Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature* · Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature ... with the UN development and humanitarian ... observation missions

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

Pitfalls and Prospects in thePeacekeeping Literature∗

Virginia Page Fortna1 and Lise Morje Howard2

1Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027;email: [email protected]; 2Department of Government, Georgetown University,Washington, DC 20057; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2008. 11:283–301

First published online as a Review in Advance onJanuary 21, 2008

The Annual Review of Political Science is online athttp://polisci.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.041205.103022

Copyright c© 2008 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1094-2939/08/0615-0283$20.00

∗The authors are named in alphabetical orderand contributed equally to the article.

Key Words

United Nations, regional organizations, peace enforcement,peacebuilding, transitional administration, postconflictdemocratization

AbstractFollowing closely the practice of peacekeeping, the literature on thesubject has come in one small wave and then two larger ones. The firstwave, during the Cold War, includes classic works focusing mainlyon peacekeeping in wars between states. The second wave, at first in-spired by the boom in peacekeeping shortly after the end of the ColdWar, soon reflected disillusionment and focuses largely on failure anddysfunction, despite significant cases of success. The third and mostrecent wave also reflects a resurgence in peacekeeping but is newlyconcerned with systematic and methodologically rigorous analysis(both quantitative and qualitative) of basic empirical questions aboutthe effects of peacekeeping and the sources of peacekeeping out-comes. Recent empirical studies have demonstrated peacekeeping’seffectiveness in maintaining peace, but related questions persist con-cerning the use of force, transitional administrations, which organi-zations most effectively keep peace, perspectives of the “peacekept,”and effects on democratization.

283

Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

INTRODUCTIONFollowing closely the practice of peacekeep-ing, the literature on the subject has comein three waves—one small and two larger.Peacekeeping was invented during the ColdWar, but its use exploded only after the ri-valry between the superpowers ended. Moremissions deployed from 1988 through 1993than had in the previous four decades. At thesame time, peacekeeping evolved from a prac-tice used primarily between warring states toa tool used to maintain peace after civil wars aswell. A perceived crisis in peacekeeping, be-ginning in June 1993, was the result of well-publicized dysfunction, failure, and paralysis,first in Somalia, and then in Rwanda, Angola,and Bosnia, despite many successful missionselsewhere. A lull followed, with very few new,important missions launched until 1999. Af-ter attempts to reform the practice of peace-keeping (epitomized by the Brahimi Report,described below), peacekeeping rebounded; anumber of major missions were initiated from1999 to 2004. There are more peacekeepersdeployed around the world currently than atany time in the past.

The literature has followed these ups anddowns. A few classic works on peacekeepingwere written during the Cold War, but onecould hardly call the body of work a “liter-ature” until the explosion of interest in the1990s. Within this new wave of literature,brief optimism about the practice of peace-keeping in the first years of the post–Cold Warera was followed by a period of soul-searchingand pessimism about its limitations and faults.A third wave of peacekeeping studies emergedin the mid-2000s. Although the literature asa whole remains largely descriptive and pre-scriptive, the latest wave of works on peace-keeping has matured considerably, becomingmore theoretical and, perhaps most signifi-cant, much more methodologically rigorous.

Until this most recent wave, the literaturewas unable to answer the most basic ques-tion about the impact of peacekeeping: Doesit keep peace? The early literature consists

largely of descriptions of the general prac-tice and principles of peacekeeping, or of de-tailed case histories. Although many of thesecase studies discuss the role of peacekeepers inkeeping peace, or failing to do so, they neces-sarily rely on (often implicit) counterfactuals.Only in the past few years has the literatureconcerned itself with any variation betweensuccess and failure, or, more fundamentally,between peacekeeping and non-peacekeepingcases, that could give more systematic an-alytical leverage over basic empirical ques-tions about the effectiveness of peacekeepingor the causes of peacekeeping outcomes. Theemerging consensus within these new, moresystematic studies is much more optimisticthan the tenor of the preceding wave, indicat-ing that peacekeeping does indeed help keeppeace.

In short, the intellectual history of theliterature with respect to the issue of peace-keeping’s effectiveness could be described asfollows: first, a long period including the spo-radic studies during the Cold War; second,the newfound interest in peacekeeping in the1990s, which turned quickly to a focus onfailure, dysfunction, and unintended conse-quences; third, the advent of systematic quali-tative and quantitative studies that have testedpeacekeeping’s impact empirically, showingthat despite its limitations, peacekeeping is anextremely effective policy tool. The more the-oretically and methodologically mature stud-ies of the most recent wave have allowed moreserious debate and analysis of related ques-tions on peacekeeping effectiveness: whetherpeacekeeping is best conducted by the UnitedNations or by other organizations or re-gional actors; the effectiveness of the use offorce; whether and when more intrusive andlonger-term transitional administrations areeffective; and the impact of peacekeeping notonly on stable peace but also on other goals,such as democratization. The newer stud-ies have also included more nuanced analy-sis of effects on local political actors and localpopulations. These issues have not yet been

284 Fortna · Howard

Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

addressed definitively but represent active re-search agendas and fruitful avenues for futureresearch as the literature continues to mature.

This essay provides a roughly chronolog-ical intellectual history of the study of peace-keeping. It is by no means comprehensive, asthe literature is too vast to cover exhaustively.Instead we focus here primarily on the ma-jor trends in the literature, and what it tellsus about the effectiveness and effects of thispolicy tool.

WHAT IS PEACEKEEPING?

The term peacekeeping generally refers tothe deployment of international personnel tohelp maintain peace and security. Some stud-ies of peacekeeping include efforts to con-tain or terminate hostilities (e.g., Walter &Snyder 1999, Greig & Diehl 2005, Gilligan& Sergenti 2007), or even to prevent hos-tilities (e.g., Rikhye 1984, pp. 1–2), whereasothers restrict the definition to efforts to pre-vent the recurrence of war once a ceasefireis in place (e.g., Hillen 1998, Fortna 2008a,Howard 2008). The definition of peacekeep-ing has also changed over time, as has thepractice. The definition in the 1990 editionof The Blue Helmets (United Nations 1990,p. 4), the UN’s review of operations, notesthat peacekeeping personnel deploy “withoutenforcement powers” and refers specificallyto “international peace and security” (our em-phasis). Interestingly, the preface of the 1996edition, written by Boutros Boutros-Ghali,drops the definition altogether (United Na-tions 1996). By this time, peacekeeping wasfirmly established as a technique for main-taining peace in internal as well as interstateconflicts, and the line separating peacekeepingand peace enforcement missions had blurredconsiderably. However, some studies continueto restrict the definition of peacekeeping toconsent-based missions that are authorized touse force solely for self-defensive purposes,as opposed to peace enforcement missions.Findlay (2002), for example, makes this dis-tinction, using the term peace operations to

cover both types of mission. In UN lingo, thisdistinction separates Chapter VI and Chap-ter VII missions, in reference to the relevantparts of the UN Charter. Technically, how-ever, these labels are misnomers, as nowheredoes the UN Charter refer to the practiceof peacekeeping. Even though peacekeepinghas now become a central activity of the UN,it was a practice improvised after the Char-ter was written, and in many ways fell be-tween the activities discussed in Chapter VIand Chapter VII. Former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold famously de-scribed peacekeeping as “chapter six and ahalf.”

As peacekeeping was adapted for use incivil conflict zones, it evolved far beyond mon-itoring ceasefire lines and troop withdrawalsor interposing personnel between opposingnational armies to include many more civil-ian tasks: human rights monitoring, mon-itoring and running elections, monitoringand training police forces, providing human-itarian assistance, and assisting with the re-building of judicial institutions. In terms ofmilitary-related tasks, peacekeepers movedfrom merely observing troop movements af-ter interstate wars to actively assisting withtroop demobilization, reintegration, retrain-ing, and the construction of national militaryforces after civil wars. Many studies thus dis-tinguish between “traditional” peacekeepingand “multidimensional” missions (e.g., Doyle& Sambanis 2000, 2006; Findlay 2002; Fortna2008a; Howard 2008). Most recently, the UNhas begun to call the more complex peace-keeping operations “integrated missions.”These missions are designed in conjunctionwith the UN development and humanitarianagencies, and seek to go beyond shorter-termpeacekeeping to include elements of longer-term postconflict economic, social, and polit-ical development or “peacebuilding.”

Most studies restrict their analysis topeacekeeping operations undertaken by theUN, but others (e.g., Rikhye 1984, Dobbinset al. 2003, Bellamy & Williams 2005,Fortna 2008a) include peacekeeping missions

www.annualreviews.org • Peacekeeping 285

Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

mounted by regional organizations or othercoalitions of states. Such missions are oftenauthorized and legitimized by a UN resolu-tion, as, for example, in Bosnia, Liberia, andAfghanistan.

THE CLASSICS: PEACEKEEPINGSTUDIES DURING THECOLD WAR

Among the early studies of peacekeeping,some focused on the prospects for improv-ing or developing peacekeeping as an effectivetool of conflict resolution (e.g., Bloomfield1964, Cox 1967, Fabian 1971, Wiseman 1983,International Peace Academy 1984). How-ever, most of these classics consist primarily ofdetailed case histories. The Wainhouse com-pendiums (1966, 1973), for example, providedetailed accounts of all the international peaceobservation missions and peacekeeping mis-sions, respectively, undertaken before thosebooks were published. Burns & Heathcote(1963) survey the early missions in the Mid-dle East and then thoroughly dissect the sear-ing experience of the UN in the Congo.Higgins (1969–1981) provides a four-volumeset of cases, including relevant documents,from the first four decades of peacekeeping.Pelcovits (1984) and Mackinlay (1989) focuson peacekeeping in Middle East cases.

Rikhye (1984) similarly provides rich de-scriptions of the various missions mounted bythe UN and by regional organizations. Hisbook is organized around the functions ofpeacekeeping (e.g., peace observation, sepa-ration of forces, and maintaining peace), andalthough he does not set out to assess the ef-fectiveness of peacekeeping as such, his casestudies provide implicitly counterfactual ar-guments about how peacekeeping helped tokeep peace (see, e.g., pp. 94, 99–100).

Despite their titles, Rikhye’s Theory andPractice of Peacekeeping (1984) focuses muchmore on the politics, particularly betweenthe superpowers, involved in launching (ornot) peacekeeping missions and their man-agement, whereas James’ The Politics of Peace-

Keeping (1969) presents something muchcloser to a causal theory of how peacekeep-ing might work. James discusses the practi-cal political limits of peacekeeping, given thepropensity of either the parties to the conflictor the superpowers to thwart peacekeepers’efforts. He focuses much more explicitly thanmost of the literature, either during this eraor subsequent ones, on what would now becalled the causal mechanisms of peacekeeping.He describes, often in colorful metaphors, themyriad ways that peacekeepers can serve to“patch-up” conflicts or provide “prophylaxis”against things getting worse or violence re-curring, as well as some methods for “prose-lytism” of changing regimes or state policies.(See also James 1990.) Although these studiesinclude some cases of peacekeeping in inter-nal conflicts (in the Congo and Cyprus, for ex-ample), their focus on interstate peacekeepingreflects the fact that for its first 40 years, peace-keeping was used primarily to keep peace be-tween states, not within them.

Early attempts to test empirically the ef-fect of peacekeeping (among other efforts bythe UN) on conflict management also focuson interstate conflict. These studies presentcontradictory findings, most likely because ofmethodological limitations. Studies by Haasand his colleagues (Haas et al. 1972, Haas1986) and by Wilkenfeld & Brecher (1984)examine both conflicts in which the UN wasinvolved and those with no UN involvement,avoiding the problem of the vast majority ofthe literature, not just in this era but until quiterecently, which examines only peacekeepingcases. Haas reports UN military operationsto be generally successful, but the measure ofsuccess is coded only for disputes referred tothe UN, making a direct comparison or assess-ment of the UN’s effects impossible. Wilken-feld & Brecher make a direct comparison andfind that UN involvement makes agreementmore likely than when the UN is not involved,but that the UN has no effect on the recur-rence of crises. In other words, the UN isgood at making peace but not at keeping it.However, despite the fact that they explicitly


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

study selection effects, noting that the UNtends to get involved in the most serious cases,Wilkenfeld & Brecher do not adjust for thiswhen concluding that the UN has little ef-fect in preventing the recurrence of crises. Itwould be 15–20 years before studies directlycompared peacekeeping and nonpeacekeep-ing cases, taking the nonrandom selection ofpeacekeeping into account.

BOOM AND BUST IN THE 1990s

With the end of the Cold War, peacekeepingcame into its own as an important interna-tional instrument for ending wars and main-taining peace primarily within, rather thanbetween, states. With the end of the super-power rivalry, the deadlock in the UN Secu-rity Council eased, producing agreement ina number of areas, and very often in peace-keeping. For almost a decade, from the secondhalf of 1978 through 1987, the UN fieldednot a single new peacekeeping mission (andonly 13 in the period of 1948–1978)—butfrom 1988 to 1993, the UN launched a stag-gering 20 new missions. Secretary-GeneralBoutros Boutros-Ghali’s An Agenda for Peacewas the central policy document, outlining aseries of activities for which the UN should beresponsible, from peacekeeping to peace en-forcement to peacebuilding (United Nations1992). This text directly reflected the opti-mism and confidence of the UN Secretariatat the time. There was a pervasive sense thatfinally, after decades of disagreement, the UNwould be instrumental in resolving disputesacross the globe.

But the optimism faded quickly in the faceof several debacles. First, in Somalia, in June1993, 24 Pakistani troops under the UN flagwere killed, followed by 18 US rangers (de-ployed under the US flag), one of whom wasbrutally dragged through the streets in frontof live TV cameras, as depicted in the movieBlack Hawk Down. This pivotal event wasfollowed by devastating failures in Rwanda,Angola, and Srebrenica (in Bosnia), wheregenocide, mass killing, and ethnic cleansing

raged while UN peacekeepers helplesslylooked on. Most of the scholarly literaturereflecting on the 1990s, as well as mostnewspaper and policy analyses, focuses onthese crushing cases of failure despite manysignificant cases of peacekeeping success: forexample, in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia,Mozambique, and Eastern Slavonia (a regionof Croatia). Books with such hyperbolictitles as Why Peacekeeping Fails ( Jett 1999),Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s (Fleitz2002), and Peacekeeping in the Abyss (Cassidy2004), and a seminal article in Foreign Affairscalled “Give War a Chance” (Luttwak 1999),epitomize the pervasive sense of pessimism.

But even the less tendentious literatureabout this time period focuses primarily on thecases of failure (see, e.g., Thakur & Thayer1995, Weiss 1995, Mayall 1996, Clarke &Herbst 1997, Hillen 1998, Moxon-Browne1998, Biermann & Vadset 1999, Daniel et al.1999, Walter & Snyder 1999, Cousens et al.2001, Boulden 2001, Hawk 2002, Crockeret al. 2005). Of the numerous works, only twotexts are concerned primarily with compar-ing successful cases (Doyle et al. 1997, Krasnoet al. 2003).

In addition to the focus on failure, thiswave of the peacekeeping literature is char-acterized by its lack of attention to systematiccausal arguments (similar to the early worksin peacekeeping). In general, this wave of theliterature is not particularly concerned withexplanation or positive social science analy-sis, nor are the debates particularly cumu-lative. Instead, the literature of this periodtends to explore different themes associatedwith peacekeeping. Most are edited volumeswith excellent, detailed case studies (Durch1993, 1996; Weiss 1995; Brown 1996; Otunnu& Doyle 1998; Crocker et al. 1999). Thepractitioners of peacekeeping also began tomove into the business of analysis, with ma-jor works by peacekeeping architects BrianUrquhart (1972, 1987) and Marrack Gould-ing (2002); Secretaries-General Javier Perezde Cuellar (1997) and Boutros Boutros-Ghali(1999); and articles by top-level UN diplomats


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

such as Alvaro de Soto (de Soto & del Castillo1994) and Shashi Tharoor (1995–1996). Somestudies seek to apply an international lawframework (White 1990, Caron 1993, Bai-ley 1994, Harper 1994, Ratner 1995). Analystsalso began to explore the merits of postcon-flict peacebuilding as an integral and neces-sary part of keeping peace in the longer term(Ginifer 1997, Lederach 1997, Kumar 1998,and Chopra 1999).

Many studies also seek to describe the evo-lution of one case, one issue in peacekeeping,or the relationship between a single state andUN peacekeeping. Examples of single casestudies include Doyle (1995) on Cambodia,Clarke & Herbst (1997) on Somalia,Johnstone (1995) on El Salvador, Howard(2002) on Namibia, and Barnett (2002) onRwanda. Issue-specific studies of various as-pects of multidimensional peacekeeping oper-ations include the work of Lehmann (1999) onUN information offices; Berdal (1996) and theUN Institute for Disarmament Research se-ries on disarmament (UNIDIR 1995–1998);and specialized works on elections monitoring(Kumar 1998), civilian policing (Oakley et al.1998, Call & Barnett 1999), human rightsprotection (Katayanagi 2002), humanitarianintervention (Hoffmann 1996, Murphy 1996),and the effects of the media (Minear et al.1996). Stedman et al. (2002) include both asection organized by “implementation tasks”and a section devoted to individual case stud-ies. Yet other authors seek to explore single-state involvement in multilateral peacekeep-ing, usually focusing on US, Japanese, orCanadian roles. Books and articles analyzingthe role of the United States include those byRuggie (1994), Daalder (1994), Coate(1994), and MacKinnon (2000). Morrison& Kiras (1996) and Harrison & Nishihara(1995) examine Japan, and Jockel (1994) andCoulon (1998) explore the role of Canada inpeacekeeping.

All of the works mentioned above developeither implicit or explicit arguments aboutwhy peacekeeping fails (or in the rare analy-sis, succeeds). They tend to be extremely rich

in description, and in making suggestions forpolicy changes, but the use of social sciencetools for comparing cases is scarce (with thenotable exception of Diehl 1993).

Reflecting the pessimistic mood in thepolicy-oriented literature has been the tenorof the works in “critical theory,” which alsofocus primarily on the historical period ofpeacekeeping in the 1990s. The critical turnemerged in opposition to “problem-solvingtheory” (Bellamy 2004, p. 18) and was criti-cal in the sense of being interested in explor-ing the negative side effects and consequences(both intended and unintended) of peace-keeping. See, for example, analyses by Debrix(1999), Whitworth (2004), and Mendelson(2005); and a special edition of the journal In-ternational Peacekeeping edited by Pugh (2004).

Meanwhile, the UN had all but turnedaway from peacekeeping after the debaclesin Somalia, Angola, Rwanda, and Srebrenica.From late 1993 to 1998, the organizationfielded only one new large mission, in EasternSlavonia. There were several smaller missions,but none with the breadth or mandate of thoseof the previous era. The pessimism of the mid-to late 1990s affected both the practice and thestudy of peacekeeping.

THE POSITIVE TURN INPRACTICE AND IN THEORY

With the close of the decade, however, thepolitical tide shifted back in favor of peace-keeping. After scathing, self-critical UN re-ports on the genocides in Rwanda (Carlssonet al. 1999) and Srebrenica (Annan 1999), amore positive mood began to envelop the UN.Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had pre-viously served as the head of the Departmentof Peacekeeping Operations and thus was in-timately familiar with and interested in theissues, had won a second term. His stature asa trusted hand at peacekeeping was matchedby that of the new US Ambassador to the UN,Richard Holbrooke, who had played a piv-otal role in securing the Dayton Agreement inBosnia (Holbrooke 1999). While the top-level


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

leadership expressed general support for UNpeacekeeping, of the many peace processesunder way across the globe, four in particu-lar lurched toward agreements, with oppos-ing sides expressing an interest in having theUN play a central peacekeeping role. In 1999alone, four large missions with robust man-dates were launched in Kosovo, Sierra Leone,the Democratic Republic of the Congo, andEast Timor. These were followed by anotherwave of missions of substantial size and man-date in Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Burundi, andHaiti in 2003–2004. As of the end of 2007, anunprecedented number of UN peacekeepers(more than 83,000) were deployed around theworld.

The new operations came in tandem withdiscussions, and institutionalization, of the“Brahimi Report” (UN 2000). This reportand subsequent reforms were named for theAlgerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, who wasthe chair of a panel in 2000 to draft a com-prehensive review of all aspects of UN peace-keeping. The report articulated a strategicperspective on peacekeeping (one matchingmeans to ends and resources to challenges). Itushered in a doubling of the staff of the UN’sDepartment of Peacekeeping Operations inNew York; streamlined processes of procure-ment and logistics; and created a renewedsense at UN headquarters that the UN could“say no” to operations it deemed underfundedor given an inadequate mandate (as in Iraq).

The positive mood around UN headquar-ters coincided with a positive (in the socialscience sense of the word) turn in peacekeep-ing research. This work has attempted to ad-dress, in a more explicit and social scientif-ically rigorous way than past scholarship onthe subject, basic empirical questions suchas whether peacekeeping makes peace moredurable, and why some missions are moresuccessful than others. These questions havebeen addressed using both quantitative andqualitative methods. As noted above, much ofthe second-wave literature on peacekeepingexamines cases where peacekeepers were de-ployed, not cases in which no such interven-

tion occurred, making it impossible to assessempirically the “value added” of peacekeep-ing. Statistical surveys of all wars have solvedthis problem.

A few of these quantitative studies have ex-amined peacekeeping in its “traditional” in-terstate setting. Diehl et al. (1996) argue thatUN intervention has no effect on the recur-rence of interstate conflict. Fortna (2004a),however, finds that “peace lasts substantiallylonger when international personnel deploythan when states are left to maintain peace ontheir own” (p. 517). (For studies of the dura-bility of peace after interstate war more gener-ally, see Werner 1999, Fortna 2004c, Werner& Yuen 2005.) Even fewer studies examinepeacekeeping in both interstate and civil warsor explicitly compare the two settings. Manyassume that peacekeeping is more difficultand therefore will be less successful in civilwars (e.g., Diehl 1993, Weiss 1995), but thefew studies that examine peacekeeping in bothinterstate and civil wars (Heldt 2001/2002,Fortna 2003) show that peacekeeping is atleast as effective in civil conflicts as in inter-state ones.

The bulk of the quantitative work onpeacekeeping’s effects focuses on civil wars(perhaps not surprisingly, as most of thecurrent need for peacekeeping is in internalconflicts). It is now possible to say that thesestudies have reached a consensus, and it isan optimistic one. One or two studies castdoubt on the effectiveness of peacekeeping ingeneral (e.g., Dubey 2002), and several distin-guish between the effects of peacekeepers onmaking peace in the first place and on keepingit once it is established, finding that peace-keepers are not so good at the former (Greig& Diehl 2005, Gilligan & Sergenti 2007).[Note the contrast to Wilkenfeld & Brecher’s(1984) findings, discussed above.] However,the finding that peacekeeping makes civil warmuch less likely to resume once a ceasefireis in place has emerged as a strongly robustresult in the quantitative literature. Usingdifferent data sets and statistical models, andcovering slightly different time periods, a


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

number of studies (Doyle & Sambanis 2000,Hartzell et al. 2001, Walter 2002, Fortna2004b, United Nations 2004, Doyle & Sam-banis 2006, Gilligan & Sergenti 2007, Fortna2008a) find that peacekeeping has a large andstatistically significant effect on the durationof peace after civil wars. In other words,despite its limitations and the dysfunctionhighlighted in the previous wave of studies,peacekeeping keeps peace surprisingly well.Although in some cases peacekeepers havetrouble leaving (e.g., Cyprus or more recentlyKosovo) for fear that war will re-erupt as soonas they leave, peacekeepers have generallybeen quite good at establishing self-sustainingpeace that lasts after the mission departs. Ex-amples are found in Namibia, Mozambique,El Salvador, Croatia, and the West Africanpeacekeeping mission in Guinea-Bissau.(For a discussion of the implications of thisdistinction for testing peacekeeping’s effects,see Fortna 2008a, ch. 5.) In short, peace issubstantially more likely to last, all else equal,when peacekeepers deploy—and even afterthey go home—than when belligerents areleft to their own devices.

Many of these studies of peacekeeping’seffects on the recurrence of war have ex-plicitly addressed, albeit in different ways,the fact that all is not equal. Peacekeepingis not employed at random; it is endogenousto other factors that affect whether peacelasts. Instrumental variables to deal with thisendogeneity are hard to come by. Gilligan& Sergenti (2007) use matching techniquesto handle endogeneity, and Fortna (2008a,especially ch. 2) engages in extensive analysisof where peacekeepers go so as to control forpossible spuriousness.

This question, where peacekeepers go, isinteresting in its own right (e.g., Gilligan &Stedman 2003). It has been examined quan-titatively and qualitatively, on its own andwithin larger studies of the effects of peace-keeping. Much of this literature has focused,understandably, on the interests of the perma-nent five members of the UN Security Coun-cil (the “P-5” in UN jargon) as determin-

ing where peacekeepers go (de Jonge Oudraat1996, Jakobsen 1996, Gibbs 1997, Beardsley2004, Mullenbach 2005; see also Durch 1993,pp. 22–23; Diehl 1993, p. 86). Others empha-size the interests of the international commu-nity in remaking war-torn societies as liberaldemocratic states (Andersson 2000, Marten2004, Paris 2004), or in responding to a hu-manitarian impulse ( Jakobsen 1996, Gilligan& Stedman 2003, Beardsley 2004). Few ofthese studies examine the selection processfrom the standpoint of the belligerents them-selves, even though consent-based peacekeep-ing, by definition, requires the acceptance ofthe parties to the conflict (the perspectives ofthe “peacekept” are discussed below). Fortna(2008a) is one exception, arguing that the de-mand for peacekeeping from local actors isjust as important as the supply from the inter-national community.

Of particular interest to the question ofpeacekeeping’s effectiveness is whether peace-keepers tend to undertake easier cases orharder ones. If the former, then the puta-tive effects of peacekeeping may be spurious—peacekeepers cannot make much of a differ-ence if they go only where peace is likely tolast in any case. However, if peacekeepers tendto go to more difficult situations, then suc-cessful cases of peacekeeping are all the morenoteworthy (Howard 2008). Carter (2007) ar-gues the former, that the UN strategically se-lects cases where the probability of successis high, and some of the findings of Gilligan& Stedman (2003) would suggest that peace-keeping is more likely in easier cases. De JongeOudraat (1996) argues the opposite, however,and Fortna (2004a,b, 2008a) finds empiricallythat peacekeepers select into the most difficultcases.

The turn toward rigorous research designhas not been limited to quantitative studies;it has affected qualitative research on peace-keeping as well, and more and more the twotypes of analysis are conducted together. Forexample, Doyle & Sambanis (2006) com-bine statistical findings with case studies ofpeacekeeping success and failure. Noting that


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

peacekeeping generally has a positive effect oncivil war outcomes, Howard (2008) asks whysome missions fail while many others succeed.She employs qualitative methods to comparesystematically the set of most similar, com-pleted UN peacekeeping missions, definingsuccess in terms of both mandate implemen-tation and the ability of domestic institutionsto function after the departure of the peace-keeping mission. The central finding is that“organizational learning”—that is, increasingability to gather and disseminate information,engage with the local population, coordinateamong units, and provide strong leadership—while a peacekeeping mission is deployed inthe field, is one of three necessary sources ofsuccess. Fortna (2008a) uses quantitative anal-ysis to test whether peacekeeping has an effectand qualitative analysis (fieldwork and inter-views) of both peacekeeping and nonpeace-keeping cases to examine how it has an effect,i.e., the causal mechanisms of peacekeeping.

OPEN QUESTIONSAND DIRECTIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Having established that peacekeeping worksin general, the literature is turning to sec-ondary questions. These include the relativeeffectiveness of different types of peace-keepers, the tools of peace enforcement andtransitional administrations, links betweenpeacekeeping and democratization, andperspectives of the “peacekept.” Each isexplored below.

Peacekeeping by Whom?

Although the UN has deployed more peace-keeping operations than any other organi-zation or single state, it has never had amonopoly on peacekeeping. Debates overwho should undertake peace operations are asold as peacekeeping itself (the issue arose, forexample, over the Arab League’s involvementin Palestine in 1948 and the Organization of

American States mission in the DominicanRepublic in 1965). However, with the launch-ing of a number of non-UN missions in thelate 1990s and early 2000s, especially those ofNATO in Kosovo and ECOWAS (EconomicCommunity of West African States) in severalconflicts in West Africa, the issues of who doesand who should keep peace have reemerged.There has been a lively policy debate onthis topic (reviewed by Bellamy & Williams2005), but the empirical study of the ques-tion remains embryonic. Durch & Berkman(2006) assess the strengths and weaknesses(in terms of legitimacy, military effectiveness,etc.) of various providers of peacekeeping, in-cluding the UN, NATO, various regional andsubregional organizations, states, coalitionsof states, and even private firms. Bellamy &Williams (2005) evaluate a number of recentnon-UN missions along similar lines. Quan-titative comparisons include those of Heldt(2004), who finds no difference in the suc-cess rate of UN and non-UN missions, andof Sambanis & Schulhofer-Wohl (2007), whofind UN operations to be much more effec-tive than non-UN missions. Clearly, more re-search is needed on this topic, particularly re-search that disaggregates non-UN missions.

Peace Enforcement

Related to the question of who keeps peaceis who enforces peace, and how peace en-forcement might be done most effectively.Whereas peacekeeping is primarily a task ofimplementing long-negotiated peace agree-ments, peace enforcement generally concernsthe use of limited force until the nonco-operative party is defeated or agrees to apeace agreement—as occurred, for example,in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone,Liberia, the Democratic Republic of theCongo, and Cote d’Ivoire. In all of these cases,single states (e.g., Australia, the United King-dom) or regional organizations (e.g., NATO,ECOWAS) used force, often with the en-dorsement of the UN, in order to stop thefighting and pave the way for less coercive,


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

multidimensional UN peacekeeping opera-tions. Howard (2008) argues that, contrary tothose who advocate for the development ofa force capacity within the UN, the emergingdivision of labor—with regional organizationsand single states enforcing peace, and the UNconducting the follow-on peacekeeping—isboth effective and legitimate.

A number of US-led interventions havebeen conducted in the name of postconflictstability or nation-building, which are of-ten included in the category of peace en-forcement. The current, troubled, and much-discussed efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan havecast a shadow over examinations of the effec-tiveness of the use of force to secure peace.In general, in this literature, policy consid-erations tend to overshadow social scientificexplorations.

Marten (2004), in comparing several re-cent peace enforcement operations with colo-nial efforts of the past, provides a forceful andprovocative argument for why attempts bythe West to remake foreign polities in theirown image falter, despite good intentions.However, this work focuses only on descrip-tions of the cases of failure, and thus missesthe cases of success (e.g., in Sierra Leone)and possible sources of that success. Simi-larly, von Hippel (2000), O’Hanlon (2003),and Dobbins et al. (2003) provide master-ful descriptions of US attempts to enforcepeace, while Findlay (2002) traces the historyof the use of force by the UN and the devel-opment of norms about the use of force bythe organization. These works are concernedless with causal explanation than with policyrecommendations.

Finnemore (2003) provides a constructivisttheoretical understanding of why military in-tervention in the name of peace (humanitar-ian intervention) has become the norm in in-ternational relations. Mirroring Finnemore’stheoretical argument concerning the chang-ing purposes of military intervention, in 2006,the UN Security Council ratified the “estab-lishment of the foundations for a new nor-mative and operational consensus on the role

of military intervention for humanitarian pur-poses” (Thakur 2002, p. 323) by passing aresolution on “the responsibility to protectpopulations from genocide, war crimes, eth-nic cleansing and crimes against humanity”(United Nations 2006). The resolution wascited in the UN’s decision in August 2007 tosend a peace enforcement mission to Darfur.The current conventional wisdom (emerg-ing in part from the Brahimi process) holdsthat more robust peacekeeping missions man-dated under Chapter VII are more effective atkeeping peace than are Chapter VI missions.However, Fortna (2008a) finds no strong dif-ference between the effects of Chapter VIand Chapter VII missions. She argues thatthis is because most of the causal mechanismsthrough which peacekeeping influences theparties to a conflict are nonmilitary, having in-stead to do with political and economic lever-age, signaling intentions, and preventing ac-cidental escalation, inter alia. While clearlythere is a lot of movement in both the prac-tice and theory of peace enforcement, the lit-erature remains inconclusive about the condi-tions under which force may be most effectivein the context of keeping peace.

Transitional Administrations

Another important issue in peacekeepingrelates to the most intrusive of the mul-tidimensional or integrated missions: UNtransitional administrations (also calledtransitional authorities). Transitional admin-istration mandates generally resemble thoseof typical multidimensional peacekeepingoperations, but with the added requirementthat the UN hold executive authority over thestate administration. Sometimes this meansthe UN mission merely has veto power overthe decisions of a transitional government(as in Namibia). At the other end of thespectrum, the UN is asked to take over thevery governing of the state (as in East Timor),putting members of the international civilservice in executive, legislative, and judicialpositions that would usually be held by the


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

citizens of the state in question. Althoughtransitional administration has become amajor topic of discussion in the literature andin policy circles (see Chopra 2000, Marten2004, Paris 2004, Pouligny et al. 2007), it hasonly been attempted (in its modern form)in five places—Namibia, Cambodia, EasternSlavonia (Croatia), Kosovo, and East Timor—rendering social scientific generalizationssomewhat difficult. In all these cases, the UNsought to play the role of “benevolent auto-crat” (Chesterman 2004), violating the normsof sovereignty and democracy with the goalsof establishing sovereignty and democracy.

The central debate in the transitional ad-ministration literature is over the extent towhich third-party actors may be able to buildstates for others. Some authors argue thatlonger, more concerted efforts at delaying thedisruptive effects of democratization and mar-ketization are more conducive to long-termpeacebuilding (Paris 2004), whereas others ar-gue that such attempts mirror the negativeaspects of colonial occupations of the past(von Hippel 2000, Marten 2004, Edelstein2008). Questions center on both moral con-cerns (e.g., which actors may hold legitimateauthority in a state?) and practical considera-tions (e.g., is the UN, or any third party, phys-ically capable of governing another country?).Both practical and moral questions are relatedto effectiveness, and we do not yet have defini-tive answers. The real-world trend appears tobe that the UN is moving away from attempt-ing to launch new transitional administrativemissions. (Tiny and dysfunctional Haiti wouldhave been an obvious recent candidate, butas per the Brahimi reforms, the UN “saidno.”) However, outside the domain of the UN,the US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq mirrorquite closely those of transitional administra-tions, with the same moral and practical con-siderations under debate.

Peacekeeping and Democratization

A closely related debate concerns the effectsof peacekeeping on democratization. Second

only to stable peace, democratization is acore goal of the international communitywhen it undertakes peacekeeping missions,whether transitional administrations or lessintrusive forms of peacekeeping (Andersson2000, Ottaway 2002, Paris 2004). However,the effectiveness of peacekeeping in foster-ing democracy is contested in the existingliterature. Wantchekon (2004) argues that im-partial peacekeepers provide one of the con-ditions for democracy to emerge from civilwar. Doyle & Sambanis (2006) contend thatpeacekeeping helps to foster at least a min-imal level of democracy as a condition of anegotiated settlement in which factions agreeto disarm in return for political participation.Both Heldt (2007) and Pickering & Peceny(2006) find empirical support for the notionthat UN intervention fosters a transition todemocracy.

Others, however, argue that peacekeep-ing has negligible or even detrimental ef-fects on democracy. Gurses & Mason (2006)find no significant effect of UN peacekeepingon democratization. Marten (2004) proposesthat peacekeepers should limit their goals toproviding stability and not try to transformsocieties. “The notion of imposing liberaldemocracy abroad is a pipedream,” she writes(p. 155). Weinstein (2005) holds that out-siders’ attempts at state- and democracy-building can impede the development ofstrong and democratic political and economicinstitutions, and that in some cases at least,postwar societies would be better off left totheir own devices in a process of “autonomousrecovery” (see also Wantchekon & Neeman2002). Bueno de Mesquita & Downs (2006)argue that intervention, including that by theUN, is unlikely to lead to democracy andmay even lead to its erosion. Fortna (2008b)finds that peacekeeping has no clear effecton postwar democratization because posi-tive and negative effects cancel each otherout. Although peacekeeping promotes stablepeace, which in turn enables democracy totake root, it also thwarts democratization bycrowding out indigenous processes of political


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

development and by removing war itself as anincentive to democratize.

Some of the differences in findings re-sult from differences in research design—whether the study examines change in democ-racy scores or a country crossing a thresholdto democracy, whether the study includes onlycivil wars or also interstate conflicts, whetherthe study examines only peacekeeping or in-tervention more broadly, etc. The empiricaldebate over the effects of peacekeeping ondemocracy in war-torn states remains to beresolved.

Perspectives of the “Peacekept”

The vast majority of the literature on peace-keeping focuses on the peacekeepers ratherthan the “peacekept.” This term, coined (toour knowledge) by Clapham (1998), refers tothe parties to the conflict—government andrebel decision makers, as well as the greaterpopulation—among whom peacekeepers areattempting to keep peace. That the successof peacekeeping depends on the political willof the parties to the conflict is acknowl-edged; indeed it has become something ofa cliche in the peacekeeping literature. Butthere the attention to these parties usuallyends. A few studies have started to rectify thisproblem.

Clapham (1998) argues that peacekeep-ers and the peacekept often have very dif-ferent perspectives. For example, whereaspeacekeepers prioritize a nonviolent conflictresolution process, the peacekept care moreabout the substance of who wins what. Peace-keepers see themselves as providing solutionsto conflicts, while the peacekept see them asbringing resources, including resources thatcan be manipulated by the peacekept. Peace-keepers think in the short term; the peacekeptthink about the long term.

Fortna (2008a) interviews government andrebel decision makers to obtain their perspec-tive on whether and how peacekeeping af-fects the incentives of the peacekept and theinformation on which they base decisions.

Pouligny (2006) focuses less on decision-making elites, providing instead an accountof the perceptions local populations have ofpeacekeepers intervening in their countries(see also Talentino 2007). Other studies havebegun to assess the effects of peacekeepingat the micro level, for example by survey-ing both ex-combatants who were exposed toUN peacekeepers and those who were not(Humphreys & Weinstein 2007, Mvukiyeheet al. 2007). However, in general, analysesfrom the vantage point of those on the re-ceiving end of peacekeeping operations haveonly just begun to develop.

CONCLUSION

The peacekeeping literature has emerged inthree waves: one smaller and two larger. Stud-ies in the first wave focus on the traditionaloperations during the Cold War, when peace-keeping was primarily used as an instrumentto monitor ceasefires between formerly war-ring states. These studies come to contradic-tory findings about the effectiveness of peace-keeping. After the end of the Cold War, andthe explosion of peacekeeping practice in civilwars, came the second wave of literature,which focuses largely on peacekeeping fail-ures and negative effects. Works in these firsttwo waves do not generally draw on systematicquantitative or qualitative methods to com-pare and evaluate cases, focusing instead onsomewhat arbitrarily selected case study de-scriptions and analyses. By the turn of the mil-lennium, a third wave began to crest. This lit-erature has been much more careful in its useof systematic research methods and has cometo much more robust findings about the pos-itive effects of peacekeeping, and the sourcesof success and failure. Since this third waveemerged, the peacekeeping literature has alsobranched out into related debates about whodoes, and ought to do, peacekeeping; the prosand cons of peace enforcement; the contra-dictions of transitional administrations; thelinks between peacekeeping and democratiza-tion; and the perspectives of the peacekept. In


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

contrast to the consensus on the effectivenessof peacekeeping for maintaining peace aftercivil war, these new directions in the litera-ture are, to date, far less conclusive. However,

they should make for important and livelyfuture developments in the peacekeeping lit-erature, extending our knowledge of this im-portant policy tool.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. The literature on peacekeeping has reflected the practice of peacekeeping, coming inwaves as the number of peacekeeping missions has risen and fallen.

2. Until the most recent wave, the literature focused on description and policy prescrip-tion, but was unable, owing to methodological limitations, to answer basic empiricalquestions such as whether peacekeeping works or what distinguishes successful casesfrom unsuccessful ones.

3. In the most recent wave, the literature has matured and become much more method-ologically sophisticated, employing both quantitative and methodologically informedqualitative analysis.

4. A consensus has emerged from this analysis: Peacekeeping is quite effective; that is,it makes peace much more likely to last.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. Who should keep peace? Who keeps peace most effectively, the UN, regional orga-nizations, or state-led coalitions? Are different tasks (peacekeeping, peace enforce-ment, peacebuilding, transitional administration) better performed by different inter-national actors?

2. The use of force. Is force required to protect vulnerable populations? Empirically, aremissions with more robust mandates more effective?

3. Transitional administration. Can the international community foster sovereignty anddemocracy by violating sovereignty and democracy? What are the long-term effectsof administration by the international community?

4. Peacekeeping and democratization. Does peacekeeping foster the growth of democ-racy, inhibit it, or both? What are the long-term effects of peacekeeping ondemocratization?

5. Perspectives of the peacekept. How is peacekeeping viewed by decision makers and pop-ulations within the countries to which peacekeepers deploy? What are the effectsof peacekeeping at the micro level? Can regional variations within countries, oramong individuals in war-torn states, be explained by exposure to and interaction withpeacekeepers?

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity ofthis review.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Michael Doyle, Severine Autesserre, and an anonymous reviewer for very usefulcomments.

LITERATURE CITED

Andersson A. 2000. Democracies and UN peacekeeping operations, 1990–1996. Int.Peacekeeping 7(2):1–22

Annan K. 1999. Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 53/35: thefall of Srebrenica. A/4/549, 15 Nov. New York: United Nations

Bailey S. 1994. Intervention: article 2.7 versus articles 55–56. Int. Relat. 12(2):1–10Barnett M. 2002. Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

Univ. PressBeardsley K. 2004. UN involvement in international crises: selection, endogeneity, and authority.

Presented at Annu. Meet. Int. Stud. Assoc., 45th, MontrealBellamy AJ. 2004. The ‘next stage’ in peace operations theory? Int. Peacekeeping 11(1):17–38Bellamy AJ, Williams PD. 2005. Who’s keeping the peace? Regionalization and contemporary

peace operations. Int. Sec. 29(4):157–95Berdal M. 1996. Disarmament and demobilisation after civil wars: arms, soldiers and the termination

of armed conflicts. Adelphi Pap. 303, Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressBiermann W, Vadset M. 1999. UN Peacekeeping in Trouble: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia.

Aldershot/Brookfield, UK: AshgateBloomfield LP. 1964. International Military Forces: The Question of Peacekeeping in an Armed and

Disarming World. Boston: Little, BrownBoulden J. 2001. Peace Enforcement: The United Nations Experience in Congo, Somalia, and Bosnia.

Westport, CT: PraegerBoutros-Ghali B. 1999. Unvanquished: A U.S.-U.N. Saga. New York: Random HouseBrown ME, ed. 1996. The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict. Cambridge, MA: MIT

PressBueno de Mesquita B, Downs GW. 2006. Intervention and democracy. Int. Org. 60(3):627–49Burns AL, Heathcote N. 1963. Peace-keeping by U.N. Forces: from Suez to the Congo. New York:

PraegerCall C, Barnett M. 1999. Looking for a few good cops: peacekeeping, peacebuilding and

CIVPOL. Int. Peacekeeping 6(4):43–68Carlsson I, Sung-Joo H, Kupolati R. 1999. Report of the independent inquiry into the actions of

the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. S/1257, 16 Dec. New York: UnitedNations

Caron DD. 1993. The legitimacy of the collective authority of the Security Council. Am. J.Int. Law 87(2):552–99

Carter TA. 2007. United Nations intervention decisions: a strategic examination. Work. Pap., Dep.Polit. Sci., Wayne State Univ.

Cassidy R. 2004. Peacekeeping in the Abyss: British and American Peacekeeping Doctrine and Practiceafter the Cold War. Westport, CT: Praeger

Chesterman S. 2004. You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and StateBuilding. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Chopra J. 1999. Peace-Maintenance: The Evolution of International Political Authority. London:Routledge

Chopra J. 2000. The UN’s kingdom in East Timor. Survival 42(3):27–39


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

Clapham C. 1998. Being peacekept. In Peacekeeping in Africa, ed. O Furley, R May, pp. 303–19.Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Clarke W, Herbst J, eds. 1997. Learning from Somalia: The Lessons of Armed HumanitarianIntervention. Boulder, CO: Westview

Coate RA, ed. 1994. U.S. Policy and the Future of the United Nations. New York: TwentiethCentury Fund

Coulon J. 1998. Soldiers of Diplomacy: The United Nations, Peacekeeping, and the New World Order.Toronto/Buffalo: Univ. Toronto Press

Cousens EM, Kumar C, Wermester K, eds. 2001. Peacebuilding as Politics: Cultivating Peace inFragile Societies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner

Cox AM. 1967. Prospects for Peacekeeping. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.Crocker C, Hampson FO, Aall P, eds. 1999. Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex

World. Washington, DC: US Inst. Peace PressCrocker C, Hampson FO, Aall P, eds. 2005. Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable

Conflict. Washington, DC: US Inst. Peace PressDaalder IH. 1994. The Clinton Administration and Multilateral Peace Operations. Washington,

DC: Inst. Stud. Diplomacy Publications, School For. Serv., Georgetown Univ.Daniel DCF, Hayes BC, de Jonge Oudraat C. 1999. Coercive Inducement and the Containment

of International Crises. Washington, DC: US Inst. Peace PressDebrix F. 1999. Re-envisioning Peacekeeping: The United Nations and the Mobilization of Ideology.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Pressde Jonge Oudraat C. 1996. The United Nations and internal conflict. See Brown 1996,

pp. 489–535de Soto A, del Castillo G. 1994. Obstacles to peacebuilding. For. Policy 94:69–83Diehl PF. 1993. International Peacekeeping. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. PressDiehl PF, Reifschneider J, Hensel PR. 1996. United Nations intervention and recurring con-

flict. Int. Org. 50(4):683–700Dobbins J, McGinn JG, Crane K, Jones S, Lal R, et al. 2003. America’s Role in Nation-Building:

From Germany to Iraq. Santa Monica/Arlington/Pittsburg: RAND Corp.Doyle MW. 1995. UN Peacekeeping in Cambodia: UNTAC’s Civil Mandate. Boulder, CO: Lynne

RiennerDoyle MW, Johnstone I, Orr RC, eds. 1997. Keeping the Peace: Multidimensional UN Operations

in Cambodia and El Salvador. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressDoyle MW, Sambanis N. 2000. International peacebuilding: a theoretical and quantitative

analysis. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94(4):779–801Doyle MW, Sambanis N. 2006. Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressDubey A. 2002. Domestic institutions and the duration of civil war settlements. Presented at Annu.

Meet. Int. Stud. Assoc., 48th, New OrleansDurch WJ, ed. 1993. The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping. New York: St. Martin’sDurch WJ, ed. 1996. UN Peacekeeping, American Policy and the Uncivil Wars of the 1990s. New

York: St. Martin’sDurch WJ, Berkman TC. 2006. Who Should Keep the Peace? Providing Security for Twenty-First-

Century Peace Operations. Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Cent.Edelstein DM. 2008. Occupational Hazards: Success and Failure in Military Occupation. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell Univ. PressFabian LL. 1971. Soldiers Without Enemies: Preparing the United Nations for Peacekeeping.

Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

Findlay T. 2002. The Use of Force in UN Peace Operations. Oxford, UK: SIPRI and Oxford Univ.Press

Finnemore M. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Ithaca:Cornell Univ. Press

Fleitz FH. 2002. Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions, and U.S. Interests. Westport,CT: Praeger

Fortna VP. 2003. Inside and out: peacekeeping and the duration of peace after civil and inter-state wars. Int. Stud. Rev. 5(4):97–114

Fortna VP. 2004a. Interstate peacekeeping: causal mechanisms and empirical effects. WorldPolit. 56(4):481–519

Fortna VP. 2004b. Does peacekeeping keep peace? International intervention and the durationof peace after civil war. Int. Stud. Q. 48(2):269–92

Fortna VP. 2004c. Peace Time: Cease-Fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace. Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press

Fortna VP. 2008a. Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents’ Choices After Civil War.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Fortna VP. 2008b. Peacekeeping and democratization. In From War to Democracy: Dilemmas ofPeacebuilding, ed. A Jarstad, T Sisk, pp. 39–79. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Gibbs DN. 1997. Is peacekeeping a new form of imperialism? Int. Peacekeeping 4(1):122–28Gilligan MJ, Sergenti EJ. 2007. Does peacekeeping keep peace? Using matching to improve causal

inference. Work. pap., Dep. Polit., New York Univ. and Harvard Univ.Gilligan M, Stedman SJ. 2003. Where do the peacekeepers go? Int. Stud. Rev. 5(4):37–54Ginifer J, ed. 1997. Beyond the Emergency: Development within UN Peace Missions. London: Frank

CassGoulding M. 2002. Peacemonger. London: John MurrayGreig JM, Diehl PF. 2005. The peacekeeping-peacemaking dilemma. Int. Stud. Q. 49(4):621–

45Gurses M, Mason TD. 2006. Democracy out of anarchy: how do features of a civil war influence the

likelihood of post-civil war democracy? Presented at Annu. Meet. Int. Stud. Assoc., 47th, SanDiego

Haas EB. 1986. Why We Still Need the United Nations: The Collective Management of InternationalConflict, 1945–1984. Berkeley: Inst. Int. Stud., Univ. Calif., Berkeley

Haas EB, Butterworth RL, Nye JS. 1972. Conflict Management by International Organizations.Morristown, NJ: General Learning

Harrison S, Nishihara M, eds. 1995. UN Peacekeeping: Japanese and American Perspectives.Washington, DC: Carnegie Endow. Int. Peace

Harper K. 1994. Does the United Nations Security Council have the competence to act ascourt and legislature? NYU J. Int. Law Pol. 27(1):103–57

Hartzell C, Hoddie M, Rothchild D. 2001. Stabilizing the peace after civil war. Int. Org.55(1):183–208

Hawk KH. 2002. Constructing the Stable State: Goals for Intervention and Peacebuilding. Westport,CT: Praeger

Heldt B. 2001/2002. Are intrastate peacekeeping operations less likely to succeed? Some sta-tistical evidence. IRI Rev. 6(1):111–35

Heldt B. 2004. UN-led or non-UN-led peacekeeping operations? IRI Rev. 9:113–38Heldt B. 2007. The impact of peacekeeping operations on post-conflict transitions to democracy. Pre-

sented at Annu. Meet. Int. Stud. Assoc., 48th, ChicagoHiggins R. 1969–1981. United Nations Peacekeeping: Documents and Commentary. Oxford, UK:

Oxford Univ. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

Hillen J. 1998. Blue Helmets: The Strategy of UN Military Operations. London: Brassey’s UKHoffmann S. 1996. The Ethics and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention. Notre Dame, IN: Univ.

Notre Dame PressHolbrooke R. 1999. To End a War. New York: Modern LibraryHoward LM. 2002. UN peace implementation in Namibia: the causes of success. Int. Peace-

keeping 9(1):99–132Howard LM. 2008. UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressHumphreys M, Weinstein J. 2007. Demobilization and reintegration. J. Confl. Resolut.

51(4):531–67International Peace Academy. 1984. Peacekeeper’s Handbook. New York: PergamonJakobsen PV. 1996. National interest, humanitarianism or CNN: What triggers UN peace

enforcement after the Cold War? J. Peace Res. 33(2):205–15James A. 1969. The Politics of Peace-Keeping. New York: PraegerJames A. 1990. Peacekeeping in International Politics. New York: St. Martin’sJett DC. 1999. Why Peacekeeping Fails. New York: St. Martin’sJockel JT. 1994. Canada and International Peacekeeping. Toronto: Can. Inst. Strat. Stud.Johnstone I. 1995. Rights and Reconciliation: UN Strategies in El Salvador. Boulder, CO: Lynne

RiennerKatayanagi M. 2002. Human Rights Functions of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. The

Hague: Martinus NijhoffKrasno J, Hayes B, Daniel D, eds. 2003. Leveraging for Success in United Nations Peace Operations.

Westport, CT: PraegerKumar K, ed. 1998. Postconflict Elections, Democratization, and International Assistance. Boulder,

CO: Lynne RiennerLederach JP. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington,

DC: US Inst. Peace PressLehmann IA. 1999. Peacekeeping and Public Information: Caught in the Crossfire. London: Frank

CassLuttwak EN. 1999. Give war a chance. For. Aff. 78(4):36–44Mackinlay J. 1989. The Peacekeepers: An Assessment of Peacekeeping Operations at the Arab-Israel

Interface. London: Unwin HymanMacKinnon MG. 2000. The Evolution of U.S. Peacekeeping Policy Under Clinton: A Fairweather

Friend? London: Frank CassMarten KZ. 2004. Enforcing the Peace: Learning from the Imperial Past. New York: Columbia

Univ. PressMayall J. 1996. The New Interventionism: 1991–1994. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressMendelson SE. 2005. Barracks and Brothels: Peacekeepers and Human Trafficking in the Balkans.

Washington, DC: Cent. Strat. Int. Stud.Minear L, Scott C, Weiss TG. 1996. The News Media, Civil War, and Humanitarian Action.

Boulder, CO: Lynne RiennerMorrison A, Kiras J. 1996. UN Peace Operations and the Role of Japan. Clementsport, NS: Can.

PeacekeepingMoxon-Browne E, ed. 1998. A Future for Peacekeeping? New York: St. Martin’sMullenbach MJ. 2005. Deciding to keep peace: an analysis of international influences on the

establishment of third-party peacekeeping missions. Int. Stud. Q. 49(3):529–55Murphy SD. 1996. Humanitarian intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order.

Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressMvukiyehe E, Samii C, Taylor G. 2007. Wartime and post-conflict experiences in Burundi: an

individual level survey. Dep. Polit. Sci., Columbia Univ. and New York Univ.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

Oakley R, Dziedzic M, Goldberg E, eds. 1998. Policing the New World Disorder: Peace Operationsand Public Security. Washington, DC: Natl. Defense Univ. Press

O’Hanlon ME. 2003. Expanding Global Military Capacity for Humanitarian Intervention.Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.

Ottaway M. 2002. Rebuilding state institutions in collapsed states. Dev. Change 33(5):1001–23Otunnu OA, Doyle MW, eds. 1998. Peacemaking and Peacekeeping for the New Century. New

York: Rowman & LittlefieldParis R. 2004. At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict. New York: Cambridge Univ.

PressPelcovits NA. 1984. Peacekeeping on Arab-Israeli Fronts: Lessons from the Sinai and Lebanon. SAIS

Pap. 3. Boulder, CO: WestviewPerez de Cuellar J. 1997. Pilgrimage for Peace: A Secretary-General’s Memoir. New York: St.

Martin’sPickering J, Peceny M. 2006. Forging democracy at gunpoint. Int. Stud. Q. 50(3):539–59Pouligny B. 2006. Peace Operations Seen From Below: UN Missions and Local People. Bloomfield,

CT: KumarianPouligny B, Chesterman S, Schnabel A, eds. 2007. After Mass Crime: Rebuilding States and

Communities. Tokyo/New York: United Nations Univ. PressPugh M. 2004. Peacekeeping and critical theory. Int. Peacekeeping 11(1):39–58Ratner S. 1995. The New UN Peacekeeping: Building Peace in the Lands of Conflict after the Cold

War. New York: St. Martin’sRikhye IJ. 1984. The Theory and Practice of Peacekeeping. London: C. HurstRuggie JG. 1994. Peacekeeping and U.S. interests. Washington Q. 17(4):175–84Sambanis N, Schulhofer-Wohl J. 2007. Evaluating multilateral interventions in civil wars: a

comparison of UN and non-UN peace operations. In Multilateralism and Security Insti-tutions in an Era of Globalization, ed. D Bourantonis, K Ifantis, P Tsakonis, pp. 252–87.London: Routledge

Stedman SJ, Rothchild D, Cousens EM, eds. 2002. Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation ofPeace Agreements. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner

Talentino AK. 2007. Perceptions of peacebuilding: the dynamic of imposer and imposed upon.Int. Stud. Perspect. 8(2):152–71

Thakur R. 2002. Outlook: intervention, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: experi-ences from ICISS. Sec. Dialogue 33(3):323–40

Thakur R, Thayer CA, eds. 1995. A Crisis of Expectations: UN Peacekeeping in the 1990s. Boulder,CO: Westview

Tharoor S. 1995–1996. Should UN peacekeeping go ‘back to basics’? Survival 37(4):52–64UNIDIR. 1995–1998. Managing Arms in Peace Processes. New York and Geneva: United NationsUnited Nations. 1990. The Blue Helmets: A Review of United Nations Peace-keeping. New York:

United Nations. 2nd ed.United Nations. 1992. An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping.

http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.htmlUnited Nations. 1996. The Blue Helmets: A Review of United Nations Peace-keeping. New York:

United Nations. 3rd ed.United Nations. 2000. Report of the panel on United Nations peace operations. http://www.un.org/

peace/reports/peace operations/United Nations. 2004. Report of the Secretary-General’s high-level panel on threats, challenges, and

change. A more secure world: our shared responsibility. http://www.un.org/secureworld/


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV344-PL11-13 ARI 2 May 2008 20:8

United Nations. 2006. Resolution 1674, 28 April. The Protection of Civilians in ArmedConflict. http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Civilians%20SRES1674.pdf

Urquhart B. 1972. Hammarskjold. New York: KnopfUrquhart B. 1987. A Life in Peace and War. London: Weidenfield & Nicolsonvon Hippel K. 2000. Democracy by Force: U.S. Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War World.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressWainhouse DW. 1966. International Peace Observation: a History and Forecast. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins Univ. PressWainhouse DW. 1973. International Peacekeeping at the Crossroads: National Support—Experience

and Prospects. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. PressWalter B. 2002. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. PressWalter BF, Snyder J, eds. 1999. Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention. New York: Columbia

Univ. PressWantchekon L. 2004. The paradox of “warlord” democracy: a theoretical investigation. Am.

Polit. Sci. Rev. 98(1):17–33Wantchekon L, Neeman Z. 2002. A theory of post-civil war democratization. J. Theor. Polit.

14(4):439–64Weinstein JM. 2005. Autonomous recovery and international intervention in comparative perspective.

Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Stanford Univ.Weiss TG, ed. 1995. The United Nations and Civil Wars. Boulder, CO: Lynne RiennerWerner S. 1999. The precarious nature of peace: resolving the issues, enforcing the settlement,

and renegotiating the terms. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 43(3):912–34Werner S, Yuen A. 2005. Making and keeping peace. Int. Organ. 59(2):261–92White ND. 1990. The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security.

Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. PressWhitworth S. 2004. Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping: a Gendered Analysis. Boulder, CO:

Lynne RiennerWilkenfeld J, Brecher M. 1984. International crises, 1945–1975: the UN dimension. Int. Stud.

Q. 28:45–67Wiseman H, ed. 1983. Peacekeeping: Appraisals & Proposals. New York: Pergamon and Int. Peace

Acad.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR344-FM ARI 8 April 2008 18:44

Annual Review ofPolitical Science

Volume 11, 2008Contents

State FailureRobert H. Bates � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1

The Ups and Downs of Bureaucratic OrganizationJohan P. Olsen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 13

The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and ForeignPolicy: Toward a Theoretical SynthesisMatthew A. Baum and Philip B.K. Potter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 39

What the Ancient Greeks Can Tell Us About DemocracyJosiah Ober � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 67

The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political CourtsRan Hirschl � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 93

Debating the Role of Institutions in Political and EconomicDevelopment: Theory, History, and FindingsStanley L. Engerman and Kenneth L. Sokoloff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �119

The Role of Politics in Economic DevelopmentPeter Gourevitch � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �137

Does Electoral System Reform Work? Electoral System Lessons fromReforms of the 1990sEthan Scheiner � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �161

The New Empirical BiopoliticsJohn R. Alford and John R. Hibbing � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �183

The Rule of Law and Economic DevelopmentStephan Haggard, Andrew MacIntyre, and Lydia Tiede � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �205

Hiding in Plain Sight: American Politics and the Carceral StateMarie Gottschalk � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �235

Private Global Business RegulationDavid Vogel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �261

Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping LiteratureVirginia Page Fortna and Lise Morje Howard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �283

v

Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR344-FM ARI 8 April 2008 18:44

Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideasand DiscourseVivien A. Schmidt � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �303

The Mobilization of Opposition to Economic LiberalizationKenneth M. Roberts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �327

CoalitionsMacartan Humphreys � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �351

The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic TheoryNadia Urbinati and Mark E. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �387

What Have We Learned About Generalized Trust, If Anything?Peter Nannestad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �413

Convenience VotingPaul Gronke, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Peter A. Miller, and Daniel Toffey � � � � � � � � �437

Race, Immigration, and the Identity-to-Politics LinkTaeku Lee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �457

Work and Power: The Connection Between Female Labor ForceParticipation and Female Political RepresentationTorben Iversen and Frances Rosenbluth � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �479

Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political ScienceDennis F. Thompson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �497

Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory?Diana C. Mutz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �521

The Social Processes of Civil War: The Wartime Transformation ofSocial NetworksElisabeth Jean Wood � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �539

Political Polarization in the American PublicMorris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �563

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 7–11 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �589

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 7–11 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �591

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Political Science articles may be foundat http://polisci.annualreviews.org/

vi Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

olit.

Sci

. 200

8.11

:283

-301

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

67.

168.

192.

34 o

n 05

/13/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.