IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v38y2021i1p3-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Oil wealth and US public support for war

Author

Listed:
  • Lala Muradova

    (University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

  • Ross James Gildea

    (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK)

Abstract

How does the oil wealth of a potential target state affect the likelihood of the US public favoring the use of military force? Recent studies suggest that public opinion on foreign policy is responsive to the core characteristics of target states, such as regime type and majority religion. This article advances this research agenda by examining the effects of intra-regime heterogeneity in respect of an important characteristic of target states: their oil wealth. To examine the relationship between oil wealth and US public opinion on war, we fielded a conjoint experiment with US citizens. Respondents chose between hypothetical pairs of target states that varied across seven different intra-regime characteristics. We found that that the oil wealth of a target exerts a statistically significant (albeit small) effect on public support for the use of force, independent of the effects of other regime characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:38:y:2021:i:1:p:3-19
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894219871655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894219871655
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894219871655?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. Haber, Stephen & Menaldo, Victor, 2011. "Do Natural Resources Fuel Authoritarianism? A Reappraisal of the Resource Curse," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Joshua D. Kertzer & Ryan Brutger, 2016. "Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 234-249, January.
    3. Barabas, Jason & Jerit, Jennifer, 2010. "Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 226-242, May.
    4. Tomz, Michael R. & Weeks, Jessica L. P., 2013. "Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(4), pages 849-865, November.
    5. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    6. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    7. Colgan, Jeff D., 2010. "Oil and Revolutionary Governments: Fuel for International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 661-694, October.
    8. Gaines, Brian J. & Kuklinski, James H. & Quirk, Paul J., 2007. "The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    10. Connor Huff & Joshua D. Kertzer, 2018. "How the Public Defines Terrorism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 55-71, January.
    11. Dafoe, Allan & Zhang, Baobao & Caughey, Devin, 2018. "Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 399-416, October.
    12. Herrmann, Richard K. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Visser, Penny S., 1999. "Mass Public Decisions on Go to War: A Cognitive-Interactionist Framework," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 553-573, September.
    13. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    14. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kiratli, Osman Sabri, 2023. "Policy Objective of Military Intervention and Public Attitudes: A Conjoint Experiment from US and Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar.

    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. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    2. Claire L Adida & Adeline Lo & Melina R Platas, 2019. "Americans preferred Syrian refugees who are female, English-speaking, and Christian on the eve of Donald Trump’s election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Aaron R Kaufman, 2020. "Implementing novel, flexible, and powerful survey designs in R Shiny," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Sarah Kreps & Sarah Maxey, 2018. "Mechanisms of Morality," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(8), pages 1814-1842, September.
    5. Blaine G. Robbins, 2017. "Status, identity, and ability in the formation of trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 408-448, November.
    6. Matthew Amengual & Rita Mota & Alexander Rustler, 2023. "The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 49-74, June.
    7. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    8. Dustin Tingley, 2014. "Survey Research in International Political Economy: Motivations, Designs, Methods," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 443-451, May.
    9. Lopez, Anthony C. & Johnson, Dominic D.P., 2020. "The determinants of war in international relations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 983-997.
    10. Kiratli, Osman Sabri, 2023. "Policy Objective of Military Intervention and Public Attitudes: A Conjoint Experiment from US and Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar.
    11. Joshua D. Kertzer, 2017. "Microfoundations in international relations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 81-97, January.
    12. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    14. Francesco Caselli & Massimo Morelli & Dominic Rohner, 2015. "The Geography of Interstate Resource Wars," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 267-315.
    15. Rudolph, Lukas & Freitag, Markus & Thurner, Paul, 2021. "The Comparative Legitimacy of Arms Exports - A Conjoint Experiment in Germany and France," SocArXiv r73pv, Center for Open Science.
    16. Angino, Siria & Secola, Stefania, 2022. "Instinctive versus reflective trust in the European Central Bank," Working Paper Series 2660, European Central Bank.
    17. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    18. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:38:y:2021:i:1:p:3-19. 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.