Publications with Fulltext

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/6

Browse

Filters

2002 - 200932010 - 20183

Advanced Search

Filter by

Settings

Quartile: search.filters.quartile.Q1Subject: search.filters.subject.International relations

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Turkey's two elections: the AKP comes back
    (Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Press, 2016) Öniş, Ziya; Department of International Relations; Faculty Member; Department of International Relations; College of Administrative Sciences and Economics
    In power since 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seemed as if it might be losing its hold when Turkish voters went to the polls in June 2015. Yet that “hung election” gave way to another contest in November, and the AKP came roaring back.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Why do people join backlash protests? lessons from Turkey
    (Sage, 2018) Schiumerini, Luis; Stokes, Susan; Department of International Relations; Aytaç, Selim Erdem; Faculty Member; Department of International Relations; College of Administrative Sciences and Economics; 224278
    When people learn that demonstrators are being subjected to harsh treatment by the police, sometimes their reaction is to join demonstrations. What explains the potentially mobilizing power of repression? Information-oriented theories posit that repression changes people's beliefs about the likely success of the protests or the type of the government, thus encouraging them to join. Social-psychological theories posit that repression provokes a moral and emotional reaction from bystanders, and these emotional reactions are mobilizing. Our research offers a rare opportunity to test these theories, empirically, against one another. We offer experimental evidence from Turkey after the 2013 Gezi uprising. In this setting, emotional reactions appear to be the link between repression and backlash mobilization. Information-oriented theories of backlash mobilization may be less germane in democracies, in which people already have access to information about their governments, and in highly polarized polities, in which few people's political affinities are up for grabs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Market civilization and its clash with terror
    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 2002) Department of International Relations; Mousseau, Michael; Faculty Member; Department of International Relations; College of Administrative Sciences and Economics
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    The social market roots of democratic peace
    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 2009) Department of International Relations; Mousseau, Michael; Faculty Member; Department of International Relations; College of Administrative Sciences and Economics
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    The sources of terrorism
    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 2003) Knight, Charles; Murphy, Melissa; Department of International Relations; Mousseau, Michael; Faculty Member; Department of International Relations; College of Administrative Sciences and Economics
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Peaceful transitions and democracy
    (Sage, 2010) Department of International Relations; Bayer, Reşat; Faculty Member; Department of International Relations; College of Administrative Sciences and Economics; 51395
    While there has been extensive interest in the role of democracy in reducing interstate violence, the role of democracy in reaching higher levels of peace has received much less attention. Since many countries have less than amicable relations, it is necessary to consider how the quality of peace can be improved. The quality of peace becomes particularly relevant when assessing relations of countries with a bellicose past. In order to capture improvement in relations this article relies upon a framework that captures the various levels of peace that countries experience. The study maintains that democracy contributes to former belligerents reaching the highest levels of peace but that it is not helpful at the lower levels especially if only one side is a democracy. The article tests arguments on a data set that captures the transitions from one level of peace to another for all former belligerents since 1816 and relies upon event history analysis. The results for peace are not the opposite of what is found for war. The findings demonstrate that democracy plays a substantial role in peaceful transitions at all levels. However, while joint democracy is important for reaching the highest levels of peace, democracy can hamper the progress of relations at the lowest levels of peace.