IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v33y2016i3p294-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domestic institutions, leader tenure and the duration of civil war

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Uzonyi

    (Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts–Lowell, USA)

  • Matthew Wells

    (Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, USA)

Abstract

Why do some civil wars end sooner than others? Extant theory focuses on how exogenous factors, such as resources or third parties, exacerbate the commitment problem faced by belligerents. In explaining the duration of civil war, we focus on factors endogenous to the disputing parties. We advance a theory suggesting that the tenure of a state’s leader influences war duration. Specifically, we argue that longer-tenured leaders tend to fight longer civil wars. This is because long-tenured leaders have a more predictable policy reputation. Based on this predictable reputation, opposition groups have decided to fight the leader rather than bargain peacefully. Therefore, they will be unlikely to believe any policy concessions the leader might offer. This commitment problem looms larger for leaders who do not have domestic institutions that can credibly commit the leader to policy changes. We find robust statistical support for our conjecture. The findings have important implications for leader-centric studies of conflict, as well as for our understanding of bargaining during war.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Uzonyi & Matthew Wells, 2016. "Domestic institutions, leader tenure and the duration of civil war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(3), pages 294-310, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:33:y:2016:i:3:p:294-310
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894215570432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894215570432
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894215570432?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McGillivray, Fiona & Smith, Alastair, 2004. "The Impact of Leadership Turnover on Trading Relations Between States," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(3), pages 567-600, July.
    2. Weeks, Jessica L., 2008. "Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 35-64, January.
    3. Paul Collier & Anke Hoeffler & Måns Söderbom, 2004. "On the Duration of Civil War," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 41(3), pages 253-273, May.
    4. Scott Wolford, 2007. "The Turnover Trap: New Leaders, Reputation, and International Conflict," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 772-788, October.
    5. David E. Cunningham, 2006. "Veto Players and Civil War Duration," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 875-892, October.
    6. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1998. "Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 829-844, December.
    7. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    8. Powell, Robert, 2006. "War as a Commitment Problem," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(1), pages 169-203, January.
    9. James D. Fearon, 2004. "Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than Others?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 41(3), pages 275-301, May.
    10. Michael Horowitz & Rose McDermott & Allan C. Stam, 2005. "Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 661-685, October.
    11. Walter, Barbara F., 1997. "The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 335-364, July.
    12. Cunningham, Kathleen Gallagher, 2011. "Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States Respond to Internally Divided Separatists?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 275-297, May.
    13. Giacomo Chiozza & H. E. Goemans, 2004. "International Conflict and the Tenure of Leaders: Is War Still Ex Post Inefficient?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 604-619, July.
    14. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. "Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 233-266, April.
    15. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    16. McGillivray, Fiona & Smith, Alastair, 2000. "Trust and Cooperation Through Agent-specific Punishments," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 809-824, October.
    17. Smith, Alastair, 1998. "International Crises and Domestic Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 623-638, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fiona McGillivray & Alastair Smith, 2005. "The Impact of Leadership Turnover and Domestic Institutions on International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 639-660, October.
    2. Randall J. Blimes, 2011. "International Conflict and Leadership Tenure," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Colin Krainin & John Slinkman, 2017. "Bargaining with a biased autocrat," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 273-298, April.
    4. Kazuhiro Obayashi, 2014. "Information, rebel organization and civil war escalation: The case of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 21-40, March.
    5. Alastair Smith, 2009. "Political Groups, Leader Change, and the Pattern of International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(6), pages 853-877, December.
    6. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    7. Thomas Edward Flores & Irfan Nooruddin, 2011. "Credible Commitment in Post-Conflict Recovery," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    9. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    10. Matthew Fuhrmann & Jaroslav Tir, 2009. "Territorial Dimensions of Enduring Internal Rivalries," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 307-329, September.
    11. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.
    12. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2018. "Confronting an enemy with unknown preferences: Deterrer or provocateur?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-143.
    13. Justin M. Conrad & Kevin T. Greene & James Igoe Walsh & Beth Elise Whitaker, 2019. "Rebel Natural Resource Exploitation and Conflict Duration," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(3), pages 591-616, March.
    14. Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2004. "Politics at the Water’s Edge," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 459-486, August.
    15. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2017. "Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 177-189.
    17. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    18. Christopher Blattman & Edward Miguel, 2010. "Civil War," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(1), pages 3-57, March.
    19. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    20. Kevin Sweeney & Omar M.G. Keshk, 2005. "the Similarity of States: Using S to Compute Dyadic Interest Similarity," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 165-187, April.

    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:sae:compsc:v:33:y:2016:i:3:p:294-310. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.