IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mar/magkse/202216.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who supports war for justice and why? Evidence from Russia and Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Reza Farzanegan

    (University of Marburg)

  • Sven Fischer

    (University of Marburg)

Abstract

We study the acceptability of war as a necessary tool to obtain justice under certain conditions across individuals from Russia and Ukraine in 2011. We discuss which socio-economic, political and individual characteristics shape the support for using destructive military force to achieve justice. Overall, the acceptance of war for justice is relatively low in both countries. Using logistic regressions, we found that there are characteristics that significantly reduce the support for war for justice in both countries, such as gender and level of happiness. Support in both countries is also significantly larger among respondents who are interested in politics and are married. Additionally, there are conditions which produce different results between the countries, such as religiosity, country aims, employment, confidence in the government, concern over possible war and political orientation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Reza Farzanegan & Sven Fischer, 2022. "Who supports war for justice and why? Evidence from Russia and Ukraine," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202216, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    • Handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:202216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb02/research-groups/economics/macroeconomics/research/magks-joint-discussion-papers-in-economics/papers/2022-papers/16-2022_farzanegan.pdf
    File Function: First 202216
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hurwitz, Jon & Peffley, Mark, 1987. "How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1099-1120, December.
    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. Matthias Mader & Moritz Neubert & Felix Münchow & Stephanie C Hofmann & Harald Schoen & Konstantin Gavras, 2024. "Crumbling in the face of cost? How cost considerations affect public support for European security and defence cooperation," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 483-503, September.
    2. Prather, Lauren, 2024. "Ideology at the Water’s Edge: Explaining Variation in Public Support for Foreign Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. MARK FRANKLIN & MICHAEL MARSH & LAUREN McLAREN, 1994. "Uncorking the Bottle: Popular Opposition to European Unification in the Wake of Maastricht," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 455-472, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Qian Liu & Yingying Wang & Ning Kang, 2023. "Analyzing the Influence of BRI Foreign Direct Investment on Governance: Perspective from Southeast Asian Countries," Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, Emerging Markets Forum, vol. 15(2), pages 289-305, May.
    6. Sencer Ecer & Nicholas J. Veasey, 2015. "The Shifting Determinants of Defense Spending Preferences Between 1980 and 2008," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 75-88, February.
    7. David L. Rousseau, 2002. "Motivations for Choice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 394-426, June.
    8. Matthias Mader, 2017. "Citizens’ Perceptions of Policy Objectives and Support for Military Action," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(6), pages 1290-1314, July.
    9. Yoshitaka Komiya, 2019. "Casualty sensitivity in Japan: Information underlying certainty and uncertainty," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 258-276, September.
    10. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers & Simon Matti, 2017. "Public Support for Pro-Environmental Policy Measures: Examining the Impact of Personal Values and Ideology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Wu, Sihong & Fan, Di, 2023. "Taking two to tango: A comparative nationalism view of cross-border acquisitions," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3).
    12. Scott Sigmund Gartner & Gary M. Segura & Michael Wilkening, 1997. "All Politics Are Local," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(5), pages 669-694, October.
    13. Eunju Kim & KyungWoo Kim, 2022. "Public perception of foreign aid in South Korea: The effects of policy efficacy in an emerging donor," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(3), May.
    14. Dukhong Kim, 2014. "Affect and Public Support for Military Action," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, December.
    15. Harald Schoen, 2007. "Personality Traits and Foreign Policy Attitudes in German Public Opinion," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(3), pages 408-430, June.
    16. Laron K. Williams, 2019. "Guns Yield Butter? An Exploration of Defense Spending Preferences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1193-1221, May.
    17. Efe Tokdemir, 2021. "Feels like home: Effect of transnational identities on attitudes towards foreign countries," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 1034-1048, September.
    18. Eivind Hoff-Elimari & Anat Bardi & Simon Matti & Kristina Östman, 2014. "Collective action problems: Disentangling possible feedback loops between government policies and the public’s value-change," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 3(1), pages 24-46, June.
    19. Peter Liberman, 2007. "Punitiveness and U.S. Elite Support for the 1991 Persian Gulf War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 3-32, February.
    20. Miroslav Nincic, 1992. "A Sensible Public," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(4), pages 772-789, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mar:magkse:202216. 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: Bernd Hayo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vamarde.html .

    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.