❓ Research Question

What international issues become national interests worth fighting for, and why? Contrary to conventional wisdom, the core argument is that issues without clear economic value—such as barren lands—are more likely to be perceived as national interests because they do not clearly benefit any single domestic group. When beneficiaries are unclear, politicians can more easily frame those issues as benefiting the whole nation.

📊 How This Was Tested

The argument is tested using survey experiments on the American public that manipulate perceptions of who benefits from an issue and how economically valuable the issue appears.

🔑 Key Findings

• Issues described as providing diffuse benefits to citizens are more likely to be judged national interests than issues described as providing concentrated benefits to particular domestic groups.
• Issues with clearer economic value are harder to present as diffuse because economic value makes it easier for respondents to identify specific beneficiaries.
• The combined effect is that low‑value, ambiguous issues (e.g., barren lands) can be framed more successfully as matters of the whole nation, increasing public support for conflict over them.

⚖️ Why It Matters

This study proposes a new theory of national interest emphasizing domestic distributional clarity rather than material payoff. It challenges the assumption that economic value alone drives public willingness to support conflict and offers a plausible explanation for why people often endorse fighting over issues without obvious benefits. The findings have implications for how politicians frame foreign policy and for understanding public support for interstate conflict.