Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T00:53:13.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trust and Cooperation Through Agent-specific Punishments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2003

Fiona McGillivray  and
Alastair Smith
Get access

Abstract

Using the infinitely repeated prisoners' dilemma game as a modeling platform, we examine how domestic political institutions affect the ability of nations to trust and cooperate with each other. We propose a strategy, the agent-specific grim trigger, in which national leaders direct punishments for past defections at the leader of the nation responsible rather than at the nation itself. Leaders refuse to cooperate with those leaders who have cheated them in the past. However, by being prepared to cooperate with new leaders, cooperation can be restored. The focus of punishment on specific agents of the people (leaders), rather than the nation itself, means that citizens want to remove leaders who defect. Hence, domestically accountable leaders pay audience costs for failing to cooperate. These costs make accountable leaders more trustworthy and foster greater cooperation. In contrast, when replacing leaders is difficult, cooperation is less robust; and once cooperation falters, agent-specific punishment policies often lead to prolonged hostilities and periods of acrimonious relations between states.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Organization , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2000 , pp. 809 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2000

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

Abreu, D., Peace, D., and Stachetti, E.. 1989. Renegotiation and Symmetry in Repeated Games. Mimeo, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Keohane, Robert O.. 1986. Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. In Cooperation Under Anarchy, edited by Oye, Kenneth A., 226–54. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan. 1993. Uncertainty and the Evolution of Cooperation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (4):709–34.Google Scholar
Bremer, Stuart. 1992. Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (2):309–41.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Siverson, Randolph M.. 1995. War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability. American Political Science Review 93 (4):841–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Morrow, James D., Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair. 1999. An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 89 (December): 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Morrow, James D., Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair. 2000. Political Survival and International Conflict. In War in the Changing World, edited by Maoz, Zeev and Gat, Azar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Kavanagh, Dennis. 1997. The British General Election of 1997. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, William J. 1994. Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict. American Political Science Review 88 (1): 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyerman, Joe, and Hart, Robert A. Jr, 1996. An Empirical Test of the Audience Cost Proposition: Democracy Speaks Louder than Words. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (4):597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Joseph, and Maskin, Eric. 1989. Renegotiation in Repeated Games. Games and Economic Behavior 1 (4):327–60.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. American Political Science Review 88 (3):577–92.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1998. Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation. International Organization 52 (2):269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew, and Maskin, Eric. 1986. The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting and with Incomplete Information. Econometrica 54 (3):533–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaubatz, Kurt Taylor. 1996. Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations. International Organization 50 (1): 109–39.Google Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter Alexis. 1996. Squaring the Circle: The Domestic Sources of International Cooperation. International Organization 50 (2):349–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 1994. Allies, Adversaries, and International Trade. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guisinger, Alexandra, and Smith, Alastair. 1999. Honest Threat: The Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises. Unpublished paper, Department of Political Science, Yale University.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 1992. Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War. American Political Science Review 86(1):24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett Ashley. 1999. Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation. American Journal of Political Science 43 (4):979–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1988. Domestic Politics and War. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (4):653–73.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1990. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–85. American Political Science Review 84 (2):481–96.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D. 1998. The Proliferation of Preferential Trading Arrangements. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (5):523–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Milner, Helen, and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 1998. Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. Paper delivered at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Abdolali, Nasrin. 1989. Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816–1976. Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (1):3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1993. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review 87 (3):624–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. 1993. Credibility, Costs, and Institutions: Cooperation on Economic Sanctions. World Politics 45 (3):406–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGillivray, Fiona. 1998. How Voters Shape the Institutional Framework of International Negotiations. In Strategic Politicians, Institutions, and Foreign Policy, edited by Siverson, Randolph M., 79–96. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen. 1992. International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses. World Politics 44 (3):466–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V., and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 1997. Democratic Politics and International Trade Negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1): 117–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 1997. The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985. International Studies Quarterly 41 (June):267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahre, Robert. 1994. Multilateral Cooperation in an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38 (2):326–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pape, Robert A. 1997. Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work. International Security 22 (2):90–136.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr, and Whitten, Guy D.. 1993. A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2):391–414.Google Scholar
Ray, James Lee. 1995. Democracy and International Conflict: An Evolution of the Democratic Peace Proposition. Columbia: University of South Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
Remmer, Karen L. 1998. Does Democracy Promote Interstate Cooperation? Lessons from the Mercosur Region. International Studies Quarterly 42 (1):25–52.Google Scholar
Rheinhardt, Eric. 1996. Posturing Parliaments: Ratification, Uncertainty, and International Bargaining. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University.Google Scholar
Roubini, Nouriel, and Sachs, Jeffrey D.. 1989. Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies. European Economic Review 33 (May):903–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, David L., Gelpi, Christopher, Reiter, Daniel, and Huth, Paul K.. 1996. Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88. American Political Science Review 90 (3):512–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–Cold War World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M., Oneal, John R., and Davis, David R.. 1998. The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace. International Organization 52 (3):441–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 1998. Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises. American Political Science Review 92 (4):829–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 1999a. Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War. International Organization 53 (2):233–66.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 1999b. Looking for Audience Costs: A Research Note. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1998. Limited Governments, Powerful States. In Strategic Politicians, Institutions, and Foreign Policy, edited by Siverson, Randolph M., 15–49. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 1996. Simulating International Cooperation Under Uncertainty: The Effects of Symmetric and Asymmetric Noise. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (1): 152–205.Google Scholar
Smith, Alastair. 1995. Alliance Formation and War. International Studies Quarterly 39 (4):405–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Alastair. 1998a. International Crises and Domestic Politics. American Political Science Review 92 (3): 623–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Alastair. 1998b. The Effect of Foreign Policy Statements on Foreign Nations and Domestic Electorates. In Strategic Politicians, Institutions, and Foreign Policy, edited by Siverson, Randolph M., 221–54. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Alastair. 1999. Personalizing Crises. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, Yale University.Google Scholar
Verdier, Daniel. 1998. Democratic Convergence and Free Trade. International Studies Quarterly 42 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Waller, Robert. 1995. Taxing Polls. New Statesman and Society 8 (354):viii–ix.Google Scholar
Worcester, Robert. 1997. Follow the Polls, Go for EMU. New Statesman 126 (4359):21.Google Scholar
Wu, Jianzhong, and Axelrod, Robert. 1995. How to Cope with Noise in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution 39 (1):183–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar