The Strategic Determinants of U.S. Human Rights Reporting: Evidence from the Cold War

Nancy Qian and David Yanagizawa-Drott

No 7026, CEPR Discussion Papers from Centre for Economic Policy Research

Abstract: This paper uses a country-level panel dataset to test the hypothesis that the United States biases its human rights reports of countries based on the latters? strategic value. We use the difference between the U.S. State Department?s and Amnesty International?s reports as a measure of U.S. "bias". For plausibly exogenous variation in strategic value to the U.S., we compare this bias between U.S. Cold War (CW) allies to non-CW allies, before and after the CW ended. The results show that allying with the U.S. during the CW significantly improves reports on a country?s human rights situation from the U.S. State Department relative to Amnesty International.

Keywords: International relations; Political economy; War (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: F5 N4 P16 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-his
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://cepr.org/publications/DP7026 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: The Strategic Determinants of U.S. Human Rights Reporting: Evidence from The Cold War (2009)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:7026

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
https://cepr.org/publications/DP7026

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CEPR Discussion Papers from Centre for Economic Policy Research 33 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DX, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CEPR ().