Experience Open to Interpretation: US Presidents and Economic Coercion

We assume that the motivation for the use of economic sanctions is rooted in the ambition of the policy-makers to change the behaviour of a target state. Yet, given the low effectiveness of sanctions, scholars suggest that sanctions are imposed to address the expectations of the domestic audience and the motivation is symbolic. I test the symbolic argument, look for the presence of an audience benefit for an imposition of sanctions and an audience cost for issuing of an empty threat and investigate potential confirmation bias among US presidents. I find no evidence for higher popularity following an imposition of sanctions, nor lower popularity after an empty threat. However, I do observe that US president are more likely to follow up on a threat of sanctions if they experienced a spell of lower approval ratings. US presidents do play at the home crowd with sanctions, but the crowd is indifferent.