Explaining the pre-election peace

Abstract

Why does the frequency of military interstate disputes decrease as elections approach? I study this ‘pre-election peace’ and show that the prevailing explanation, which holds that foreign countries believe leaders who face elections are eager to wage war and therefore behave cautiously towards them, does not hold empirically. Instead, I develop an alternative theory that centres on the electoral incentives of the leader facing election. Whereas popular incumbents approaching elections seek to avoid conflict as their electoral prospects are already promising, unpopular leaders are more prone to wage war with the hope it would improve their public standing. Using a novel dataset that ties public opinion data to military interstate disputes, I find support for the theory’s key predictions. The findings highlight the important role of domestic electoral considerations in shaping foreign policy decisions.