Replication data for: Domestic Political Vulnerability and International Disputes

The proposition that domestic political vulnerability provides an incentive for leaders to engage in international conflict has been widely accepted because of appealing logic and anecdotal support. Although empirical studies of U.S. behavior during the cold war era have demonstrated some support for a relationship between domestic political vulnerability and aggressive international behavior, the generalizability of these tests should not be assumed. In fact, there is little empirical evidence in support of this relationship as a general pattern. This study assesses theories linking domestic political vulnerability to international disputes on a cross-national basis by examining the relationships between economic decline, the electoral cycle, and measures of aggressive international action for 18 advanced industrialized democracies during the period from 1952 to 1988. The authors find no consistent support for a relationship between constraining domestic political conditions and international behavior. Instead, fewer international demands are made on politically vulnerable leaders. Due to strategic interaction in the international system, just when a state leader might be most willing to act aggressively, he or she is likely to have the least opportunity to do so. Variance in the behavior of international rivals may explain the lack of an empirical relationship between domestic political conditions and foreign policy behavior.国内政治脆弱性会为国家领导人参与国际冲突提供动机这一命题，因其逻辑颇具说服力且有轶事证据支撑，已被广泛接受。尽管针对冷战时期美国对外行为的实证研究，为国内政治脆弱性与攻击性国际行为之间的关联提供了一定支持，但不应想当然地认为这些检验结论具备普适性。事实上，鲜有实证证据能证明这一关联是一种普遍存在的模式。本研究以1952年至1988年间的18个发达工业化民主国家为研究样本，通过考察经济衰退、选举周期与攻击性国际行动衡量指标之间的关联，从跨国层面评估了将国内政治脆弱性与国际争端相联系的各类理论。本研究的作者并未发现约束性国内政治环境与国际行为之间存在一致关联的证据。与之相反，针对政治处境脆弱的领导人的国际诉求反而更少。由于国际体系中的战略互动，恰恰在国家领导人最愿意采取激进行动之际，其实际可动用的行动机会往往最少。国际对手的行为差异，或许可以解释为何国内政治环境与外交政策行为之间未出现实证关联。