Coercive Diplomacy and Press Freedom: An Empirical Assessment of the Impact of Economic Sanctions on Media Openness
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512110372610 |
| Author | Dursun Peksen |
| Date | 01 September 2010 |
| Published date | 01 September 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Corresponding author:
Dursun Peksen, Department of Political Science, Brewster A-124, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
[email: peksend@ecu.edu]
Coercive Diplomacy and Press
Freedom: An Empirical Assessment
of the Impact of Economic Sanctions
on Media Openness
Dursun Peksen
Abstract
Despite the central role the media play in the domestic and foreign policy-making processes, very little
research examines the influence of international factors on media openness. This article investigates the
impact of coercive diplomacy (in the form of economic sanctions) on press freedom. It is argued that
foreign economic coercion will likely deteriorate press freedom by (1) restricting a sanctioned country’s
interactions with the outside world, thereby allowing the target regime to have greater control over the free
flows of information, and (2) inflicting significant economic damage on the sustainability and development of
independent media outlets. Using time-series, cross-national empirical data over a large number of countries
for the period 1980–2000, the findings confirm economic sanctions’ negative effect on media openness.
Extensive sanctions, in particular, have a greater negative impact on press freedom than more selective
sanctions. Furthermore, multilateral sanctions will likely have a greater corrosive impact on media openness
than unilateral sanctions.
Keywords
foreign policy analysis, economic sanctions, press freedom, coercive diplomacy, international politics
Introduction
A free press is considered vital in promoting political transparency (Besley et al., 2002; Brunetti and
Weder, 2003; Lindstedt and Naurin, 2010), economic development (Coyne and Leeson, 2004; Norris,
2004; Sen, 1999; World Bank, 2002), peaceful interstate relations (Choi and James, 2007; Van Belle,
2000), and democracy (Gunther and Mughan, 2000; Keane, 1991; Lichtenberg, 1987; O’Neil, 1998).1
Accordingly, freedom of the press (a relative lack of governmental restraint of the media and
free flows of news and information by local or international sources) is viewed as an important
institutional factor that influences economic prosperity and political stability. Despite the recognized
significance of the independent media as a central actor in politics, our understanding of the possible
International Political Science Review
31(4) 449–469
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512110372610
ips.sagepub.com
450 International Political Science Review 31(4)
impact that international factors might have on press freedom is limited. There is an abundance of
research that examines the complex relationship between the press and political elites (for example,
Brody, 1992; Cook, 1998; Lewis, 2001), the media’s role in shaping public opinion on international
events (for example, Baum, 2003; Bennett and Paletz, 1994), and the effect of news coverage on
foreign policy decisions (for example, Rioux and Van Belle, 2005; Robinson, 1999). Yet, these stud-
ies generally overlook the question of whether the use of various foreign policy tools has any major
impact on the freedom of the mass media. Given the importance placed on the mass media and the
beneficial consequences of a free press for political transparency and economic prosperity, it is
important that we fully understand the impact foreign policy tools have on media openness.
This article examines the question of whether coercive diplomacy (in the form of economic
sanctions) affects media freedom in target countries. Economic coercion is an ubiquitous feature
of international politics used to achieve a variety of foreign policy goals. Some of those major
goals include the impairment of the target country’s military potential, the destabilization of hos-
tile regimes, the settlement of expropriation claims and trade disputes, the prevention of drug
trafficking, retaliation for diplomatic crises, the punishment of rogue states harboring terrorist
groups, and the promotion of democracy and human rights. Although the USA is the major sanc-
tioning country with well in excess of 30 sanctions in the 1990s alone, several other countries,
such as China, India, western European countries, the Soviet Union and Russia, the members of
the Arab League, Malaysia, South Africa, and Turkey, use economic coercion in their foreign
policies (Hufbauer et al., 2008). Hence, economic sanctions are used by democratic regimes as
well as non-democracies in pursuing their foreign policy goals.2
Despite being advocated as a ‘nonviolent’ policy tool, economic coercion often exacts signifi-
cant humanitarian, economic, and political costs in the sanctioned countries (for example, Allen,
2008; Cortright and Lopez, 1995; Gibbons, 1999; Marinov, 2005; Peksen, 2009; Weiss, 1999).
Focusing on the negative externalities that economic sanctions have on socioeconomic and politi-
cal stability in the target, this article investigates whether economic sanctions affect the level of
press freedom in target countries. Specifically, I argue that economic coercion inadvertently dete-
riorates press freedom by (1) isolating the sanctioned countries from external economic and polit-
ical influences, thereby creating conditions for more governmental control over the mass media,
and (2) inflicting significant economic damage on independent media outlets. Utilizing time-
series, cross-national empirical data over a large number of countries for the period 1980–2000,
the data analysis shows that economic sanctions will likely decrease the level of media openness
in target countries. According to the results, comprehensive sanctions that cut almost all eco-
nomic ties between the target and sender countries appear to have a greater negative impact on
press freedom than more selective or limited sanctions. Furthermore, multilateral sanctions
imposed under the auspices of international organizations (IOs) or by multiple countries without
any IO involvement have a greater corrosive impact on the media than unilateral sanctions.
The rest of the article proceeds as follows. The second section briefly discusses the conse-
quences of economic sanctions. This section is followed by a theoretical account of the connection
between sanctions and media independence. The next sections then introduce the research design
and report the findings from the data analysis. The article concludes by discussing the implications
of the study for policy circles and scholarly research on foreign policy analysis.
The unintended consequences of economic sanctions
A significant portion of the literature on economic sanctions has been devoted to understanding
whether and when economic sanctions might work (for example, Drezner, 1998, 2000, 2003;
To continue reading
Request your trial