Financing Victory: Sovereign Credit, Democracy, and War

With access to inexpensive credit, states can finance wars without overburdening their constituents, and face relatively small short-term costs compared to states with poor credit access. As a result of these economic benefits, states with lower credit costs will be more likely to win their wars, ce...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Journal of conflict resolution Vol. 58; no. 5; pp. 771 - 795
Main Author Shea, Patrick E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.08.2014
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:With access to inexpensive credit, states can finance wars without overburdening their constituents, and face relatively small short-term costs compared to states with poor credit access. As a result of these economic benefits, states with lower credit costs will be more likely to win their wars, ceteris paribus. However, lower borrowing costs provide states domestic political benefits, which I argue are more important for democracies than nondemocracies. Since expensive credit forces states to rely on its citizens for revenue, governments that are more sensitive to their citizens' preferences are at a disadvantage. In sum, I argue that democracies are more sensitive to credit costs than authoritarian regimes. To test this theory, this article analyzes a data set of wars using logistic regressions and matching techniques, and examines the case of the Chaco War. The results demonstrate that the costs of borrowing have a substantial effect on war outcomes, and that these costs are more important for democracies than nondemocracies.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-0027
1552-8766
DOI:10.1177/0022002713478567