender and politics research argues that men are more hawkish and supportive of militarized confrontations with foreign foes, while women ostensibly prefer more diplomatic approaches. This suggests that, after a militarized confrontation with a foreign power, women’s likelihood of voting for the incumbent will both decrease and be lower than that of men. Our individual-level, cross-national examinations cover 87 elections in 40 countries, 1996–2011, and show only some support for such notions. Women punish incumbents when their country is targeted in a low-hostility militarized interstate dispute (MID) or when their country is the initiator of a high-hostility MID. The low-hostility MID initiation and high-hostility MID targeting scenarios, meanwhile, prompt women to be more likely to vote for the incumbent. Importantly, men’s reactions rarely differ from women’s, casting doubt on the existence of a gender gap in electoral responses to international conflict.

Vorheriger Artikel Correction to: Mass Media and Electoral Preferences During the 2016 US Presidential Race

Nächster Artikel Roadmaps to Representation: An Experimental Study of How Voter Education Tools Affect Citizen Decision Making

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

For related arguments and exhaustive literature reviews, see, for example, DeRouen (1995, 2000), Fordham (1998), James (1987), James and Oneal (1991), Levy (1998), Meernik (2004), Mitchell and Prins (2004), Mitchell and Thies (2011), Oneal and Tir (2006), Pickering and Kisangani (2005), and Tir (2010).

Blechman and Kaplan (1978), Brody (1991), Edwards and Gallup (1990), and Brace and Hinckley (1992) also report that rallies are uncertain and small on average.

If we remove abstainers, we find that 31.95% of those who voted chose the incumbent party.

MIDs are “united historical cases in which the threat, display or use of military force… by one member state is explicitly directed towards the government, official representatives, official forces, property, or territory of another state” (Jones et al. 1996, p. 168). The initiator of a dispute is the state that takes the first militarized action.

We take the average placement of the incumbent party provided by those with a college education because more educated individuals are likely to provide accurate ideological placements (Alvarez and Franklin 1994; Dahlberg 2013). The translated question wording is: “In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place [the following political parties] on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?”

The translated question wording is: “In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?” Left–right ideological self-placement measures are prone to missingness, and the extent to which individuals understand left–right semantics is related to both contextual and individual-level factors (Zechmeister 2006). Encouragingly, we found no link between missingness on the ideological self-placement measure and our dependent variable, incumbent voting. (In a logistic regression of incumbent voting on missingness, the two-sided p value associated with the coefficient on missingness was 0.56.).

The CSES asks: “Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular political party?” If the answer is yes, the respondent is asked to identify this party.

With reference to Dalton’s (2008) party system dispersion measure, we measure the ideological spread of parties in government as \(\sqrt {\sum\nolimits_{{j = 1}}^{n} {(p_{j} - \bar{p})^{2} } }\), where p_j is a given government party’s position on a 0–10 scale, \(\bar{p}\) is the mean government party position, and n is the number of parties in government. We assigned a value of zero, the measure’s lower bound, for presidential elections, which is also the value produced for single-party governments. Parties’ left–right orientations are again measured with the average of the placements provided by respondents with a college education.

All predicted probabilities reported in this study are calculated with the control variables held at their means.

Because the size and significance of a coefficient on an interaction term does not alone indicate support for an interactive hypothesis, or lack thereof, particularly in the case of a nonlinear model (cf. Berry et al. 2010; Berry et al. 2016; Brambor et al. 2006), we also examine whether the gender-specific marginal effects of MID initiation and targeting on the probability of incumbent voting, which are plotted in Fig. 1, are statistically different. The two-sided p values associated with the differences in the effects of MID initiation and targeting across men and women are 0.12 and 0.96, respectively, again indicating a lack of a significant difference in female and male reactions to MID initiation and targeting.

Also of some interest in previous research is how voters react to the leader’s gender (e.g. Falk and Kenski 2006; Lawless 2004; Regan and Paskeviciute 2003). Yet, because no election in our data set with a MID in the preceding year had a female leader, we cannot systematically explore the impact of leader gender.

Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Wlezien, C. (2016). The company you keep: How voters infer party positions on European integration from governing coalition arrangements. American Journal of Political Science,60(4), 811–823.

Aldrich, J. H., Sullivan, J. L., & Borgida, E. (1989). Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates ‘waltz before a blind audience?’. American Political Science Review,83(1), 123–141.

Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics,56(3), 671–688.

Arena, P. (2008). Success breeds success? War outcomes, domestic opposition, and elections. Conflict Management and Peace Science,25(2), 136–151.

Baum, M. A. (2004). How public opinion constrains the use of force: The case of operation restore hope. Presidential Studies Quarterly,34(2), 187–226.

Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berry, W. D., Demeritt, J. H. R., & Esarey, J. (2010). Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential? American Journal of Political Science,54(1), 248–266.

Berry, W. D., Demeritt, J. H. R., & Esarey, J. (2016). Bias and overconfidence in parametric models of interactive processes. American Journal of Political Science,60(2), 521–539.

Blechman, B., & Kaplan, S. (1978). Force without war. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Brace, P., & Hinckley, B. (1992). Follow the leader: Opinion polls and the modern presidents. New York: Basic Books.

Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis,14(1), 63–82.

Brody, R. A. (1991). Assessing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Brooks, C., Nieuwbeerta, P., & Manza, J. (2006). Cleavage-based voting behavior in cross-national perspective: Evidence from six postwar democracies. Social Science Research,35(1), 88–128.

Brooks, D. J., & Valentino, B. A. (2011). A war of one’s own: Understanding the gender gap in support for war. Public Opinion Quarterly,75(2), 270–286.

Bueno De Mesquita, B., & Siverson, R. (1995). War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability. American Political Science Review,89(4), 841–853.

Caprioli, M. (2000). Gendered conflict. Journal of Peace Research,37(1), 51–68.

Carnaghan, E., & Bahry, D. (1990). Political attitudes and the gender gap in the ussr. Comparative Politics,22(4), 379–399.

Center for Systemic Peace. (2017). Polity IV data: Polity-case format, 1800-2016. Vienna, VA: Center for Systemic Peace.

Chaney, C. K., Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections, 1980–1992. Political Research Quarterly,51(2), 311–339.

Chapman, T. L., & Reiter, D. (2004). The United Nations security council and the rally ‘round the flag effect. Journal of Conflict Resolution,48(6), 886–909.

Chaturvedi, R. (2016). A closer look at the gender gap in presidential voting. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Chiozza, G., & Goemans, H. E. (2003). Peace through insecurity: Tenure and international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution,47(4), 443–467.

Chiozza, G., & Goemans, H. E. (2004). Avoiding diversionary targets. Journal of Peace Research,41(4), 423–443.

Clements, B. (2011). ‘Hawks’ and ‘doves’: Public opinion in Britain towards overseas military interventions. Political Insight,2(3), 12–15.

Cockburn, C. (2007). From where we stand: War, women’s activism and feminist analysis. London: Zed Books.

Colaresi, M. (2004). Aftershocks: Postwar leadership survival, rivalry, and regime dynamics. International Studies Quarterly,48(4), 713–728.

Conover, P. J., & Sapiro, V. (1993). Gender, feminist consciousness, and war. American Journal of Political Science,37(4), 1079–1099.

Converse, P. E., & Schuman, H. (1970). ‘Silent majorities’ and the Vietnam war. Scientific American,222(6), 17–25.

Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.

Cotton, T. Y. C. (1987). War and American democracy: Electoral costs of the last five wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution,30(4), 616–635.

CSES. (2013). The comparative study of electoral systems. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Dahlberg, S. (2013). Does context matter—The impact of electoral systems, political parties and individual characteristics on voters’ perceptions of party positions. Electoral Studies,32(4), 670–683.

Dalton, R. J. (2008). The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies,41(7), 899–920.

De Boer, C. (1985). The polls: The European peace movement and deployment of nuclear missiles. Public Opinion Quarterly,49(1), 119–132.

DeRouen, K. R., Jr. (1995). The indirect link: Politics, the economy, and the use of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution,39(4), 671–695.

DeRouen, K. R., Jr. (2000). Presidents and the diversionary use of force: A research note. International Studies Quarterly,44(2), 317–328.

Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. T. (2008). The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, G. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1990). Presidential approval. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Eichenberg, R. C. (2003). Gender differences in public attitudes toward the use of force by the United States, 1990-2003. International Security,28(1), 110–141.

Eichenberg, R. C. (2016). Gender difference in American public opinion on the use of military force, 1982-2013. International Studies Quarterly,60(1), 138–148.

Eichenberg, R. C., & Stoll, R. J. (2012). Gender difference or parallel publics? The dynamics of defense spending opinions in the United States, 1965-2007. Journal of Conflict Resolution,56(2), 331–348.

Everitt, J. (1998). The gender gap in Canada: Now you see it, now you don’t. Canadian Review of Sociology,35(2), 191–219.

Falk, E., & Kenski, K. (2006). Issue saliency and gender steretypes: Support for women as presidents in times of war and terrorism. Social Science Quarterly,87(1), 1–18.

Fisher, S. D., & Hobolt, S. B. (2010). Coalition government and electoral accountability. Electoral Studies,29(3), 358–369.

Fite, D., Genest, M., & Wilcox, C. (1990). Gender differences in foreign policy attitudes a longitudinal analysis. American Politics Research,18(4), 492–513.

Fordham, B. (1998). The politics of threat perception and the use of force: A political economy model of U.S. Uses of force, 1949–1994. International Studies Quarterly,42(3), 567–590.

Fortunato, D., & Adams, J. (2015). How voters’ perceptions of junior coalition partners depend on the prime minister’s position. European Journal of Political Research,54(3), 601–621.

Frankovic, K. A. (1982). Sex and politics. New alignments, old issues. PS: Political Science and Politics,15(3), 439–448.

Fukuyama, F. (1998). Women and the evolution of world politics. Foreign Affairs,77(5), 24–40.

Gartner, S. S., & Segura, G. M. (1998). War, casualties, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution,42(3), 278–300.

Gidengil, E., Blais, A., Nadeau, R., & Nevitte, N. (2002). Women to the left? Gender differences in political beliefs and policy preferences. In M. Tremblay & L. Trimble (Eds.), Gender and elections in Canada (pp. 140–159). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gottlieb, J., Grossman, G., & Robinson, A. L. (2018). Do men and women have different policy preferences in Africa? Determinants and implications of gender gaps in policy prioritization. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 611–636.

Hobolt, S., Tilley, J., & Banducci, S. (2013). Clarity of responsibility: How government cohesion conditions performance voting. European Journal of Political Research,52(2), 164–187.

Holman, M. R., Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2011). Sex, stereotypes, and security: A study of the effects of terrorist threat on assessments of female leadership. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy,32(3), 173–192.

Huddy, L., Cassese, E., & Lizotte, M.-K. (2008). Sources of political unity and disunity among women: Placing the gender gap in perspective. In L. Duke-Whitaker (Ed.), Voting the gender gap (pp. 141–169). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

James, P. (1987). Conflict and cohesion: A review of the literature and recommendations for future research. Cooperation and Conflict,22(1), 21–33.

James, P., & Oneal, J. R. (1991). The influence of domestic and international politics on the president’s use of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution,35(2), 307–332.

James, P., & Rioux, J.-S. (1998). International crises and linkage politics: The experiences of the United States, 1953-1994. Political Research Quarterly,51(3), 781–812.

Jaquette, J. S. (1997). Women in power: From tokenism to critical mass. Foreign Policy,108(1), 23–37.

Jensen, M. P. (1987). Gender, sex roles, and attitudes toward war and nuclear weapons. Sex Roles,17(5/6), 253–267.

Jones, D. M., Bremer, S. A., & Singer, J. D. (1996). Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science,15(2), 163–213.

Kimmel, M. S. (2004). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (pp. 81–93). New York: Worth.

Koch, M. T. (2011). Casualties and incumbents: Do the casualties from interstate conflicts affect incumbent party vote share? British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 795–817.

Lamare, J. W. (1989). Gender and public opinion: Defense and nuclear issues in New Zealand. Journal of Peace Research,26(3), 285–296.

Lawless, J. L. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly,57(3), 479–490.

Levy, J. (1998). The causes of war and the conditions of peace. Annual Review of Political Science,1, 139–165.

Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1988). Economics and elections: The major western democracies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Lewis-Beck, M., & Stegmaier, M. (2007). Economic models of voting. In R. J. Dalton & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 518–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lizotte, M.-K. (forthcoming). Investigating the origins of the gender gap in support for war. Political Studies Review.

Lunch, W. L., & Sperlich, P. W. (1979). American public opinion and the war in Vietnam. The Western Political Quarterly,32(1), 21–44.

Mackuen, M. B. (1983). Political drama, economic conditions, and the dynamics of presidential popularity. American Journal of Political Science,27(2), 165–192.

Meernik, J. (2004). The political use of military force in U.S. foreign policy. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Miller, R. A., & Elgün, Ö. (2011). Diversion and political survival in Latin America. Journal of Conflict Resolution,55(2), 192–219.

Mitchell, S. M., & Prins, B. C. (2004). Rivalry and diversionary uses of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution,48(6), 937–961.

Mitchell, S. M., & Thies, C. G. (2011). Issue rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science,28(3), 230–260.

Mockabee, S. T. (2007). A question of authority: Religion and cultural conflict in the 2004 election. Political Behavior,29(2), 221–248.

Morgan, T. C., & Bickers, K. N. (1992). Domestic discontent and the external use of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution,36(1), 25–52.

Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents and public opinion. New York: Wiley.

Nincic, M., & Nincic, D. J. (2002). Race, gender, and war. Journal of Peace Research,39(5), 547–568.

Norpoth, H., & Sidman, A. H. (2007). Mission accomplished: The wartime election of 2004. Political Behavior,29(2), 175–195.

Oneal, J. R., & Bryan, A. L. (1995). The rally ‘round the flag effect in U.S. Foreign policy crises, 1950-1985. Political Behavior,17(4), 379–401.

Oneal, J. R., & Tir, J. (2006). Does the diversionary use of force threaten the democratic peace? Assessing the effect of economic growth on interstate conflict, 1921-2001. International Studies Quarterly,50(4), 755–779.

Palmer, G., D’orazio, V., Kenwick, M., & Lane, M. (2015). The MID4 dataset, 2002-2010: Procedures, coding rules and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science,32(2), 222–242.

Pickering, J., & Kisangani, E. F. (2005). Democracy and diversionary military intervention: Reassessing regime type and the diversionary hypothesis. International Studies Quarterly,49(1), 23–43.

Pomper, G. M. (1975). Voters’ choice: Varieties of American electoral behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

Powell, G. B., & Whitten, G. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science,37(2), 391–414.

Press, D. G., Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2013). Atomic aversion: Experimental evidence on taboos, traditions, and the non-use of nuclear weapons. American Political Science Review,107(1), 188–206.

Regan, P. M., & Paskeviciute, A. (2003). Women’s access to politics and peaceful states. Journal of Peace Research,40(3), 287–302.

Reiter, D. (2015). The positivist study of gender and international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution,59(7), 1301–1326.

Rosenberg, M. J., Verba, S., & Converse, P. E. (1970). Vietnam and the silent majority: The dove’s guide. New York: Harper & Row.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of social issues,57(2), 743–762.

Russett, B. (1990a). Controlling the sword: The democratic governance of national security. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Russett, B. (1990b). Economic decline, electoral pressure, and the initiation of interstate conflict. In C. Gochman & A. N. Sabrosky (Eds.), Prisoners of war? (pp. 123–140). Lexington: D.C. Heath.

Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly,50(1), 42–61.

Simmel, G. (1898). The persistence of social groups. II. American Journal of Sociology,3(6), 829–836.

Singh, S. P., & Tir, J. (2018). Partisanship, militarized international conflict, and electoral support for the incumbent. Political Research Quarterly,70(1), 172–183.

Sjoberg, L. (2006). Gender, justice, and the wars in Iraq: A feminist reformulation of just war theory. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Sjoberg, L. (2013). Gendering global conflict: Toward a feminist theory of war. New York: Columbia University Press.

Smith, A. (1996). Diversionary foreign policy in democratic systems. International Studies Quarterly,40(1), 133–154.

Smith, T. W. (1984). The polls: Gender and attitudes toward violence. Public Opinion Quarterly,48(1), 384–396.

Stojsavljevic, J. (2010). Women, conflict, and culture in former Yugoslavia. Gender & Development,3(1), 36–41.

The World Bank. (2017). World development indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tickner, J. A. (2014). A feminist voyage through international relations. New York: Oxford Univerity Press.

Tir, J. (2010). Territorial diversion: Diversionary theory of war and territorial conflict. Journal of Politics,72(2), 413–425.

Tir, J., & Bailey, M. (2018). Painting too ‘Rosie’ a picture: The impact of external threat on women’s economic welfare. Conflict Management and Peace Science,35(3), 248–262.

Tir, J., & Singh, S. P. (2013). Is it the economy or foreign policy, stupid? The impact of foreign crises on leader support. Comparative Politics,46(1), 83–101.

Togeby, L. (1994). The gender gap in foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Peace Research,31(4), 375–392.

Wilkin, S., Haller, B., & Norpoth, H. (1997). From Argentina to Zambia: A world-wide test of economic voting. Electoral Studies,16(3), 301–316.

Williams, L. K., & Brulé, D. J. (2014). Predictably unpredictable: The effects of conflict involvement on the error variance of vote models. British Journal of Political Science,44(2), 287–299.

Williams, L. K., Brulé, D. J., & Koch, M. (2010). War voting: Interstate disputes, the economy, and electoral outcomes. Conflict Management and Peace Science,27(5), 442–460.

Young, I. M. (2003). The logic of masculinist protection: Reflections on the current security state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,29(1), 1–25.

Zechmeister, E. (2006). What’s left and who’s right? A q-method study of individual and contextual influences on the meaning of ideological labels. Political Behavior,28(2), 151–173.

Titel: The Effects of Militarized Interstate Disputes on Incumbent Voting Across Genders
verfasst von: Shane P. Singh
Jaroslav Tir
Publikationsdatum: 28.06.2018
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Political Behavior / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9479-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Black Politics: How Anger Influences the Political Actions Blacks Pursue to Reduce Racial Inequality

Correction to: Traditional Versus Internet Media in a Restricted Information Environment: How Trust in the Medium Matters

Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election

Foreclosure’s Fallout: Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout

The Political Consequences of Self-Insurance: Evidence from Central-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia

Is the Relationship Between Political Responsibility and Electoral Accountability Causal, Adaptive and Policy-Specific?