LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

articles analyze in large-N studies the impact of sanctions on the level of democracy: Using data between 1972 and 2000, Peksen et al. find that the effects of economic sanctions significantly reduce the level of democracy in the target state.¹ They argue that sanctions restrict the flow of goods to the targeted country, the remaining goods within the state are controlled by the regime which gets more powerful than before. Using newer data, Soest et al. conclude that sanctions with a democratic goal correlate with an increased level of democracy in the targeted state, thus suggesting that democratic sanctions are successful.²

      Hypotheses

      The dependent variable is the level of democracy. Definition: A liberal-democratic state is a state with an overall high level of political rights, civil liberties, and state capacity. Political rights include political participation and political pluralism; civil liberties include individual rights, checks and balances and restrictions of the executive; state capacity refers to governance and performance of the state. An autocratic state is a state with an overall low level of political rights, civil liberties, and state capacity. The low level of state capacity can be explained with the low level of public goods invested by the leader. He invests resources into his supporters to buy their loyalty, not into the state.

      There is no universally accepted variable that can explain either democratization or autocratization. Consequently, a large number of explanatory variables can be found in democratization literature. Due to methodological reasons the number of variables is limited. Anecdotal and empirical evidence and current research suggest the use of explanatory variables from three different spheres: the ←18 | 19→impact and design of sanctions, the political system of the targeted state, and economic characteristics of the target state.

      Hypothesis 1: The higher the economic costs of the sanctions to the target state are, the more likely is a negative impact on the level of democracy in the target state. Economic costs of sanctions are the main argument in many articles. High economic costs make success and unintended side-effects more likely. In many cases, they hurt the opposition more than the government. Furthermore, the regime’s monopoly on law gives members of the leader’s coalition a huge advantage in conducting illegal (or somewhat legal) activities. Additionally, economic sanctions lead to protectionism and, in the long-term, to the rise of powerful interest groups that lobby for market protection. Definition: Economic costs of sanctions is the amount of wealth of the target state that gets lost due to sanctions.

Hypothesis 2: The less sanctions focus on democracy, the more likely is a negative impact on the level of democracy. Sanctions with a democratic goal correlate with an increased level of democracy, find Soest & Wahman.³ They are designed in an effective way not to have a negative effect on the level of democracy. Definition: The democratic goal of sanctions is the explicitly stated aim of sanctions senders to increase the level of democracy by using these sanctions.

Hypothesis 3: The more personalized rule in the target country is, the more likely is a negative impact on the level of democracy. Sanctions literature suggests that the target’s regime type is one of the most important factors of sanctions success. Based on Geddes,⁴ Wright focuses on institutional differences among regimes and distinguishes personalist regimes from institutionalist regimes (military, dominant party, corporatist/monarchist).⁵ Personalist leaders can more easily redistribute goods in times of economic crises such as sanctions. Furthermore, institutionalized regimes offer peaceful leadership change through succession rules, whereas a personalist regime will shift the economic costs away from his key supporters to other groups and the population. The book adds liberal democracies to institutionalist regimes to categorize the whole universe of regimes. Definition: A personalist regime is a regime in which power is institutionalized on a low level. Effective rule and leadership succession depend on one person or his personal network.

Hypothesis 4: The higher the level of legitimacy of the ruler in the target country is, the more likely is a negative impact on the level of democracy. A psychological ←19 | 20→effect might strengthen the leader: A high level of legitimacy reduces the costs of loyalty for the leader. A recent large-N study finds that “sanctions strengthen authoritarian rule if the regime manages to incorporate their existence into its legitimation strategy.”⁶ Definition: Regime legitimacy is the acceptance of political authority.

      Hypothesis 5: The higher the level of economic vulnerability of the target economy is, the more likely is a negative impact on the level of democracy. A country with a low level of economic interdependence is used to a non-trade situation and does not need to change its economic rules much. A country that is exposed to the world economy on a high level, needs to adapt to the sanctions regime. Independently from the real economic costs of sanctions, the country will adopt policies that protect crucial sectors of the economy. Protectionism strengthens the role of politics in business and the role of business in the economy, thus leading to clientelism and kleptocracy. Definition: Vulnerability is the ability to be influenced or hurt. The economic vulnerability of a country is an indicator for the degree how much a country may be affected by external economic shocks. It can be measured by the economy’s dependence on export and import with the world.

Hypothesis 6: The less developed the target country is, the more likely is a negative impact of economic sanctions on the level of democracy. One of the most famous theories in comparative politics is that democratic and economic development are systematically interrelated. Lipset claimed that democracy was enabled by a process of modernization that includes industrialization, education, and more factors.⁷ Definition: Development is a process of change and advance. The development level of a country is an indicator that measures how advanced a country is in important areas such as wealth, education and healthcare.

      Mechanism

The theoretical model assumes three main players within a political system: the leader/leadership, his winning coalition, and the population.⁸ The secret of leader survival lies in the careful balancing of repression and loyalty rewards (economic transfers or political power) and its constant re-adjustment. Political stability is understood as the equilibrium of these three elements (economic transfers, ←20 | 21→political power, repression). External shocks such as economic sanctions can disrupt the system. Usually, sanctions decrease the leader’s budget. As soon as he is no longer able to provide goods to his supporters or the population, his political survival is in danger. If the winning coalition is not satisfied, it might attempt a coup (vertical threat). If the population is not satisfied, it might protest and attempt a revolution (horizontal threat). It depends on many factors how the leader is going to react to crises. His tools are always the same: economic transfers, political rights, repression/civil liberties. They belong to different spheres of the state, and regime stability is based on an equilibrium of these tools. They mirror the tripartite definition of democracy and autocracy (state capacity, civil liberties, political rights). The factors that explain the leader’s reaction and the following process are the variables (and their combination) mentioned in the previous section.

      Before applying repression or redistributing political power, the leader will transfer economic goods, either to his winning coalition (private goods) or the population (public goods). In a personalist regime (variable 3), he has to increase goods to his coalition because the coalition supports him in exchange for monetary advantages. If the economic vulnerability of the country is low (variable 5), the leader might not need to change the mix of redistribution because the economy (and his budget) is not very much affected. The higher the economic costs of sanctions are (variable 1), the more difficult is the remix of goods. Very high economic costs can decrease the leader’s budget substantially, and he might not

Скачать книгу