Military Intervention in Politics: A Third World Perspective

Md Masum Alam

Department of Public Administration, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh

E-mail: masum.sust46@gmail.com

Md Masuk Alam

Department of Political Science, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh

E-mail: masukalam.sust@gmail.com

1. Abstract:

Military intervention has become a common characteristic in developing countries. Political

culture of developing countries and nature give the space for military intervention. During the
cold war, in the time of political crisis military was in the front line as a political instrument.
Existing of various problems in Third World countries after their independent attract the military
greatly to intervene. But these kind of intervention become withdrawal dramatically. For that,
role of military in politics in developing countries is counted vastly. As a developing country,
Bangladesh has also experienced the military coups and ruled by military persons. Military coups
were occurred mainly for political crisis. We have studied and found that civilian authority
giving the space to military to intervene. For this paper we have collected information from
secondary data sources.

2. Introduction:

To ensure and protect sovereignty of any state military is considered as a unique and important
organization. For analyzing politics, the military plays an important role in every state. But in
developing countries the intervention of military in politics seems greatly and it is become
common phenomena in political circumstances. After the Second World War maximum the
Third World countries had become independent and after that these countries faced various kind

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243
political problems. These problems were like nation building, ideological conflict, economy
crisis, lack of democratic values and political parties. For that strong military get chances to
make role in politics. Bangladesh may be a perfect example.

3. Rationale of the Study:

It is very difficult to reveal the consequences of military rule and its dept, intensity and extension
which were played and still are being played by the military in developing countries. More than
fifty percent of Third World or developing countries have undergone military rule at least once.
So, it is very simple to understand that in Third World politics, military has played a very
important role. As a developing country, Bangladesh has experienced with rule of military after
four years later of its independence and in a pathetic way. Dramatic changes in political field
complicate the nature and behavior of the political organizations and their roles. Military
intervention in politics has become a common phenomenon in Third World region. So, to get out
the intension and actual role of military is to need. That‟s why we are studying this topic.

4. Objective of the Study:

The broad objective of this study is to find out the role of military in politics in developing
countries and giving more emphasis on Bangladesh perspective. There are some specific
objectives of the study which are given below.

i. To understand about military and politics.

ii. To know about relations between military and politics.
iii. To identify the causes of military intervention in politics.
iv. To find the reluctance of military from politics.

5. Military and Politics:

A military is an organization authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually
including use of weapons, it defending its country by combating actual or perceived treats. The

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243
military may have additional functions of use to its greater society, such as advancing political
agenda e.g. communism during the cold war era, supporting or promoting economic expansion
through imperialism and as a form of internal social control. As an adjective the term “military”
is also used to refer any property or aspect of a military. Militaries of function as societies within
societies, by having their own military communities, economic, education, medicine, judiciary
and other aspects of a functioning civilian society. This is the theoretical analysis of military.

Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally
applied to the art or social science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to
behavior within civil governments (Agarwal, 2006:10). However politics can be observed in
order to group interactions including corporate, academic and religious institutions. It consists of
social relations involving authority or power and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a
political unit and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

According to above discussion about military and politics, both are very much different but there
are linkages also. Military is an organization which is authorized by political authority and
totally concerned about the state affairs. Because in the matter of applied politics State deals with
diplomacy, peace, war, conferences and other international dealings and as well as protect
sovereignty. Here, military plays an important role.

6. Relation between Military and Politics:

It is very difficult to find any institution which is out of influence politics. In modern political
system, military is raring by giving maximum facilities as non political organization. But at
present military is not far away from politics especially in the third world. In views of Amos
Perimutter, “Today armies affairs have become inter wind with politics.” In democratic value
oriented society politics belongs to the civil society. So, relations between politics and military
may be considered as civil-military relationship. Civil-military describes the relationship
between civil society as a whole and the military organization or organizations established to
protect it (Burk, 2002:7- 29). More narrowly, it describes the relationship between the civil
authority of given society and its military authority studies of the civil- military relations often
rest on a normative assumption that civilian cntro1 of the military is preferable to military

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

control of the state. The principle problem they examine, however, is empirical to explain how
civilian control over the military is established and maintained.

In theoretical point of view, classical writers on war, as well as leading statesmen and revolution
arose of the twentieth century, have argued for civilian control over the military. Classical
writers asserted that “the subordination of the political point of view to the military world be
unreasonable, for policy create. Policy is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument and not
the reverse. The subordination of the military point of view to the political is, there. for the OfliY
thing which is possible.” The relation between military and politics is the subordination to
political and in military point of view; the subordination will be reversed in only thing which is
possible (Maniruzzaman, 1987:1-2).

In Marxist point of view, the relation in words of Mao Tse Tung, “Politics in command, our
principle is that the party commands the gun and gun must never be allowed to command the
party (Maniruzzaman, 1987:2).” Here, it is clear indication that military activities play under
political authority, otherwise it happens military intervention. Military intervention means the
political authority belongs to military over civilian authority.

7. Causes of military intervention in Politics: Third World perspective

The developing region or the Third World countries are fill of variations in cultural tradition.
Political intervention and its causes are also in varieties. It is very difficult to specif‟ the causes
for political military intervention. Talukder Maniruzzaman says “the supremacy of politics and
social control over the armed forces have not worked well in practice in a large number of
developing countries (Maniruzzaman, 1987:2).” It has been tried here to point out indifferent
causes for military intervention. These are given below (islam. 2009:260-266);

a. Low degree of social cohesion:

Presence of [ow degree of social cohesion makes the political institutions weaken. Social
cohesion is a term used in social policy; Sociology and Political Science to describe the bonds or

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

“glue” that bring people together in society, particularly in the context of cultural diversity. One
of the dimensions refers to the positives interactions, exchanges and networks between
individuals and communities or “active social relationships.” Such contacts and connections are
potential resources for places since the offer people and organizations mutual support. Social
dimension of social cohesion is that social integration of people into the mainstream institutions
of civil society. Lack of these dimensions weaken the social cohesion and for that raises the
military to intervene. Sammuel P. Huntington said “the wealthy bribe students riot, workers
strike, mobs demonstrate and the military coup.”

b. The existence of fratricidal class:

Newly born independent countries of the developing countries and its societies basically are
divided into different classes. There rise twç classes‟ especially. elite classes and lower classes.
Small number of elite class rules the lower classes. To create unstable situation fratricidal group
exist in politics and create violence. These types of violence and tension are common scenario in
developing countries. Thus, here create a space for military to intervention.

c. Small, weak and non-consolidate middle class:

One of the important feature of the developing countries are that the presence of small, weak and
non-consolidated middle class. In this region, there are lickings of strong middle class political
party and organizations. For that. strong military gets chances to cease political authority. Many
political thinkers consider military as a new middle class.

d. lack of institutionalization:

Political institutions are organizations which create enforce and apply laws that mediate conflict,
make governmental policy on the economy and social systems and otherwise provide
representation for the populous. Political institutions include political parties, trade unions, and
the courts. The term political institutions may also refer to the recognized structure of rules and
principles within which the above organizations operate including right to vote, responsible
government and accountability. But theories are not going to developing countries. Hu‟itington
and other thinkers said that lack of effective political institutionalization s the strong cause for
military intervention.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

e. Civilian intervention in military:

Modern military gets huge facilities those other governmental institutions. Usually any
government tries to protect military interests. Military is also very aware about their interests.
Many developing countries have experienced military intervention.

f. inept, ineffective and corrupt government:

Inept, ineffective and corrupted government when lose its faintness and effectiveness cause for
the military intervention. African developing countries during 1960 to 1966 were experienced
military coup. These types of characteristics of third world countries give opportunity to military
to take the authority in governing system.

g. economic deterioration:

Economic stability, inflation, increasing rate of daily accessories and when civilian government
cannot control economic deterioration, the various kinds of interest groups under these issue
opposition political parties try to create violence. Thus, there is created unstable and violence
situation. These situations give space to military intervention.

h. Role of super powers:

Most of the developing countries derived their independence from the colonial ruling countries.
These countries expanded their rule in the third world countries arid later these countries known
as developing countries as well. But after independent these countries could not be out of
influence of super powers. It has been said that superpowers some time support also military for
their interest. During the cold war period it had been seen greatly.

S.E finer has pointed out some causes or opportunities in favor of military intervention or
military coup. These causes are given below (Finer, 196272-85);

 Increased civilian dependence on the military:

S.E Finer stard such as “War is too important to be left to the Generals,” from the suggestion of
S.P Huntington. War usually expands the influence of the military in various crisis moments of a

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

country; civilians voluntarily surrender to the military. In third world perspective, crisis in
political field is a common phenomenon. In many third world countries, increasing dependence
on military occurs the military intervention. It is easily exampled by the crisis moments of
Bangladesh and Pakistan. After the assassination of Sheikh Mujib in 1975, the political crisis
became in the top, and then military leader Ziaur Rahman took the authority.

 The effect of domestic circumstances:

There is a great effect in politics of military in domestic circumstances. The government may
have to rely on the military as a policy force. S.E Finer distinguish three kinds of situations in
which this is likely to happen: situations of overt or acute crisis and finally power vacuums
situation.

Overt Crisis; overt crisis occurs even in ionger established states with well-developed civil
institutions. The characteristics of such crisis is that rival political forces have arisen willing and
able to use violence, which are so equally matched that no government carnally on support from
any single one without drawing on itself full violence of the rest. Such of potential sometimes iii
the aftermath of a protracted and bitter war of political liberation, sometimes they spring from a
vicious spiral of domestic events.

Latent Crisis; much common is the situation of latent crisis. This connotes a situation where in
a political or social minority rule in a way which the masses hate but which they are military
have simply taken the place of the owing clique, it had been upholding.

The Power vacuum; there remain cases where there is, effectively no organized political
movement of any strength, and singularly little if any political opinion at all. These situations are
rapidly passing away owing to the emergence of industry in hitherto medieval economics on the
one hand and the impact of western ideas and the other, for example, Paraguay and Haiti to this
day, may be said to be countries in which organized public opinion did not exist or was so weak
as to be inconsiderable. For that reason Iraq had been experienced military coup back to back six
times 1936 to 1941.

 The popularity of the military:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

The popularity or prestige of the armed forces is also an important opportunity to intervene. Such
popularity is very erratic and it fluctuates with time and circumstance. The initial popularity
which so often accompanies a coup may was off quite quickly. Thus the vocal public and the
intelligentsia of Pakistan are today increasingly disenchanted with the Ayub Khan regime. The
decline of confidence in the politicians and civil processes is liable to enhance the popularity of
the military. By the same token, it weakens the authority of the civilian regime and renders it an
easier prey to the intervention of the army, which, in these circumstances, comes to be regarded
as a deliver.

In the very recent years the form of military intervention are changing day by day. We saw the
military backed government in Bangladesh. In the earlier time, the military rulers formed
themselves as civilian through civilianization process.

Other important and very common causes for military intervention summarized points are
derailed nation or state, security threat, political turmoil, massive corruption by the politicians
and finally the syndication of business and production.

8. Role of Military in Politics:

There is a dilemma about the role of military. The role of military varies from country to country
and the situation of the political culture. Political role of military depends on its level of military
intervention. In Third World perspective, military rulers came into politics with popularity that
the civilian rulers. Here, we can find the political role of military. The popular political role of
military may bear the positive. But when after few days the military lose their popularity and
then civilian authority becomes in fashion. After that military is considered as oppressor, this
shows the negative role of military in politics. We can recognize four levels of military
intervention. These levels are influence, Blackmail, and Displacement of civilian cabinets, and
the supplement of the civilian regime. These levels of intervention are found both in developed
and developing countries. If we identify the levels of intervention in developing countries, we
can easily find out the political role of military. The causes for the military intervention indicate
the political role of military. But now-a-days political intervention of military is criticized. We

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

know that military is one kind of organization under the command of civilian authority. In that
point of view the political role of military is very complicated.

Well-being of the citizens is the ultimate goal of civilian authority or government. People or the
citizens are the ultimate source of power. So, there is a legitimacy of any authority must be
needed. In overt crisis, latent crisis and vacumness of leadership may be the cause for military
intervention. Where, there is no option for to overcome these crises, military intervention is very
much acceptable. In this sense, military plays very important political role. After minimizing the
crisis, military should hand over the authority to the civilian authority. But when the military
does not doing so, this acts may be considered as negative role of military.

It is clear that military intervention for any cause, it will not acceptable not in internal as well as
international affairs. In this sense, any purpose and any functions military intervention will not
be legitimated or constitutional.

The performance of military regimes has been more disappointing in the sphere of political
development, despite the praise for military coups lavished by state political analysis. According
to Huntington, “Frequent coups are a sign of change and progress. Coups are a sign of
independence and the real beginning of the process of modernization and development
(Clapham, 1992:141).

Another indirect role of military intervention as S.E Finer has pointed out, “the cardinal
weakness of the military as a political force” is that force does not atomically create right. Rule
by force invites challenges. These kinds of challenges bring the integrity of civilian political
parties of authorities.

There are also some typical roles of military in politics by Fred R. von den Mehden (Islam,
2009:279). These are given below:

a) Direct Action: The military as Constitutional Caretaker:

Unpredictable situation or conflict, mismanagements or corruption of civilian government and

when political organizations become ineffective, then military can constitute „Constitutional
Caretaker‟ government directly. When political environment comes in stable position, then
military can back power to civilian authority. Myanmar, Honduras, Venezuela, Peru were

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

experienced by this type of role of military. But most of the time military could not leave the
power to the military.

b) Direct Action: The military as Spearhead of Reforms or Revolution:

When a country‟s existing political system break down there military comes into politics as a
reformer of political system for the long time. Military takes initiatives to reform in political
system, economic system as well as in social system. General Ayub Khan of Pakistan and
General Naser are the well example of this.

Tacit Coercion: The military as the Backer of Civilian Government:

Here the role of military as the guardian of the civilian government. They controlled civilian
government indirectly. The relation between the military and civilian government were not
enough. For that, this type of role of military has become ineffective. This type of role has seen
in Indonesia, Brazil, Ecuador, and the Philippines etc.

9. Causes of reluctance of military to intervene in Politics:

The large percentages of states that have fallen under military rule indicate the spread of political
power wielded by the military in the Third World. But now-a-days a great number of states are
getting out of military intervention or military influence. There are some common causes for
reluctances military intervention (Islam, 2009:260-266‟.

a. Influence of democratic values:

At present democracy is the best governing political system in the world. Democracy is
supervised by the First World countries and they are the superpowers. New born Third World
countries were in dilemma during the coin & war but now democratic values are existed
strongly. Democracy does not allow the rule of military. Popularity n1 1entness of democratic
values are increasing day by day.
b. Lack of integrity in military:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

Military is known as a discipline and integrated organization. But in large interest, we see the
disintegration among them. Presence of internal conflicts arises. Break down of chain of
commands. For that their integral part is more exist. So, it is become very impossible for them to
continue their rule over civilian authority.

c. Static in development activities:

As an organization under civilian authority, military participants in various development

activities. But when the military take the authority unlawfully, military cannot concentrate in
development activities. As a result for military coup, there create instable situation in politics.
Military concentrates on to minimize political crisis rather than development activities. This is
one of the important causes for reluctance of military in politics.

d. Economic crisis:

Another important cause for reluctance of military is that the creation of economic crisis. During
the military rule, economic condition become in very bad position. The failure of economic
development turns military‟s popularity in down and military no longer stay in power. Generally
Third world countries are not strong in economy, and then military intervention makes it become
weaker. This is the bad experience of military and discourages them to intervene latter on.

e. Increasing facilities of military:

The military of developed countries get more facilities than the developing countries. In
developed countries there is no political crisis as well. So, that military of developed countries do
not intervene in politics. But in developing countries there were no facilities at all. But now-a-
days, military gets many facilities and the facilities are increasing day by day. Military is
discouraged to get facilities and power and power in unconstitutional way.

f. Fall of communism:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

During the cold war period capitalism and communism both tried to establish and increase their
authority. One of the important instruments of the communism was to create revolution and
revolution came through the military intervention. Fall of communism and popularity of
democracy discourage the military for intervention.

g. influence of open market economy:

In present world economy is the best instrument to rule over rather than arms. There is a
tendency of every state become a strong state economically. So, states give more emphasis on
development of economy rather than military. This condition of world politics is one of the
important causes for reluctance of military from politics.

h. Adopting defense strategy:

To discourage the military in intervention in politics, it should adopt defense strategy. Talukder
Maniruzzaman stated that abolishing standing army and raising a citizen army in its place would
not only help a Third World states to develop a democratic political order, but it also would
enable it to adopt a &fense strategy (Maniruzzaman.

1987: 8).

i. Social revolution and mass uprising:

Social revolutions have had an effect on the process of the demilitarization of politics. Social
integrity and social hegemony are very important to discourage the military to intervene. Mass
uprising against military rule is also on important fact for reluctance of military from politics.

S.E Finer‟s view of military reluctances is that politically the armed forces suffer from two
crippling weakness. One weakness is the armed forces technical inability to administer, the
second is their lack legitimacy. He also stated about disposition to intervene of military in favor
of following terms (Finer, 1962:15-71).

a. Professionalism and its consequences

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

Professionalism forms the central concept of a most important study of military intervention.
Professionalization makes the armed forces self-centered. Like Other professions they develop a
sense of corporate unity. Their tasks organizing and equipping a force, training it, planning its
activities, let alone fighting it in combat against the enemy are a full time one. In so far as
professionalism makes the military look on their task as different from that of the politicians and
as self-sufficient and full time.

b. The principles of civil supremacy:

The reason is that the very nature of the professionalism sets such a store and which regards as
political sterile often thrusts the military into collision with the civil authorities. The military‟s
consciousness of themselves as a profession may lead them to see themselves as servants of the
state rather than of the government in power.

c. Other inhibiting factors:

In addition to professionalism plus the tradition of civilian supremacy other factors serve from
time to time to deter the military from intervention. One of thesis fear for the fighting capacity of
the armed forces. Another factor is the General‟s fear of a civil war in war in which comrade will
have to fire on comrade; finally the military may fear that if they intervene and vanquished not
only their lives but the army they will be forcit.

d. The motive of the national interest:

All armed forces which have become politicized as describe hold in some form on another a
similar belief that they have some special indeed unique identification with the national interest.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

10. Case Study: Bangladesh

Before independence Bangladesh was ruled by the military rulers. Under the military ruling of
West Pakistan, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was derived from all kind of development
facilities and oppressed by them socially, politically, economically and culturally. This is the
very short history of military rule of Bangladesh. After independence of five years, assassination
of Sheikh Mujib, political crisis had become very complex and harsh. In 1975, military came into
the political authority directly which was totally unconstitutional. To legitimate the power of
military, Ziaur Rahman took off his General post and became the President of Bangladesh by
voting as referendum. President Ziaur Rahman was assassinated in 1982. During his ruling
period, Ziaur Rabman followed some democratic values by civilianization process building
political party, arranging general elections etc.

After Ziaur Rahman, H.M Ershaad came into politics in similar fashion. He also followed the
civilianization process and tried to legitimate his power through constitutional amendment. For
various occasion he was succeeded by mass uprising.

The consequences of long term military rules greatly influenced the politics of Bangladesh later.
For that, the politics of Bangladesh could not out of influence of military. Recently we see the
military backed caretaker government and they have ruled over two years. In Bangladesh people
do not want military rule.

Emajuddin Ahmed has pointed out some specific causes of military intervention in favor of
Bangladesh (Ahrned, 1998:49-67). These are following as

i) Socio- Political Environment: The socio-economic environment was not favorable for the
dominant position of bureaucrats, and of th military officers in particular, after independence in
Bangladesh. The bureaucrats were not held in high esteem because of their association with the
military rule in Pakistan. The role of army officers was, very remarkable during the liberation
war. Despite this kind of role, the military elite could not consolidate their position during initial
period. Thus sociopolitical environment of Bangladesh became complex.

ii) Factionalism and Internal Cleavage in the Armed Forces: Apart from this socio- political
environment, which was not at all favorable for the dominance of the military elite in the initial

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

period, the armed services could not emerge as a cohesive force. Because of internal cleavage
and faction among military elites, the military could not take advantage of their organizational
strength. They could very ascertain that their corporate interest were not safe in the hands of the
Awami League regime. There are also reports that the military officers very unhappy about the
activities some of the Awami League leaders.

iii). Systematic Weakness of the then Awami League Government: The systemic weaknesses
were manifest in Bangladesh since independence. Class conflicts the manner of a nation‟s birth
profoundly affects its subsequent political development. In Liberation War Bangladesh was
however led by the Awami League which was a middle-class based and mainly urban based
bourgeois party. This political party had always stood for parliamentary democracy since its birth
in 1949 and championed the causes of the emerging Bengali middle class. But after
independence the leader of Awami League Sk. Muiib took the first step of socialism. After that
whole political system was collapsed and created fragile situation in all sectors. This weakness of
Awami League government and assassination of Sk. Mujib had given the space for military
intervention.

The causes of military intervention which we have studied above are very much similar for the
causes of military intervention in Bangladesh as a developing country. The trends of reluctance
of military from politics have occurred similarly in Bangladesh.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

11. Study Findings:

We have studied above that military intervention and its political role is totally unexpected. The
causes for military intervention are very much similar to the countries of developing countries.
All interventions came through the political crisis and similar to this. Military will rule under the
civilian authority, it is expected but when civilian authority lost its strength, then military as an
organized body comes in front and tries to take role in politics. In our study we see that military
itself a nonpolitical organization. In that sense, there should have not any role of military in
politics. On the other hand there is a great responsibility of civilian authority to deter the military
coup. Civilian authority is the representatives of people; they should do their duty properly.
Political crisis are created by the people who are the representatives of civilian authority. Some
specific points are given below:

 Military comes into politics by taking chance of political crisis.

 Military makes them criticized when they want long term ruling power.
 Military intervention will occur in future time if civilian authority gives space to military
in similar fashion.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

12. Conclusion:

In conclusion, it can be said that the frequency of military intervention is proof that the society at
yet politically immature unfit for representative institutions. But it is true that military
intervention and its consequences do not the final solution. It will not make the representative
institutions strong. It will be a lesson for representative institutions or civilian authority. The
corporate self interest of the military has itself signally contributed to the political immaturity.
Rapid change of power brings the instability and it starts from role of military in politics. In
Bangladesh point of view, military intervention was unexpected after independence but as a new
born nation prominent leaders failed to over come crisis especially in field of politics. People‟s
expectations were not being fulfilled by the civilian authority. All these situations gave space to
military to intervene in politics with popularity.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243

References:

Finer, S.E (1962), The Man on Horseback: The role of the Military in politics, Transaction
Publishers, New Burnswick (U.S.A) and London (U.K).

Islam, Nazrul, Md. (2009), Political Sociology, Progati Publishers‟, Dhaka.

Maniruzzaman, Talukder (1987), Military Withdrawal from Polities: A comparative study,

Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, UK.

www.wikipedia.com access date- 26 September 2012 and retrieved on 27 Sept 2012

Agarwal, R.C (2006), Political Theory, S. Chand & Company LTD, New Delhi. Ahmed,
Emajuddin (1998), Military Rule and the Myth of Democracy, Gatidhara, Dhaka.

Burk, James (2002), Theories of Democratic Civil Military Relations, Armed Forces and
Society.

Clapharn, Christopher (1992), Third World Politics: An Introduction, Ocean Honton Ltd, USA.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2468243