950 likes | 1.13k Views
Dangerous Dyads. Bargaining in the Shadow of Power. Vs. Positive statements Diplomatic recognition Intercultural exchanges Alliances Trade Aid. Conflict Hostile statements Hostile nonviolent actions Use, threat, display of force War. I. The Puzzle of Dyadic Interaction.
E N D
Dangerous Dyads Bargaining in the Shadow of Power
Vs. • Positive statements • Diplomatic recognition • Intercultural exchanges • Alliances • Trade • Aid Conflict Hostile statements Hostile nonviolent actions Use, threat, display of force War I. The Puzzle of Dyadic Interaction A. Why do some pairs of states have dramatically different relationships?
B. Example: Six Dyad-Years • US-Iraq 1987: US forgives Iraqi attack on USS Stark, aids Iraq • US-Iran 1987: US destroys Iranian oil platforms, ships • Iran-Iraq 1987: Bloody war continues
B. Example: Six Dyad-Years • US-Iraq 2003: War • US-Iran 2003: No War • Iran-Iraq 2003: No War • Why the differences? No single state has become more or less warlike….but the dyads have!
C. Forms of Cooperation • Between Cooperation and Conflict: Bargaining • Formal Bargaining: Treaties, etc. • Tacit Bargaining: Reciprocal Action • Arbitration: Third-party resolution • Mediation: Third-party support
3. Behavior: Convergence Example: Mutual Tariff Reduction
D. Forms of Conflict • War – Standard definition is 1000 battle-deaths • Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) – use, threat, or display of force
E. Are Conflict and Cooperation Opposites? 1. The Continuum View
3. High-Cooperation Events • Are these mutually exclusive with the conflict list?
Conflict- Producing Factors Outcomes Interaction Salience Issues Bargaining Conflict Cooperation Cooperation- Producing Factors II. A Model of Dyadic Interaction
Interaction A. Political Relevance • Interaction • Ability to communicate • Ability to act
Interaction c. Measures of Interaction • Contiguity – Countries that border each other (or narrow body of water) (Countries surrounded by blue are contiguous to Red)
Interaction ii. Major power status • State-level finding: Major powers do more of everything – conflict and cooperation • Result = Dyadic effect: If at least one dyad member is major power, increased levels of cooperation and conflict
iii. Politically-Relevant International Environments (PRIE), 1816-2001
Interaction Salience Issues A. Political Relevance • Issue Salience • Priority relative to other concerns • Determines amount of power applied • Low salience = inaction
Conflict- Producing Factors B. What leads to dyadic conflict?
Conflict- Producing Factors 1. Opportunity: Contiguity and Proximity
Conflict- Producing Factors Wealthy/Advanced State Poor State Proximity: Loss of Strength Gradient Resources that can be applied to a conflict decay at distance Shift in gradient due to technology or development
Conflict- Producing Factors 2. Dyadic Balance of Power a. Disparity = Peace b. Parity = War Risk
Conflict- Producing Factors c. Transitions: Dangerous?
Conflict- Producing Factors 3. Issue Type: Territory
Conflict- Producing Factors 4. Rivalry: Shadow of the Past • Repeated disputes Future disputes • Easier for diversionary war
Conflict- Producing Factors c. Question: Is rivalry the cause of conflict? • Rivals fight more wars – or do states likely to fight become rivals? • Repeated crises Use of more aggressive bargaining strategies • Rivals use more forceful strategies – against non-rivals!
Conflict- Producing Factors 5. Arms Races • Rivalry + Arms Race = Risk of War? • Most arms races difficult to demonstrate:
Can You Pick Out the 3 Arms Races? Canada-Mexico US-USSR Israel-Syria Belgium-Netherlands Australia-NZ India-Pakistan
Cooperation- Producing Factors C. What Leads to Cooperation?
Cooperation- Producing Factors 1. Joint Democracy • Effects of Joint Democracy: • The “Democratic Peace:” Virtually no wars between democracies • Alleged Exceptions: US-UK 1812 (UK not democracy), UK-Germany WW1 (Germany not democracy), Finland-UK WW2 (no real combat), Peru-Ecuador (few casualties), India-Pakistan (civilians left out of the loop) • Fewer MIDs (1/3 to 2/3 reduction) • Shift to covert from overt when force is used • MIDs less likely to escalate to higher levels of violence • Increased reliance on mediation, arbitration • Increased common interests (alliances, UN votes, IOs, etc) • Increased Trade – Why should this be?
Cooperation- Producing Factors v. Formal Agreements
Cooperation- Producing Factors b. Institutional Explanation
Cooperation- Producing Factors c. Norms Explanation
Cooperation- Producing Factors 2. Shared Interests • Power Transition Theory: Mutual Satisfaction = Peace
Cooperation- Producing Factors Evidence for Peace Through Shared Interests • Alliance portfolios: Similarity generally reduces conflict • Better predictor than dyadic alliance! • UN Votes: Similar votes = closer economic ties
Cooperation- Producing Factors 3. Similar Institutions • Even after controlling for democracy / autocracy, similar government mechanisms (executive-legislative relations, etc) increase cooperation / reduce conflict. 4. Advanced Economies • Joint advanced economies trade, cooperate, ally more / fight less with each other than other dyads
Cooperation- Producing Factors 5. Economic Interdependence • Mutual gains from trade • Short explanation: Trade is voluntary • Absolute and Comparative Advantage
Missiles 20 10 100 200 10 Coffee Absolute Advantage Given 100 resources, what can each country produce? • Production possibilities without trade • Trade allows specialization. US buys Coffee at < 10 resources. Colombia buys Missiles at < 20 resources. • Example: Coffee = 1, Missiles = 10. US trades 5 missiles (50 resources) for 50 coffee (50 resources) • Result: Both sides can achieve levels of consumption outside of the original production possibilities!
Wheat 100 50 5 10 Cars Comparative Advantage Given 100 resources, what can each country produce? • US has absolute advantage in both goods – 5 to 1 in wheat, 2 to 1 in cars -- so has comparative advantage (bigger relative advantage) in wheat • UK has comparative advantage (smaller relative disadvantage) in cars (½ as productive rather than 20% as productive) • UK buys wheat at < 5 resources, US buys cars at < 10 resources • Example: Wheat = 1.5, Cars = 9. US sells 24 wheat (36 resources), buys 4 cars (36 resources)
Cooperation- Producing Factors 5. Economic Interdependence • Mutual gains from trade • Short explanation: Trade is voluntary • Absolute and Comparative Advantage • Reinforces democratic peace:
Cooperation- Producing Factors 5. Economic Interdependence • Mutual gains from trade • Short explanation: Trade is voluntary • Absolute and Comparative Advantage • Reinforces democratic peace • Allies trade more than enemies…but sometimes trade continues during war!
Bargaining Conflict Cooperation III. Outcomes: The results of bargaining, conflict, and cooperation • A Theory of Bargaining: Game Theory as a tool to predict behavior and outcomes • Game theory = formal way to represent strategic interaction
Bargaining Conflict Cooperation 2. Assumptions of Game Theory • Rational choice • Connected preferences – Some outcomes better than others • Transitive preferences – If A is better than B, and B is better than C A is better than C • Choice – Pick the option believed to lead to preferred outcome
Bargaining Conflict Cooperation b. Elements of a game • Players – In IR, this means states • Strategies – The choices players have • Outcomes – The results of the players’ choices • Payoffs – How much each player values each Outcome