Foreign Targets and Diversionary Conflict

Jung, Sung Chul

doi:10.1111/isqu.12087

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 11 See Jung (2014a,b), Klein & Tokdemir (2016), and Tokdemir & Mark (2018) for a discussion of the importance of target selection in the diversionary theory of war. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From protection to persecution: Threat environment and refugee scapegoating

Savun

Gineste

2018

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The security consequences associated with refugee flows are among the most widely studied aspects of forced migration. While the majority of this research program has focused on how refugee movements affect the risk of political violence, scant scholarly attention has been paid to violence perpetrated against refugees. Building upon the state repression literature, we argue that refugees are particularly vulnerable to the violation of their physical integrity rights in the wake of terrorist attacks in host states. Governments are pressured to respond to security crises but prefer to take actions without jeopardizing public support. In this context, refugee groups can be strategically attractive targets of repression because they lack electoral power and citizens are often supportive of government crackdown against foreigners in times of security crises. Given that leaders have stronger incentives to respond to voters’ demands quickly in democracies, we expect the effect of terror attacks on violence against refugees to be stronger in democratic host states. Using a novel global dataset on anti-refugee violence between 1996 and 2015, we show that refugees are more likely to be exposed to violence by the coercive agents of the state in the wake of security crises. We provide suggestive evidence that the repression of refugees is more consistent with a scapegoating mechanism than the actual ties and involvement of refugees in terrorism. The findings reveal that the well-being of uprooted populations is particularly at risk when host countries face a security threat.

show abstract

“… 11 See Jung (2014a,b), Klein & Tokdemir (2016), and Tokdemir & Mark (2018) for a discussion of the importance of target selection in the diversionary theory of war. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From protection to persecution: Threat environment and refugee scapegoating

Savun

Gineste

2018

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our replicated model with DOE scores both fits better and leads us not to reject the null hypothesis that government partisanship has zero effect (Wald

χ^{2} = 6.5

df = 8

, p =.59) . The second is Jung's () analysis of diversionary conflict. The original study includes both the capability ratio and a CINC‐based measure of rising powers; it interacts the latter with domestic unrest, a key independent variable of interest.…”

Section: Using the New Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction, Proxies, and Power

Carroll¹,

Kenkel

2019

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many enduring questions in international relations theory focus on power relations, so it is important that scholars have a good measure of relative power. The standard measure of relative military power, the capability ratio, is barely better than random guessing at predicting militarized dispute outcomes. We use machine learning to build a superior proxy, the Dispute Outcome Expectations (DOE) score, from the same underlying data. Our measure is an order of magnitude better than the capability ratio at predicting dispute outcomes. We replicate Reed et al. (2008) and find, contrary to the original conclusions, that the probability of conflict is always highest when the state with the least benefits has a preponderance of power. In replications of 18 other dyadic analyses that use power as a control, we find that replacing the standard measure with DOE scores usually improves both in-sample and out-of-sample goodness of fit.

show abstract

“…By analyzing the relative importance of foreign policy, users can make new inferences in fundamental questions of international conflict. For example, research on the domestic determinants of conflict has argued that leaders divert from a flagging domestic economy by provoking some sort of international crisis (Brule and Hwang, 2010; DeRouen, 1995; Jung, 2014; Mitchell and Thyne, 2010; Morgan and Anderson, 1999; Pickering and Kisangani, 2005). Yet there is little systematic evidence about whether the public’s attention can be diverted during bad economic times outside of Singer (2013: 406), who highlights the competition between the economy and foreign affairs in his analysis of issue importance during the recent economic slowdown (2000–2011).…”

Section: Issue Competition: Foreign Policy Vs the Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Most Important Problem” Dataset (MIPD): a new dataset on American issue importance

Heffington

Park

Williams

2017

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces the Most Important Problem Dataset (MIPD). The MIPD provides individual-level responses by Americans to “most important problem” questions from 1939 to 2015 coded into 58 different problem categories. The MIPD also contains individual-level information on demographics, economic evaluations, partisan preferences, approval and party competencies. This dataset can help answer questions about how the public prioritizes all problems, domestic and foreign, and we demonstrate how these data can shed light on how circumstances influence foreign policy attentiveness. Our exploratory analysis of foreign policy issue attention reveals some notable patterns about foreign policy public opinion. First, foreign policy issues rarely eclipse economic issues on the public’s problem agenda, so efforts to shift attention from poor economic performance to foreign policy via diversionary maneuvers are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Second, we find no evidence that partisan preferences—whether characterized as partisan identification or ideology—motivate partisans to prioritize different problems owing to perceptions of issue ownership. Instead, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, respond in similar fashions to shifting domestic and international conditions.

show abstract

Foreign Targets and Diversionary Conflict

Cited by 29 publications

References 76 publications

From protection to persecution: Threat environment and refugee scapegoating

From protection to persecution: Threat environment and refugee scapegoating

Prediction, Proxies, and Power

The “Most Important Problem” Dataset (MIPD): a new dataset on American issue importance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About