IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v5y2017i04p613-639_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Bar Fight Theory of International Conflict: Regime Type, Coalition Size, and Victory

Author

Listed:
  • Graham, Benjamin A.T.
  • Gartzke, Erik
  • Fariss, Christopher J.

Abstract

Studies of regime type and war show that democracies tend to win the wars they fight, but questions remain about why this is the case. A simple, if underappreciated, explanation for democratic success is that democracies fight alongside larger and more powerful coalitions. Coalition partners bring additional material capabilities and may also provide intangible benefits to the war effort, such as increased legitimacy or confidence. Democracies may also find it less costly to join coalitions, as democratic war aims may be easier to apportion among the victors without diluting the spoils. Evaluating our hypotheses in a sample of all wars (or all militarized disputes) during the period 1816–2000, we find that democracies fight alongside larger coalitions and that states fighting alongside larger coalitions are more likely to win major contests. Coalition size subsumes most (and in some specifications all) of the direct effect of regime type on victory.

Suggested Citation

  • Graham, Benjamin A.T. & Gartzke, Erik & Fariss, Christopher J., 2017. "The Bar Fight Theory of International Conflict: Regime Type, Coalition Size, and Victory," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 613-639, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:5:y:2017:i:04:p:613-639_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847015000527/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel S. Morey, 2020. "Centralized command and coalition victory," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 716-734, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:5:y:2017:i:04:p:613-639_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.