IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/jeurec/v7y2009i2-3p446-457.html

The Strategic Determinants of U.S. Human Rights Reporting: Evidence from The Cold War

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy Qian
  • David Yanagizawa

Abstract

This paper uses a country-level panel data set to test the hypothesis that the United States biases its human rights reports of countries based on the latters' strategic value. We use the difference between the U.S. State Department's and Amnesty International's reports as a measure of U.S. "bias." For plausibly exogenous variation in strategic value to the U.S., we compare this bias between U.S. Cold War (CW) allies to non-CW allies, before and after the CW ended. The results show that allying with the U.S. during the CW significantly improved reports on a country's human rights situation from the U.S. State Department relative to Amnesty International. (JEL: P16) (c) 2009 by the European Economic Association.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy Qian & David Yanagizawa, 2009. "The Strategic Determinants of U.S. Human Rights Reporting: Evidence from The Cold War," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 446-457, 04-05.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:jeurec:v:7:y:2009:i:2-3:p:446-457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1542-4774/issues
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johansson, Anders C., 2016. "Social Media and Politics in Indonesia," Stockholm School of Economics Asia Working Paper Series 2016-42, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm China Economic Research Institute.
    2. Jan Fałkowski, 2018. "U.S. food aid and American exports to recipient countries during the Cold War," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(5), pages 659-668, September.
    3. repec:oup:jeurec:v:15:y:2017:i:2:p:463-499. is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2018. "Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 105-116.
    5. David Strömberg, 2015. "Media and Politics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 173-205, August.
    6. Johansson, Anders C., 2016. "Tweeting for Power: Social Media and Political Campaigning in Indonesia," Stockholm School of Economics Asia Working Paper Series 2016-43, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm China Economic Research Institute.
    7. Vadlamannati, Krishna Chaitanya & Janz, Nicole & Berntsen, Øyvind Isachsen, 2018. "Human Rights Shaming and FDI: Effects of the UN Human Rights Commission and Council," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 222-237.
    8. Nancy Qian & David Yanagizawa-Drott, 2010. "Government Distortion in Independently Owned Media: Evidence from U.S. Cold War News Coverage of Human Rights," NBER Working Papers 15738, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Couttenier, Mathieu & Hatte, Sophie, 2016. "Mass media effects on non-governmental organizations," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 57-72.
    10. Magesan, Arvind & Swee, Eik Leong, 2018. "Out of the ashes, into the fire: The consequences of U.S. weapons sales for political violence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 133-156.
    11. Arvind Magesan & Eik Leong Swee, "undated". "Is Happiness Really a Warm Gun? The Consequences of U.S. Weapons Sales for Political Violence," Working Papers 2015-09, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 25 Jun 2015.
    12. Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2018. "Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 105-116.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:tpr:jeurec:v:7:y:2009:i:2-3:p:446-457. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.