Why are some autocracies more prone to interstate conflict than others? Recent scholarship on the nexus between authoritarian politics and international conflict has demonstrated the role of institutional constraints on autocratic leaders. Scholarship on the politics of dictatorships has emphasized domestic policy driven by a single motivation, remaining in power. Yet, autocrats do have other motivations and institutional configurations do not tell us everything we need to know about authoritarian leaders. Some autocrats gain power through coups or revolutions, telegraphing a level of risk tolerance which may spill over into interstate conflict. Others rise to power as leaders of ideological movements advocating massive social transformation. Projects of social change are inherently risky to the acknowledged interest of the leader in retaining power. So, these transformative ideologues share the revolutionary leader’s risk tolerance. Further, ideological visionaries are less limited by institutional constraints. In many cases, the vision for social transformation itself transcends national boundaries, creating a new cause of conflict. The evidence presented demonstrates that autocratic leaders with transformative ideologies are associated with a higher risk of international conflict regardless of institutional types.

1. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Grand visions, social transformation, and war:
Autocratic leadership ideology and the risk of
interstate conflict
Tom Hanna
University of Houston
tlhanna@uh.edu
May 6, 2020
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

2. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Research Question
Why are some autocracies more prone to
interstate conflict than others?
How do the motivations of autocrats influence their propensity for
aggression?
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

3. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Prior Research
Selectorate theory (Beuno de Mesquita, Smith, and Morrow
2003)
Party rule, military rule, institutions (intrastate) (Geddes,
Franz and Wright 2014)
Constraints on personal power (interstate) (Weeks 2012,
2014)
Leader types, leader transitions (Colgan 2012, 2013)
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

4. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Theory and Hypotheses
Ideological visions transcend borders
Leaders with grand visions for transforming society and a
willingness to use force to do so are not likely to let national
borders stand in their way.
1 H0: Leadership ideology has no effect on the risk of aggression.
2 H1: (Weak) Leaders who justify their regimes based on an ideology
represent a higher risk of international aggression.
3 H2: (Strong) Leaders with a program of radical social change
(ethnic, religious, distributional, nationalist) represent a higher risk
of international aggression.
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

5. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Research Design
Heading
1 Data: V-Dem v. 9
2 Data: FUFV
3 Time: 1980-2001
4 Nondemocracies
5 n=1780
1 Causal mediation analysis
2 Dependent Variable: First
use of force (binary)
3 Independent Variable:
Leader promotion of
ideology or societal model (0
to 4)
4 Mediating variables:
Clientelism, institutional
constraints,party rule,erosion
of rule of law
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

6. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Analysis
Variables Odds of FUF Z-score
Legitimating Ideology 1.26 2.877
Private Civil Liberties 0.34 -2.511
Population (thousands) 1.00002 6.546
Lagged Conflict Status 1.84 8.567
Table: Probability of first use of force, cet. par.
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

7. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Coefficient Plot
Figure: Coefficients from top Lagged Conflict Status, Population, Private
Civil Liberties, Legitimating Regime Ideology
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

8. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Causal Mediation: Clientelism
Figure: Ideology is partially mediated by clientelism, p-value .04
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

9. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
Conclusions and implications
Autocracies that rely on ideology or societal models for
legitimacy do pose an increased risk of conflict.
These autocracies also pose an increased risk of repression.
This indicates that some of the risk involves a propensity to
use force generally.
Some of the effect of regime ideology is mediated by support
of client groups.
The effect of ideology is not mediated by executive reliance on
a party as a power base.
This indicates that some of the effect is involved with
domestic audience costs outside the party elite.
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war

10. Research Question Prior Research Theory and Hypotheses Research Design Analysis Conclusions and implications
The End
Tom Hanna University of Houston
Grand visions, social transformation and war