War Initiators and War Winners

Some scholars argue that once democracies enter wars, they fight more effectively than do their autocratic counterparts. Others suggest that democratic states may win wars because they choose their opponents carefully, predisposing themselves to victory. Both are plausible, and it is possible that they are both correct. This study examines the possibility that these explanations are complementary and that omitting one or the other from empirical analysis may have consequences for inference. To assess the possible consequences of considering these explanations individually, the authors perform Monte Carlo experiments. The empirical results strongly suggest two important consequences. First, if democracies do not choose their fights any differently from other states, then estimates of the effect of democratic war-fighting ability are likely to be unbiased. Second, if democracies do choose their fights differently, then the effects of democratic war-fighting ability may be substantially overestimated.