Crisis bargaining literature has predominantly used formal and qualitative methods to debate the relative efficacy of actions, public words, and private words. These approaches have overlooked the reality that policymakers are bombarded with information and struggle to adduce actual signals from endless noise. Material actions are therefore more effective than any diplomatic communication in shaping elites’ perceptions. Moreover, while ostensibly “costless,” private messages provide a more precise communication channel than public and “costly” pronouncements. Over 18,000 declassified documents from the Berlin Crisis of 1958–63 reflecting private statements, public statements, and White House evaluations of Soviet resolve are digitized and processed using statistical learning techniques to assess these claims. The results indicate that material actions have greater influence on the White House than either public or private statements; that public statements are noisier than private statements; and that private statements have a larger effect on evaluations of resolve than public statements.
This study examines the impact of China's growing territorial ambitions on Japanese public opinion. By experimentally manipulating perceived territorial threats from China, we tested two potential mechanisms of increased support for a conservative incumbent leader in Japan. The first is the “rally ’round the flag” model, in which threats universally boost support for the leader through emotion. The second is the “reactive liberal” model, in which support from conservatives remains constant, but threatened liberals move toward supporting the conservative leader. Two survey experiments provided no support for the emotion-based “rally ’round the flag” model, but they lent support for the reactive liberal model in explaining the impact on Japanese public opinion. However, the second experiment indicated that priming with an image of the prime minister that highlights his role as the supreme commander of the national defense forces completely eliminated the gain in approval rates among liberals.
Nuclear proliferation literature typically differentiates supply-side and demand-side factors influencing the spread of nuclear weapons. These distinct approaches to the proliferation puzzle raise the following empirical questions: Does nuclear supply stimulate states’ demand for nuclear weapons? Conversely, does the demand for nuclear weapons really facilitate the acquisition of nuclear supply? If such endogeneity exists between the demand-side and supply-side determinants, how would it cause empirical bias in the estimation of their effects on nuclear proliferation? This article aims to unpack endogenous mechanisms of nuclear demand and nuclear supply over the course of nuclear proliferation. In particular, it examines two potential sources of endogeneity: (1) simultaneous interactions between states’ nuclear development decisions and nuclear technological capability and (2) selection bias in nuclear development. To address each source of endogeneity, simultaneous equation models and the duration models with selection are estimated, respectively. Contrary to what recent supply-side literature suggests, the empirical analyses reveal that states’ nuclear demand is primarily driven by external security threats instead of their existing nuclear technology, and that their successful acquisition of nuclear technology mainly follows as the result of nuclear development efforts but does not necessarily depend on individual supply-side factors. This article addresses the typical inference issues in nuclear proliferation research and contributes to our synthetic understanding of proliferation mechanisms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.