The Effects of Autocratic Characteristics on Public Opinion toward Democracy Promotion Policies: A Conjoint Analysis

Abstract 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 tar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Foreign policy analysis 2021-01, Vol.17 (1), p.140-161
Main Authors: Escribà-Folch, Abel, Muradova, Lala H, Rodon, Toni
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Autocracy
Citizens
Coercion
Comparative analysis
Conjoint analysis
Democracy
Democratization
Elections
Frantz, Erica
Iraq
Libya
Military effectiveness
Petroleum
Policies
Public opinion
Respondents
Sanctions
Target selection
United Kingdom
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3
container_end_page 161
container_issue 1
container_start_page 140
container_title Foreign policy analysis
container_volume 17
creator Escribà-Folch, Abel
Muradova, Lala H
Rodon, Toni
description Abstract 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/fpa/oraa016
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2478469971</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A701790354</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/fpa/oraa016</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A701790354</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9rwyAYxsPYYF23076AMNhlpNXEaLJb6Lo_UGgP3Tm8MbpampipYfTbz5Ky4_Cgj8_veVGeKLoneEZwkc5VD3NjATBhF9GEcJrGeVbQy79zzq6jG-f2GKccZ_kk8tudREulpPAOGYXKwRthwWuBFjuwILy02gUZ3A5thvoQnHWvOx2kNz9gG_Qi21NGHNHGmtb4k7UxAdTSPaMSLUy3N7rzqOzgcHTa3UZXCg5O3p33afT5utwu3uPV-u1jUa5ikbLcxwzXNcM8wSKjTDUpkUpQAsAhr2kuZZM1IhFK5BhA8iCgTmresFoxSlVSp9PoYZzbW_M9SOervRlseISrEspzyoqCk0DNRuoLDrLSnTI-fCasRrZamE4qHe5LjgkvcJrREHgaA8Ia56xUVW91C_ZYEVydeqhCD9W5h0A_jrQZ-n_BXzoYi7s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2478469971</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effects of Autocratic Characteristics on Public Opinion toward Democracy Promotion Policies: A Conjoint Analysis</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Escribà-Folch, Abel ; Muradova, Lala H ; Rodon, Toni</creator><creatorcontrib>Escribà-Folch, Abel ; Muradova, Lala H ; Rodon, Toni</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1743-8586</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-8594</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/fpa/oraa016</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Autocracy ; Citizens ; Coercion ; Comparative analysis ; Conjoint analysis ; Democracy ; Democratization ; Elections ; Frantz, Erica ; Iraq ; Libya ; Military effectiveness ; Petroleum ; Policies ; Public opinion ; Respondents ; Sanctions ; Target selection ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Foreign policy analysis, 2021-01, Vol.17 (1), p.140-161</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association. 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Oxford University Press</rights><rights>The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7615-6779 ; 0000-0002-0546-4475 ; 0000-0001-7344-1585</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2478469971?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,12824,12826,21366,21373,27843,27901,27902,33200,33588,33962,43709,43924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Escribà-Folch, Abel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muradova, Lala H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodon, Toni</creatorcontrib><title>The Effects of Autocratic Characteristics on Public Opinion toward Democracy Promotion Policies: A Conjoint Analysis</title><title>Foreign policy analysis</title><description>Abstract 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.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Autocracy</subject><subject>Citizens</subject><subject>Coercion</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Conjoint analysis</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Democratization</subject><subject>Elections</subject><subject>Frantz, Erica</subject><subject>Iraq</subject><subject>Libya</subject><subject>Military effectiveness</subject><subject>Petroleum</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Respondents</subject><subject>Sanctions</subject><subject>Target selection</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>1743-8586</issn><issn>1743-8594</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9rwyAYxsPYYF23076AMNhlpNXEaLJb6Lo_UGgP3Tm8MbpampipYfTbz5Ky4_Cgj8_veVGeKLoneEZwkc5VD3NjATBhF9GEcJrGeVbQy79zzq6jG-f2GKccZ_kk8tudREulpPAOGYXKwRthwWuBFjuwILy02gUZ3A5thvoQnHWvOx2kNz9gG_Qi21NGHNHGmtb4k7UxAdTSPaMSLUy3N7rzqOzgcHTa3UZXCg5O3p33afT5utwu3uPV-u1jUa5ikbLcxwzXNcM8wSKjTDUpkUpQAsAhr2kuZZM1IhFK5BhA8iCgTmresFoxSlVSp9PoYZzbW_M9SOervRlseISrEspzyoqCk0DNRuoLDrLSnTI-fCasRrZamE4qHe5LjgkvcJrREHgaA8Ia56xUVW91C_ZYEVydeqhCD9W5h0A_jrQZ-n_BXzoYi7s</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Escribà-Folch, Abel</creator><creator>Muradova, Lala H</creator><creator>Rodon, Toni</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-6779</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0546-4475</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7344-1585</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>The Effects of Autocratic Characteristics on Public Opinion toward Democracy Promotion Policies: A Conjoint Analysis</title><author>Escribà-Folch, Abel ; Muradova, Lala H ; Rodon, Toni</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Autocracy</topic><topic>Citizens</topic><topic>Coercion</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Conjoint analysis</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Democratization</topic><topic>Elections</topic><topic>Frantz, Erica</topic><topic>Iraq</topic><topic>Libya</topic><topic>Military effectiveness</topic><topic>Petroleum</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Respondents</topic><topic>Sanctions</topic><topic>Target selection</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Escribà-Folch, Abel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muradova, Lala H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodon, Toni</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Foreign policy analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Escribà-Folch, Abel</au><au>Muradova, Lala H</au><au>Rodon, Toni</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effects of Autocratic Characteristics on Public Opinion toward Democracy Promotion Policies: A Conjoint Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Foreign policy analysis</jtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>140</spage><epage>161</epage><pages>140-161</pages><issn>1743-8586</issn><eissn>1743-8594</eissn><abstract>Abstract 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.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/fpa/oraa016</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-6779</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0546-4475</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7344-1585</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1743-8586
ispartof Foreign policy analysis, 2021-01, Vol.17 (1), p.140-161
issn 1743-8586
1743-8594
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2478469971
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Politics Collection; Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Oxford Journals Online
subjects Analysis
Autocracy
Citizens
Coercion
Comparative analysis
Conjoint analysis
Democracy
Democratization
Elections
Frantz, Erica
Iraq
Libya
Military effectiveness
Petroleum
Policies
Public opinion
Respondents
Sanctions
Target selection
United Kingdom
title The Effects of Autocratic Characteristics on Public Opinion toward Democracy Promotion Policies: A Conjoint Analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T13%3A32%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effects%20of%20Autocratic%20Characteristics%20on%20Public%20Opinion%20toward%20Democracy%20Promotion%20Policies:%20A%20Conjoint%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Foreign%20policy%20analysis&rft.au=Escrib%C3%A0-Folch,%20Abel&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=140&rft.epage=161&rft.pages=140-161&rft.issn=1743-8586&rft.eissn=1743-8594&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/fpa/oraa016&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA701790354%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-60bb60720c546fd31efc41aa7a8b48eed5dc2cfc80aae75dcab2b7d6bf644f2b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2478469971&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A701790354&rft_oup_id=10.1093/fpa/oraa016&rfr_iscdi=true