Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-n9lxd Total loading time: 0.272 Render date: 2022-09-28T05:28:16.980Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

‘Rewarding Impatience’ Revisited: A Response to Goodrich

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2006

Lisa Blaydes
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, blaydes@ucla.edu
Get access

Extract

In “Rewarding Impatience: A Bargaining and Enforcement Model of OPEC” (International Organization, Spring 2004) I presented a theoretical model that suggested that in strategic situations where a bargaining phase is followed by an enforcement phase that resembles a prisoners' dilemma, impatient actors earned better outcomes than their more patient rivals. I also modeled the division of cartel profits in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), particularly with regard to the relationship between bargaining strength and disparate time horizons, and found that there is some threshold level for which states that discount the future more heavily tend to receive better production offers than those that do not. The critique presented in Goodrich deals with the final section of the article, which presents the results of statistical analysis testing the implications of these theoretical models.I am grateful to Jeff Lewis, Drew Linzer, and Ken Schultz for suggestions and advice. Many thanks to Thomas Plümper for sharing the computer code for his procedure to analyze fixed effects with time-invariant covariates in Stata. The usual disclaimers apply.

Type
Comment and Response
Copyright
© 2006 The IO Foundation and Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H. 2000. Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, University of California, Los Angeles, July.
Achen, Christopher H. 2002. Toward a New Political Methodology: Microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science 5 (1):42350.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 2004. Let's Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society, Rice and Texas A&M Universities, Houston, November.
Alt, James E., Randall L. Calvert, and Brian D. Humes. 1988. Reputation and Hegemonic Stability: A Game-Theoretic Analysis. American Political Science Review 82 (4):44566.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel N. 2001. Time-Series–Cross-Section Data: What Have We Learned in the Last Few Years. Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1):27193.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel N., and Jonathon N. Katz. 2001. Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water. International Organization 55 (2):48795.Google Scholar
Blaydes, Lisa. 2004. Rewarding Impatience: A Bargaining and Enforcement Model of OPEC. International Organization 58 (2):21337.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin. 2005. The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (4):34152.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1998. Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation. International Organization 52 (2):269305.Google Scholar
Goodrich, Ben. 2006. A Comment on “Rewarding Impatience.” International Organization 60 (2): 499513.Google Scholar
Goodstein, David. 2004. Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil. New York: Norton.
Plümper, Thomas, and Vera Troger. 2004. The Estimation of Time-Invariant Variables in Panel Analyses with Unit Fixed Effects. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology at Stanford University, California, July.
Plümper, Thomas, Vera Troger, and Philip Manow. 2005. Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking Method to Theory. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2):32754.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

‘Rewarding Impatience’ Revisited: A Response to Goodrich
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

‘Rewarding Impatience’ Revisited: A Response to Goodrich
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

‘Rewarding Impatience’ Revisited: A Response to Goodrich
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *