Economic sanctions are frequently used for political objectives in foreign policy in order to coerce other states into a wanted behavior. Economic sanctions are popular due to that they are considered more humane and less costly than military interventions. However, economic sanctions have far from always been successful in inducing policy change. Previous studies have shown that variables such as the goal of the sanctions, the cost (both economic and political) and the type of strategy affects the propensity to induce policy change within the target state. It has also been argued that economic sanctions affect democracies and dictatorships differently and that dictatorships are less likely to accept senders’ demands. This essay focuses solely on sanctions directed to dictatorships. The aim is to examine whether some dictatorships are more likely to make concessions than others and if it is possible to get an enhanced understanding of the role of regime types when assessing the effects of economic sanctions. Based on previous research, four variables are examined; repression, structure of the leadership, personalism and dogmatic goal. The analysis is conducted by a quantitative study with a sample of 95 cases of implemented economic sanctions towards dictatorships. The result of the study indicates that personalism and dogmatic goal affects the propensity of making concessions negatively. The level of repression and structure of leadership do not seem to affect the likelihood of making concessions in a substantial way. The significant variables, personalism and dogmatic goal, are used to categorize dictatorships in order to examine whether the propensity of concessions differ among different dictatorial regimes. The result indicates that the effectiveness of economic sanctions differ among dictatorial regimes especially among dictatorships that either have both or none of the variables personalism and dogmatic goal. Sanctions directed to dictatorial regimes with a personalist leader and a dogmatic goal have been least successful among the observations included in the study.

During the last decade a number of studies have been published that investigate how the most fundamental aspect of political organization, the regime type, affects population health. The results unanimously show that citizens of democracies live longer and healthier lives than citizens of non-democracies. Many explanations for this have been suggested, among these are that democracies redistribute more and invest more in salutogenic resources, and that the tendency of dictatorships to control the media negatively affects the ability to spread information crucial to public health. When these mechanisms are controlled for, however, it turns out that democracy has a large residual correlation with for example life expectancy, which suggests that other mechanisms are also involved. In this paper two new mechanisms regarding the possible psychosocially mediated health effects of the regime type are investigated, namely political repression, and the possible negative effects this might have on the levels of chronic stress, and autonomy, which connects to a large previous literature in social epidemiology. In the paper an ecological cross-country design is used and country-level data, provided mainly by the World Bank and Freedom House, is analyzed with a simple multiple OLS-regression model. The results show that that all residual correlation is captured by autonomy, while there is no evidence for political repression as a mediating factor. This could suggest that the feeling of personal autonomy that democracies can fulfill is an equally important factor to take into account as distribution of resources and access to information.

Det senaste decenniet har en rad studier publicerats som undersöker hur ett lands mest fundamentala politiska organisationssätt, regimtypen, påverkar befolkningens hälsa. Resultaten pekar entydigt på att invånare i demokratier lever längre och friskare liv än invånare i icke-demokratier. Flera förklaringar till detta har förts fram, bland annat att demokratier omfördelar mer och är bättre på att investera i hälsofrämjande resurser, och att diktaturers tendens att kontrollera media går ut över förmågan att sprida hälsofrämjande information. När dessa mekanismer kontrolleras för visar det sig dock att demokrati har en stor kvarvarande samvariation med exempelvis medellivslängden, vilket talar för att andra mekanismer också är inblandade.I denna uppsats undersöks två ytterligare mekanismer som berör de eventuella psykosocialt medierade hälsoeffekter som regimtypen kan ha, nämligen via politisk repression, och de negativa effekter på kronisk stress detta kan tänkas ha, samt autonomi, vilket ansluter till en omfattande tidigare socialepidemiologisk litteratur. I uppsatsen används en ekologisk tvärsnittsdesign och landnivådata, huvudsakligen från Världsbanken och Freedom House, analyseras med enkel multipel OLS-regression. Resultaten visar att all kvarvarande samvariation fångas upp av faktorn autonomi, medan politisk repression inte får något stöd som medierande faktor. Detta kan tyda på att den känsla av personlig autonomi som demokratier kan tillgodose är en minst lika viktig faktor att ta i beaktande som fördelning av resurser och tillgång till information. / During the last decade a number of studies have been published that investigate how the most fundamental aspect of political organization, the regime type, affects population health. The results unanimously show that citizens of democracies live longer and healthier lives than citizens of non-democracies. Many explanations for this have been suggested, among these are that democracies redistribute more and invest more in salutogenic resources, and that the tendency of dictatorships to control the media negatively affects the ability to spread information crucial to public health. When these mechanisms are controlled for, however, it turns out that democracy has a large residual correlation with for example life expectancy, which suggests that other mechanisms are also involved.In this paper two new mechanisms regarding the possible psychosocially mediated health effects of the regime type are investigated, namely political repression, and the possible negative effects this might have on the levels of chronic stress, and autonomy, which connects to a large previous literature in social epidemiology. In the paper an ecological cross-country design is used and country-level data, provided mainly by the World Bank and Freedom House, is analyzed with a simple multiple OLS-regression model. The results show that that all residual correlation is captured by autonomy, while there is no evidence for political repression as a mediating factor. This could suggest that the feeling of personal autonomy that democracies can fulfill is an equally important factor to take into account as distribution of resources and access to information.