IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v17y2014i3p262-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Too many problems at home to help you: Domestic disincentives for military coalition participation

Author

Listed:
  • Atsushi Tago

Abstract

Scholars have begun to examine the determinants of military coalition participation. Most studies pay closer attention to international (both systemic/dyadic) rather than domestic factors. While admitting the predominance of such international factors, this study claims that the domestic conditions of potential participants also determine if a state actually joins in a coalition. Specifically, domestic conditions work as suppressing factors for coalition participation. First, riots and violent domestic protests lead to a significant reduction in the probability of sending military troops for a coalition operation, because military resources cannot be deployed when they might be needed to maintain domestic order. Second, a state that is experiencing an economic recession cannot easily send its troops to a coalition operation because the domestic audience would prefer to prioritize resource allocations for domestic economic recovery.

Suggested Citation

  • Atsushi Tago, 2014. "Too many problems at home to help you: Domestic disincentives for military coalition participation," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 262-278, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:17:y:2014:i:3:p:262-278
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865914544227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865914544227
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865914544227?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. Kisangani, Emizet F. & Pickering, Jeffrey, 2009. "The Dividends of Diversion: Mature Democracies’ Proclivity to Use Diversionary Force and the Rewards They Reap from It," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 483-515, July.
    2. Erik Gartzke & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2004. "Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 775-795, October.
    3. Tomz, Michael & Wittenberg, Jason & King, Gary, 2003. "Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i01).
    4. Vincenzo Bove & Leandro Elia, 2011. "Supplying peace: Participation in and troop contribution to peacekeeping missions," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 48(6), pages 699-714, November.
    5. Ulrich Pilster, 2011. "Are Democracies the Better Allies? The Impact of Regime Type on Military Coalition Operations," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 55-85, March.
    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. J. Andrés Gannon & Daniel Kent, 2021. "Keeping Your Friends Close, but Acquaintances Closer: Why Weakly Allied States Make Committed Coalition Partners," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(5), pages 889-918, May.
    2. Hanne Fjelde & Desirée Nilsson, 2018. "The rise of rebel contenders," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 55(5), pages 551-565, September.
    3. Christoph Schwierz & Boris Augurzky & Axel Focke & Jürgen Wasem, 2012. "Demand, selection and patient outcomes in German acute care hospitals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 209-221, March.
    4. Clemens Noelke & Daniel Horn, 2011. "Social Transformation and the Transition from Vocational Education to Work," Budapest Working Papers on the Labour Market 1105, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    5. Nil Demet Gungor & Aysıt Tansel, 2008. "Brain drain from Turkey: an investigation of students' return intentions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(23), pages 3069-3087.
    6. Bruce Desmarais, 2012. "Lessons in disguise: multivariate predictive mistakes in collective choice models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 719-737, June.
    7. Jo Jakobsen & Indra De Soysa, 2006. "Do Foreign Investors Punish Democracy? Theory and Empirics, 1984–2001," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 383-410, August.
    8. P. See Lim & Colleen Barry‐Goodman & David Branham, 2006. "Discrimination that Travels: How Ethnicity Affects Party Identification for Southeast Asian Immigrants," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1158-1170, December.
    9. Ansink, Erik & Weikard, Hans-Peter & Withagen, Cees, 2019. "International environmental agreements with support," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 241-252.
    10. Alan De Bromhead & Karol Jan Borowiecki, 2016. "Immigration and the demand for life insurance: evidence from Canada, 1911," European Review of Economic History, European Historical Economics Society, vol. 20(2), pages 147-175.
    11. Indra de Soysa & Jennifer Bailey & Eric Neumayer, 2004. "Free to Squander? Democracy, Institutional Design, and Economic Sustainability, 1975–2000," Macroeconomics 0412004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Danny Hayes & Seth C. McKee, 2009. "The Participatory Effects of Redistricting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 1006-1023, October.
    13. James P. Cross, 2012. "Interventions and negotiation in the Council of Ministers of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(1), pages 47-69, March.
    14. K. H. O'Rourke & R. Sinnott, 2001. "The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence," Trinity Economics Papers 200110, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    15. Emir Yazici, 2020. "Transborder identities, bias, and third-party conflict management," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 490-511, July.
    16. Han Dorussen, 2006. "Heterogeneous Trade Interests and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 87-107, February.
    17. repec:zbw:rwirep:0385 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Daniel J. Blake & Caterina Moschieri, 2017. "Policy risk, strategic decisions and contagion effects: Firm‐specific considerations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 732-750, March.
    19. Hyung Jun Park & Richard C. Feiock, 2006. "Institutional Collective Action, Social Capital and Regional Development Partnership," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 57-69, January.
    20. Baum, Matt, 2000. "A Paradox of Public Opinion: Why a Less Interested Public is More Attentive to War," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt7200v97q, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.
    21. John Carey & Simon Hix, 2013. "District magnitude and representation of the majority’s preferences: a comment and reinterpretation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 139-148, January.

    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:intare:v:17:y:2014:i:3:p:262-278. 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://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    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.