The effects of autocratic characteristics on public opinion towards democracy promotion policies: a conjoint analysis
Does the level of public support for democracy promotion policies vary with the characteristics of potential autocratic targets? We conduct an experimental study with a conjoint design on a sample of 1,464 US citizens that manipulates several core characteristics of potential autocratic targets. We...
| Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Publication Date: | 2021 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repository: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10230/52330 |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/52330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fpa/oraa016 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Public opinion Democracy promotion Autocratic regimes Conjoint analysis Military intervention Economic sanctions Democracy assistance Dictatorship |
| Summary: | Does the level of public support for democracy promotion policies vary with the characteristics of potential autocratic targets? We conduct an experimental study with a conjoint design on a sample of 1,464 US citizens that manipulates several core characteristics of potential autocratic targets. We then compare citizens’ preferences with the cross-national evidence testing the determinants of democracy promotion success. We find that respondents support the use of coercive measures (military action and sanctions) precisely in contexts where, according to comparative research, these instruments are unlikely to foster democratization: oil-rich, exclusionary, personalistic regimes with no elections, and with no ties to the United States. Conversely, the characteristics driving public support for the use of democracy aid are more consistent with those favoring effectiveness: autocratic regimes with multi-party elections and with links to the United States. These findings have important policy implications by contributing to understand the micro-foundations of target selection. |
|---|