IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v52y2015i4p463-477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Popular vs. elite democratic structures and international peace

Author

Listed:
  • Devin K Joshi

    (Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver)

  • J S Maloy

    (Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University)

  • Timothy M Peterson

    (Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina)

Abstract

Structural theories of international peace among democratic regimes have relied on two distinct explanatory logics: democratic institutions may cause a state’s foreign policy to tend toward peace by exposing policymaking elites to pressure from ordinary citizens (the popular logic) or to pressure from other governmental agencies (the elite logic). These logics are often conflated in scholarly studies of war and peace, but we attempt to isolate the popular logic for empirical testing by developing a novel measure of institutionalized popular influence, the Institutional Democracy Index (IDI). Whereas previous usage of the Polity index to operationalize democratic structures has succeeded in testing the elite logic more than the popular logic, we use the IDI to analyze long-established democracies’ involvement in international conflict between 1961 and 2001. What we find are significant differences within the family of democratic regimes that point to a monadic structural explanation of peace: more popular democracies are less warlike with respect to all other regimes, not just other democracies. By capturing variance among democratic regimes in their structures of inclusion (especially formal rules pertaining to voter access, electoral formulae, and cameral structures), the IDI enables us to observe crucial differences between the conflict propensities of more popular and more elite types of democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Devin K Joshi & J S Maloy & Timothy M Peterson, 2015. "Popular vs. elite democratic structures and international peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 52(4), pages 463-477, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:52:y:2015:i:4:p:463-477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/52/4/463.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:joupea:v:52:y:2015:i:4:p:463-477. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    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.