IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v55y2011i3p526-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Presidential Rhetoric and the Role of Party

Author

Listed:
  • Robert F. Trager
  • Lynn Vavreck

Abstract

We analyze the first large‐scale, randomized experiment to measure presidential approval levels at all outcomes of a canonical international crisis‐bargaining model, thereby avoiding problems of strategic selection in evaluating presidential incentives. We find support for several assumptions made in the crisis‐bargaining literature, including that a concession from a foreign state leads to higher approval levels than other outcomes, that the magnitudes of audience costs are under presidential control prior to the initiation of hostilities, and that these costs can be made so large that presidents have incentive to fight wars they will not win. Thus, the credibility of democratic threats can be made extremely high. We also find, however, that partisan cues strongly condition presidential incentives. Party elites have incentives to behave according to type in Congress and contrary to type in the Oval Office, and Democratic presidents sometimes have incentives to fight wars they will not win.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert F. Trager & Lynn Vavreck, 2011. "The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Presidential Rhetoric and the Role of Party," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 526-545, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:3:p:526-545
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00521.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00521.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00521.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eryan Ramadhani, 2019. "Is Assertiveness Paying the Bill? China’s Domestic Audience Costs in the South China Sea Disputes," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(1), pages 30-54, April.
    2. David H. Bearce & Thomas R. Cook, 2018. "The first image reversed: IGO signals and mass political attitudes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-619, December.
    3. Keren Yarhi-Milo & Joshua D. Kertzer & Jonathan Renshon, 2018. "Tying Hands, Sinking Costs, and Leader Attributes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2150-2179, November.
    4. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    5. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    6. Andrew H. Kydd & Roseanne W. McManus, 2017. "Threats and Assurances in Crisis Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(2), pages 325-348, February.
    7. James Lee Ray & Allan Dafoe, 2018. "Democratic peace versus contractualism," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 193-203, March.
    8. Giacomo Chiozza, 2017. "Presidents on the cycle: Elections, audience costs, and coercive diplomacy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 3-26, January.
    9. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.

    More about this item

    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:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:3:p:526-545. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.