No abstract

The authors suggest that scholars mean very different things when they refer to the civil–military gap. To illustrate the point, the authors conceptualize the gap in terms of four distinct ideal types and show that scholars have referred to each variant as the civil–military gap at different times. Though the authors recognize that the four ideal types—cultural, demographic, policy preference, and institutional—are not always mutually exclusive, the authors suggest that they are divergent enough to warrant consideration as distinct variants and that their specification can enhance the civil–military relations literature by helping scholars identify and untangle the causes and effects of the gap.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract