Working Papers

The Effect of International Law on Preferences and Beliefs.

How does international law affect preferences and beliefs about foreign policy? I investigate this question by offering the first-ever experimental analysis of treaty commitments. The experiments, embedded in interviews with U.S. voters and British policymakers, reveal three patterns. First, international law changes preferences and expectations. Individuals are far more likely to oppose policies that would violate international law than to oppose otherwise identical policies that would not trammel upon the law. Moreover many observers, including expert policymakers, anticipate that signatories to treaties will behave differently from non-signatories. Second, these effects arise, at least in part, via a reputational mechanism. By publicizing international commitments and embedding them in a legal framework, treaties raise the reputational ante, making it more costly to renege. Third, the effect of international law is additive, not absolute. If the material or moral case for violating international law is sufficiently strong, large proportions of voters and policymakers will advocate breaking the law and will expect foreign leaders to do the same. Thus, the experiments reported here reveal both the power and the limits of international law.

Sovereign Theft: Theory and Evidence about Default and Expropriation (with Mark Wright)

This paper examines two major risks to foreign investors: default on sovereign debt and expropriation of foreign direct investment, which we refer to collectively as ``sovereign theft.'' Using a series of formal models, we analyze how the incentives to engage in sovereign theft vary with the state of the economy, the risk aversion of political leaders, and the nature of punishments for default and expropriation. We then document patterns of sovereign theft and foreign investment across much of the twentieth century. Our research, based on a new data set, reveals a striking asynchronicity: defaults and expropriations have occurred in alternating---rather than coincident---waves. Our findings shed new light on cooperation and conflict in the international economy.

The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity (with Robert Van Houweling)

Many candidates take ambiguous positions in political campaigns. In theory, ambiguity affects how voters make choices and who wins or loses elections. In practice, measurement and endogeneity problems have impeded empirical research about the consequences of ambiguity. We design and administer survey experiments that overcome these obstacles by manipulating the precision of candidate positions. We find that, on average, ambiguity does not repel and may in fact attract voters. The preference for vague versus precise candidates depends partly on individual attitudes toward risk, and on the tendency to see ambiguous candidates from one's own party in a favorable light.

The Microfoundations of Issue Voting (with Robert Van Houweling). Currently R&R at American Political Science Review.

This paper examines how the issue positions of candidates affect voting behavior. We explain why existing data and methods are insufficient to estimate the prevalence of proximity voting, discounting, and directional voting in the electorate. We then formally derive an exhaustive set of critical tests---situations in which the theories predict different vote choices. Finally, through survey experiments concerning federal health care policy, we administer the tests to a nationally representative sample of adults. We find that proximity voting is about twice as common as discounting and four times as common as directional voting. Our analysis further shows that discounting is most prevalent among ideological centrists and non-partisans, suggesting that centrists make sophisticated judgments to bring policy in line with their preferences. These findings demonstrate the promise of combining formal theory, statistical modeling, and experiments to answer previously intractable questions about the microfoundations of voting.

Interests, Information, and the Domestic Politics of International Agreements. Currently R&R at American Journal of Political Science.

This paper examines how citizens form preferences about compliance with international agreements. The paper argues that compliance creates domestic winners and losers through two channels, adjustment and reputation. It then shows that the preferences of citizens vary systematically with their exposure to the adjustment costs and reputational benefits of compliance. The relationship between personal interests and policy preferences holds mainly for the most informed portion of the electorate, though, whereas the preferences of less knowledgeable citizens are harder to reconcile with self-interest. This finding has potentially broad implications for models of policy choice.

Brand Names and the Organization of Mass Belief Systems (with Paul Sniderman).

Previous research finds that the political views of citizens exhibit minimal constraint: it is difficult to predict the position citizens take on one issue, given their position on another. We show that constraint is much higher than previously recognized. In the world of real politics, parties and elites attach brand names (e.g. "Democratic" and "Republican") to issues, thereby sending signals that help citizens respond coherently to an array of questions. Existing studies have measured policy preferences without presenting political brand names. A sequence of experiments supports four conclusions: political brand names (1) markedly increase constraint; (2) enhance constraint across rather than within policy agendas; (3) promote constraint among the politically unsophisticated as effectively as among the sophisticated; and (4) generate ideological consistency as effectively as ideological brand names.

Sovereign Debt, Defaults, and Bailouts (with Mark Wright). Under revision. Temporarily offline.

Governments default on their foreign debts with surprising regularity. Given the costs of default, to both creditors and to the defaulting country, is it possible to reform the international financial system to minimize the incidence and severity of debt crises while still promoting efficient capital flows? This paper uses evidence from a new historical dataset on the relationship between sovereign borrowing and defaults to discipline the development of a model in which defaults occur in equilibrium. In the context of this model, the optimal form of supra-national intervention ("bailouts") is derived.

Democratic Default: Domestic Audiences and Compliance with International Agreements

This paper challenges an increasingly common claim about the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy. Many political scientists argue that, in a democracy, domestic audiences constrain leaders to honor international commitments. I explain why this argument depends on three assumptions that are unlikely to hold in a wide range of cases. I then offer an alternative theory in which domestic audiences sometimes make compliance less rather than more likely, and I test it with a unique collection of public opinion polls about foreign debt in Argentina. The data reveal that domestic audiences prevented Argentina from suspending debt payments in 1999 but had the opposite effect two years later, when they contributed to the largest default in financial history. The results confirm the existence of a conditional, rather than direct, relationship between democratic accountability and compliance, and they suggest an important avenue for future research: investigating who favors default and when they are likely to become electorally decisive.

Do International Agreements Make Reforms More Credible? The Impact of NAFTA on Mexican Stock Prices

This paper argues that international commercial agreements can enhance the credibility of trade liberalization by mitigating two problems – adverse selection and time-inconsistency – that sometimes lead investors to doubt the longevity of an otherwise well-designed commercial policy. Using stock market data from Mexico, the paper offers strong evidence that NAFTA made trade liberalization more credible to domestic and foreign investors. The findings should be of interest not only to scholars concerned about the consequences of international institutions, but also to policy makers who are opening their economies to foreign trade.

The Morality of Secession (M.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University, 1994)

In this monograph I develop a normative theory of state secession. My argument, grounded in contemporary liberal political philosophy, proceeds in three steps. First, I demonstrate that the liberal commitment to freedom of association implies presumption in favor of secession, which can be overturned only by showing that the act of secession inflicts morally significant harm on others. Next, I specify the conditions under which secessionists could inflict harm on others by breaking political obligations or violating property rights. Finally, I indicate when an appeal to necessity -- an argument that secession itself is necessary to avert moral harm -- can override political obligations and property rights. To illustrate my arguments, I draw on cases of successful and attempted secession in the 19th and 20th centuries. A revised version of chapter 3 is presented in "Political Obligation and Political Secession," which argues that political obligations arising from consent and fair play can undermine the legitimacy of secession.