IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v61y2024i2p304-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing the parliamentary deployment votes database

Author

Listed:
  • Falk Ostermann

    (Department of Political Science, Kiel University)

  • Wolfgang Wagner

    (Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract

The Parliamentary Deployment Votes Database provides data on the voting behaviour of 301 political parties in 1,022 parliamentary votes on military missions between 1990 and 2019 in 21 countries of the Global North. This special data feature introduces the database and presents descriptive statistics and basic patterns on some of its key variables: general, political, and regional characteristics of missions and votes themselves; the level of agreement; and party-political contestation. The number of deployment votes has increased over the course of the 1990s and then fluctuated around a stable annual average of 40 to 50 votes. At the same time, legislative–executive relations in security and defence policy and, as a consequence, the number of deployment votes, continue to differ substantially between countries. Whereas support for military missions has increased over time, the degree of contestation, as measured by an agreement index, differs considerably across the countries under study. Whether a political party supports a military mission depends not only on it being part of a governing coalition or in opposition but also on its political ideology: support is lowest among parties of the Radical Left, increases among green and social-democratic parties and peaks among liberal, conservative and Christian-democratic parties. Radical-right parties are less supportive than centrist parties but more supportive than radical-left parties. Regional peculiarities notwithstanding, this pattern can be found in Western and Eastern Europe, East Asia and North America. The database will be interesting for scholars of the democratic politics of military missions and particularly legislative–executive relations and political parties in security and defence policy, providing the foundations for a comparative analysis of different missions, the ideological foundations of contestation, government–opposition dynamics and legislative–executive relations in security and defence policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Falk Ostermann & Wolfgang Wagner, 2024. "Introducing the parliamentary deployment votes database," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(2), pages 304-316, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:2:p:304-316
    DOI: 10.1177/00223433221116655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433221116655
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00223433221116655?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. Glenn Palmer & Tamar London & Patrick Regan, 2004. "What's Stopping You?: The Sources of Political Constraints on International Conflict Behavior in Parliamentary Democracies," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Andrew Bertoli & Allan Dafoe & Robert F. Trager, 2019. "Is There a War Party? Party Change, the Left–Right Divide, and International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(4), pages 950-975, April.
    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. Alex Braithwaite & Douglas Lemke, 2011. "Unpacking Escalation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 111-123, April.
    2. Douglas M. Stinnett, 2007. "International Uncertainty, Foreign Policy Flexibility, and Surplus Majority Coalitions in Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(3), pages 470-495, June.
    3. Elena D. Soboleva, 2015. "Intrastate Ethnic Conflicts and External State Support of Ethnic Minorities in East Asia: Theoretical Perspectives," HSE Working papers WP BRP 18/IR/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    4. Faten Ghosn & Glenn Palmer & Stuart A. Bremer, 2004. "The MID3 Data Set, 1993—2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(2), pages 133-154, April.
    5. Michael Koch & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2005. "Casualties and Constituencies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(6), pages 874-894, December.
    6. Andrew Bertoli & Allan Dafoe & Robert F. Trager, 2019. "Is There a War Party? Party Change, the Left–Right Divide, and International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(4), pages 950-975, April.
    7. Brender, Agnes, 2018. "Government Ideology and Arms Exports," ILE Working Paper Series 21, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    8. Potter, Philip B. K. & Baum, Matthew A., 2014. "Information, Popular Constraint, and the Democratic Peace," Working Paper Series rwp14-015, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Zhanna Terechshenko, 2020. "Hot under the collar: A latent measure of interstate hostility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 764-776, November.
    10. Laron K. Williams & David J. Brulé & Michael Koch, 2010. "War Voting," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(5), pages 442-460, November.
    11. Bryan Rooney, 2019. "Emergency Powers in Democracies and International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(3), pages 644-671, March.
    12. Richard Hanania, 2019. "Are Liberal Governments More Cooperative? Voting Trends at the UN in Five Anglophone Democracies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(6), pages 1403-1432, July.
    13. Cathy Xuanxuan Wu & Scott Wolford, 2018. "Leaders, States, and Reputations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2087-2117, November.
    14. Glenn Palmer & Vito D’Orazio & Michael Kenwick & Matthew Lane, 2015. "The MID4 dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules and description," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(2), pages 222-242, April.
    15. David J. Brulé & Bryan W. Marshall & Brandon C. Prins, 2010. "Opportunities and Presidential Uses of Force," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(5), pages 486-510, November.
    16. Kathleen E. Powers & Joshua D. Kertzer & Deborah J. Brooks & Stephen G. Brooks, 2022. "What’s Fair in International Politics? Equity, Equality, and Foreign Policy Attitudes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 217-245, February.
    17. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2018. "Enemies within," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(8), pages 1661-1685, September.
    18. Colton Heffington & Brandon Beomseob Park & Laron K Williams, 2019. "The “Most Important Problem†Dataset (MIPD): a new dataset on American issue importance," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(3), pages 312-335, May.

    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:61:y:2024:i:2:p:304-316. 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.