
📌 Two Ways to Pay for War—and They Lead to Different States
Reexamines the connection between war and state-making by comparing two prominent modes of war finance: taxation and foreign borrowing. Financing war with taxes strengthens the state's ability to assess wealth and monitor compliance—core elements of fiscal capacity—and encourages the adoption of power-sharing institutions that make taxation a non-zero-sum bargain, extending war’s institutional effects into the long run. By contrast, financing war with external capital can fail to produce lasting fiscal capacity when borrowers interrupt debt service and default settlements result in war debt being condoned or swapped for nontax revenue.
🔎 Global Historical Evidence Since 1816
Presents empirical evidence drawn from wars around the world, with cases dating as early as 1816. The analysis compares episodes of tax-financed and loan-financed war to trace how wartime funding choices affect postwar fiscal institutions and political arrangements.
📈 Key Findings
🧠Why It Matters
Clarifies a mechanism linking war to state development: the mode of war finance matters. The findings imply that access to international capital can undercut the state-strengthening effects of wartime mobilization, with lasting consequences for fiscal institutions and political bargains after conflict.

| War, International Finance, and Fiscal Capacity in the Long Run was authored by Didac Queralt. It was published by Cambridge in IO in 2014. |