Coercion and Democracy: Symbolic Role of Economic Sanctions in the US

10 March 2022, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed at the time of posting.

Abstract

Given the low effectiveness of economic sanctions, scholars suggest that sanctions are imposed to address the expectations of the domestic audience and the motivation is symbolic. In this article, I test the symbolic argument and look for the presence of an audience benefit for an imposition of sanctions and an audience cost for issuing of an empty threat. I find no evidence for an increase in popularity following an imposition of economic sanctions, nor a decline in popularity after an empty threat – counter to current scholarship. However, I do observe that US president are more likely to follow up on a threat of economic coercion if they have experienced a spell of decrease in approval ratings before the conflict. Thus, US presidents do play at the home crowd with economic coercion, but the crowd is indifferent.

Keywords

Economic sanctions
Audience cost
Symbolic
Differences-in-differences
Approval rating
Audience benefit

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.