IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v58y2021i3p433-448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gendered preferences: How women’s inclusion in society shapes negotiation occurrence in intrastate conflicts

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Ulrich Nagel

    (8368Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security)

Abstract

To what extent do gender relations in society influence the likelihood of negotiations during intrastate disputes? A substantial body of literature recognizes gendered inequalities as integral to understanding conflict, yet they have received little attention in systematic studies of conflict management. I argue that patriarchal gender relations that reflect a preference for masculinity over femininity influence states’ propensity to negotiate with rebels. I draw on the concept of practices to explain how gender relations shape government preferences for negotiations. Specifically, I contend that practices of excluding women from fully participating in public life institutionalize violence as the preferred way of managing conflict. The implication is that countries with more patriarchal gender relations are less likely to engage in negotiations during intrastate conflicts. I test this argument on all civil conflict dyads between 1975 and 2014. The analyses show that countries that marginalize women’s participation in public life are significantly less likely to engage in negotiations. The results provide strong support for my theoretical argument and offer systematic evidence in support of core claims of the feminist peace theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Ulrich Nagel, 2021. "Gendered preferences: How women’s inclusion in society shapes negotiation occurrence in intrastate conflicts," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 433-448, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:58:y:2021:i:3:p:433-448
    DOI: 10.1177/0022343319899456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343319899456
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022343319899456?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. Mayra Buvinic & Monica Das Gupta & Ursula Casabonne & Philip Verwimp, 2013. "Violent Conflict and Gender Inequality: An Overview," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 110-138, February.
    2. Wood, Reed M. & Kathman, Jacob D., 2014. "Too Much of a Bad Thing? Civilian Victimization and Bargaining in Civil War," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 685-706, July.
    3. Hudson, Valerie M. & Bowen, Donna Lee & Nielsen, Perpetua Lynne, 2015. "Clan Governance and State Stability: The Relationship between Female Subordination and Political Order," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(3), pages 535-555, August.
    4. Mary Caprioli, 2003. "Gender Equality and State Aggression: The Impact of Domestic Gender Equality on State First Use of Force," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 195-214, July.
    5. Stephen E. Gent, 2011. "Relative Rebel Strength and Power Sharing in Intrastate Conflicts," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 215-228, April.
    6. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    7. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    8. David E. Cunningham, 2006. "Veto Players and Civil War Duration," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 875-892, October.
    9. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    10. Finnemore, Martha & Sikkink, Kathryn, 1998. "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 887-917, October.
    11. Molly M. Melin & Isak Svensson, 2009. "Incentives for Talking: Accepting Mediation in International and Civil Wars," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 249-271, August.
    12. Lisa Hultman, 2012. "Attacks on Civilians in Civil War: Targeting the Achilles Heel of Democratic Governments," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 164-181, April.
    13. Barbara F. Walter, 2006. "Building Reputation: Why Governments Fight Some Separatists but Not Others," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 313-330, April.
    14. Jakana Thomas, 2014. "Rewarding Bad Behavior: How Governments Respond to Terrorism in Civil War," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 804-818, October.
    15. Darren Filson & Suzanne Werner, 2007. "Sensitivity to Costs of Fighting versus Sensitivity to Losing the Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(5), pages 691-714, October.
    16. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    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. Kirssa Cline Ryckman & Jessica Maves Braithwaite, 2020. "Changing horses in midstream: Leadership changes and the civil war peace process," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(1), pages 83-105, January.
    2. Stephen Nemeth & Brian Lai, 2022. "When do natural disasters lead to negotiations in a civil war?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(1), pages 28-42, January.
    3. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    4. James Meernik & Jamie Shairick, 2011. "Promoting International Humanitarian Law: Strong States and the Ratification of the ICC Treaty," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 23-48, June.
    5. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Dangerous bargains with the devil? Incorporating new approaches in peace science for the study of war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 98-116, January.
    6. Morgan, T. Clifton & Kobayashi, Yoshiharu, 2021. "Talking to the hand: Bargaining, strategic interaction, and economic sanctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    7. Cyanne E. Loyle & Helga Malmin Binningsbø, 2018. "Justice during Armed Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(2), pages 442-466, February.
    8. Holley E. Hansen & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Stephen C. Nemeth, 2008. "IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 295-325, April.
    9. David Altman & Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta & Francisco Urdinez, 2021. "An interactive model of democratic peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 384-398, May.
    10. Kelly Daniels & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Bones of democratic contention: Maritime disputes," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 293-310, December.
    11. Sambuddha Ghatak & Aaron Gold & Brandon C Prins, 2017. "External threat and the limits of democratic pacifism," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 141-159, March.
    12. William R. Thompson & Richard Tucker, 1997. "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(3), pages 462-477, June.
    13. William R. Thompson & Richard Tucker, 1997. "A Tale of Two Democratic Peace Critiques," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(3), pages 428-454, June.
    14. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    15. Nicholas Sambanis & Micha Germann & Andreas Schädel, 2018. "SDM: A New Data Set on Self-determination Movements with an Application to the Reputational Theory of Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(3), pages 656-686, March.
    16. William Reed, 2003. "Information and Economic Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 54-71, February.
    17. Pierre-Guillaume Méon & Khalid Sekkat, 2016. "A time to throw stones, a time to reap: How long does it take for democratic transitions to improve institutional outcomes?," Working Papers CEB 16-016, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Vanessa Alexandra Boese & Matthew Charles Wilson, 2023. "Contestation and participation: Concepts, measurement, and inference," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 26(2), pages 89-106, June.
    19. Wolfgang Wagner, 2017. "Liberal Power Europe," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(6), pages 1398-1414, November.
    20. Fabrizio De Francesco & Philipp Trein, 2020. "How Does Corruption Affect the Adoption of Lobby Registers? A Comparative Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 116-127.

    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:58:y:2021:i:3:p:433-448. 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.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.