Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP10873
Authors: Paola Conconi; Nicolas Sahuguet; Maurizio Zanardi
Abstract: One of the few stylized facts in international relations is that democracies, unlike autocracies, almost never fight each other. We develop a theoretical model to examine the sustainability of international peace between democracies and autocracies, where the crucial difference between these two political regimes is whether or not policymakers are subject to periodic elections. We show that the fear of losing office can make it less tempting for democratic leaders to wage war against other countries. Crucially, this discipline effect can only be at work if incumbent leaders can be re-elected, suggesting that democracies with term limits should be more conflict prone, particularly when the executive is serving the last possible term. These results rationalize recent empirical findings on how term limits affect the propensity of democracies to engage in conflicts.
Keywords: democratic peace; elections; interstate conflicts; term limits
JEL Codes: C72; D72; F00
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Electoral accountability (D72) | likelihood of military conflicts (D74) |
| Fear of losing office (D73) | temptation for democratic leaders to initiate conflicts (D74) |
| Democratic leaders' ability to be reelected (D72) | likelihood of conflict (D74) |
| Binding term limits (Y20) | likelihood of conflict in democratic leaders (D74) |
| Lame duck leaders (D72) | probability of conflict (D74) |