Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWAGNER, Wolfgang
dc.contributor.authorONDERCO, Michal
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-01T12:05:02Z
dc.date.available2015-06-01T12:05:02Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationInternational studies quarterly, 2014, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 717-728en
dc.identifier.issn1468-2478
dc.identifier.issn0020-8833
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/36015
dc.descriptionArticle first published online: 12 FEB 2014.en
dc.description.abstractEven though democracies by and large share the perception of Iran as a threat to peace and security, they disagree over the appropriate policy response. This paper examines why some democracies prefer accommodation while others plead for confrontation. Using a new data set on democracies' policies toward Iran in the 2000s, we assess the impact of power positions, commercial interests, and domestic political cultures while controlling for government ideology. While we find little support for any impact of power positions, “cultures of dealing with deviance,” that is, the discourses and practices of dealing with violations of norms domestically as institutionalized in a society's criminal law and justice system, have a substantial and statistically significant effect on state policies. Finally, we find qualified support for commercial liberalism: Whereas high levels of total trade do not have the expected effect of making states more accommodationist, high levels of trade in strategic goods such as oil do.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofInternational studies quarterlyen
dc.titleAccommodation or confrontation? : explaining differences in policies towards Iranen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/isqu.12116
dc.identifier.volume58en
dc.identifier.startpage717en
dc.identifier.endpage728en
dc.identifier.issue4en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record