Are queens more warlike than kings?

Yes, in a nutshell, as Gordon Tullock used to claim:

Are states led by women less prone to conflict than states led by men? We answer this question by examining the effect of female rule on war among European polities over the 15th-20th centuries. We utilize gender of the first born and presence of a female sibling among previous monarchs as instruments for queenly rule. We find that polities led by queens were more likely to engage in war than polities led by kings. Moreover, the tendency of queens to engage as aggressors varied by marital status. Among unmarried monarchs, queens were more likely to be attacked than kings. Among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings, and, more likely to fight alongside allies. These results are consistent with an account in which marriages strengthened queenly reigns because married queens were more likely to secure alliances and enlist their spouses to help them rule. Married kings, in contrast, were less inclined to utilize a similar division of labor. These asymmetries, which reflected prevailing gender norms, ultimately enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.

That is by Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish, here is the working paper version, here is the forthcoming in the JPE version.

Comments

A Hilldawg Haiku

We came,
We saw,
He died.

You beat me to the punch! Lol!

For those who think everything without a link is false, here it is:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/19/flashback_2011_hillary_clinton_laughs_about_killing_moammar_gaddafi_we_came_we_saw_he_died.html

Our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sure kicked a little arse in Libya. She sure showed 'em.

“Chickendove”

An interesting paper. I would be interested in seeing work on other world regions although there were very few women to ever hold official power in places like China or MENA.

More "economics" at a top economics journal.

My thoughts exactly.

Next week: Because Queens were not as good at math as Kings, Queens were unable to use game theory to avert war, and consequently stumbled into avoidable conflicts.

Or, maybe it is because Queens had monthly hormonal imbalances and were the most ferocious during menopause.

Both are more plausible than anything found in a journal of Feminist Studies.

You must have read many to have formed such a clear opinion.

Name one you've read.

Fifteen years ago, the left wanted to support the troops by getting them out of imperialistic wars for oil started in the Middle East by the war criminals Bush and Cheney.

Today the regular criminal Trump is doing the wrong thing by getting out of wars for oil in the Middle East and troops like Tulsi Gabbard who agree get dragged through the mud.

The Left has had a Road to Damascus conversion to the idea that the Kurds are good socialist freedom fighters (look at those all those heroic female PKK fighters!) against radical Islamists (the radical Islam that the Left fears, not the one the right fears, which is xenophobia as actually Islam is actually a feminist and peaceful religion, unlike patriarchal and warlike Protestant Christianity), and who are nationalists as well as being socialists, but who aren't nationalist-socialists.

Further, Turkey is resettling Syrian refugees in "Turkish Kurdistan" to form a pro-Erdogan Islamist buffer state, but at the same time, these people would not be Islamists and would be good Muslim doctors to a man, if they were resettled in Germany and Sweden.

Is this making sense yet?

No. Have you missed taking your medication again?

"Said Mustafa Mond."

(And it would be "Road to Damascus" rather literally in this case.)

It is sad. However, we can do better. We eed a ordered exit from those war theaters of war. Representative Gabbard will be the first president with relevant war and policy experience since 1992. She has decided that we can not keep sacrificing American lives for vague, ill-defined or plutocratic goals.

Did it really happen that way?

Maybe someone ratted out Baghdadi's location (right up near someone's border) in exchange for someone else giving someone a free hand to establish a buffer zone along that same border. For every quid there's a pro quo.

...“our current king lets our enemies run all over us.”

I thought he was a war monger, who start conflagration after conflagration through a unique Trumpian combination of Hitlerian malevolent cunning and moron level blundering naïveté.

Why don’t you forward us the talking points, rayward?

Okay, I regret diverting this to Trump. Hey, readers of this blog are easily diverted, so what can I say. I am curious as to why queens were more aggressive than kings.

Because queens needed to show they could be as tough as the men, they had to lean towards aggression.

What's not obvious is why the Team Red cheerleaders think it's a gotcha to point out Hillary's aggressiveness, when it's Team Red that's made by far the worst blunder of over-aggression in recent history (Iraq II)

Team blue abdicated their responsibility and gave dubbya permission to go to war. They were for it before they were agin it. They were caught on camera talking up the invasion. The only holdout was Obama.

And then Obama got in and bombed the crap out of everyone for the same reason as Queens go to war. To put out a false perception of strength. Who knew O was our first female president?

Right, because if he had immediately stopped conducting the wars, you would have been so supportive. In fact when he did draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm sure you were here praising his leadership.

You don't get a chance to retract, TMC, you've proven your worthlessness already.

It's the stupidest thing you could possibly post. It makes everything you post after this completely invalid because of how stupid you are.

To blame lawmakers who voted for something, based on lies, to avoid being labeled traitors (Team Red was calling everyone traitors for not supporting the war) more than, y'know, the PEOPLE WHO LIED AND PUSHED FOR AND WANTED THE WAR is the height of idiocy. Like "how do you dress yourself" level moronical idiocy.

"Abdicated their responsibility" LOL. Poor Republicans, if it weren't for those warlike Democrats voting for their war, they would never have done it!

By the way, the Dems seem to be very pointedly NOT "abdicating their responsibility" when it comes to impeaching Trump. Oh wait, that's different. THIS TIME they need to shut up and get with the program. Not like before with Iraq, that time they should not have shut up and got with the program.

I'm sure you wish you could take this post back, EdR. So I'm giving you a chance. Disavow that comment, or forever lose all credibility you have here. Your choice.

But the CIA is apolitical.

Because, as Kipling knew, the female of the species is more deadly than the male. The male will back off, not the woman she will press on to the bitter end.

I can't imagine being as consumed by one singular subject as some of the commenters here (among other sufferers of TDS) are with the Orange Man. How do you even function on a daily basis?

Well, whoever does the edits wins and loses. They remove what they want, and keep what they want, but we see what that is.

EdR on Hillary, yes. Garry Kasparov and George Mason himself on threats to democracy, no.

Pwease don't cwy - it makes me sad. 😭

I'm afraid the revealed preference cuts two ways.

...“ our current king lets our enemies run all over us.”

I thought the danger represented by Trump was that he’d get us into regular conflagrations by virtue of his malevolent Hitlerian cunning / his blundering nincompoop naïveté?

It's funny that so many try to "model" a mad king. You can't. That's the point. That's why representative democracies (!) seek to avoid both madmen and would-be kings.

Much to our chagrin, we have not, and Garry Kasparov is right.

Unfortunately, doing so by bureaucracies and enforcement of code of law seems to be giving rise to socially elite classes of pharisees and of mandarins, a "cure worse than the disease" of any tyrant.

Alex Tabarrok has spoken before about how almost every American is guilty of a federal crime, and the ridiculous depths of oppression that the US would sink to if the law were constantly applied without discretion. The same applies when enforcing "The Rule of Law" more generally.

I guess that was a reasonable attempt to jettison discernment, but in the end I say discernment matters.

And high crimes are more of a threat to the fabric of society than jaywalking.

George Mason, as quoted Kasparov: "Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?" (Philadelphia, July 20, 1787)

I wonder how many currently at George Mason University take that seriously today?

The very model of a modern Twitter-connected mad king.

Dude makes EdR look buckled down.

If there's anyone around here who knows about being a twitter-connected madman, it's the Mouse!

They called me mad. They called me insane. They called me looney. They were right!

Basically the same point was made, using anecdotal evidence, in this chess book: Birth of the Chess Queen: A History – April 26, 2005 by Marilyn Yalom. Proving the humanities often parallel the sciences (if you consider economics or history as science rather than art)

The aggressive ones were probably transgenders.

I can't understand this:

"As with electoral systems, women in hereditary systems may have gained power more during times of peace, or when there was no threat of imminent war [Pinker,2011]. However the way in which succession occurred also provides an opportunity to identify the effect of female rule. In these polities, older male children of reigning monarchs were
given priority in succession [Monter, 2012, p. 36-37]. As a result, queens were less likely to come to power if the previous monarchs had a first-born child who was male; and, more likely to come to power if previous monarchs had a sister who could potentially follow as
successor. We use these two factors as instruments for queenly rule to determine whether polities led by queens differed in their war participation relative to polities led by kings."

(...) "Using the first born male and sister instruments, we find that polities ruled by queens were 27% more likely to participate in inter-state conflicts, compared to polities ruled by kings. "

What all this talk of "first born male and sister instruments" means? For what I think that I understand, they, instead of simply seeing if the king/queen is a man or woman (at first look, a very simple task), they used a complex system (seeing who is the sister of the king and something)?

What is the sample size?

Also true in chess.

You missed the chance to reply to my post... but who reads other people's posts besides me? ;0

There may be some confounding factors. Queens are probably likely to come to power earlier in their lives, and to come from smaller families. If a queen's parent had lived long enough to have a big family with many surviving kids, one of her brothers would have inherited the throne instead. The spouse of a reigning queen probably has different incentives than the spouse of a reigning king as to whether to go into a war as a coalition or not.

Maybe it is as simple as not having literal skin in the game.

> "Using the first born male and sister instruments, we find that polities ruled by queens were 27% more likely to participate in inter-state conflicts, compared to polities ruled by kings. "

Since the study doesn't seem to mention *starting* (and even that would be ambiguous) wars, perhaps neighbours perceived Queens as more vulnerable and tended to start wars with them.

1) Unmarried queens are morel likely to be attacked.
2) Among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings, and, more likely to fight alongside allies.
3) These results are consistent with an account in which marriages strengthened queenly reigns because married queens were more likely to secure alliances and enlist their spouses to help them rule.

Therefore queens are more warlike???

Granted, the paper might be more nuanced but I don't see that the argument really supports the conclusion.

What's the straussian reading here

Comments for this post are closed