Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T01:16:03.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Credibility and Commitment in Crisis Bargaining*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2013

Mark Fey ,
Adam Meirowitz  and
Kristopher W. Ramsay
Mark Fey
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, Harkness Hall, Rochester, NY, USA
Adam Meirowitz
Affiliation:
Princeton University, Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ, USA
Kristopher W. Ramsay
Affiliation:
Princeton University, Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although scholars of international security share a skepticism for the extent to which agreements can be externally enforced, much existing game-theoretic work involves strong forms of commitment. Building on the canonical model of crisis bargaining, this article analyzes the role of two forms of commitment in bargaining: the ability to commit to a settlement and the ability to commit to end negotiations and initiate war fighting. The findings show that, contrary to expectations, allowing a proposer to retract their offer after learning of its acceptance does not lead to greater demands. Instead, a rational actor can be best off if he or she honors the accepted agreement in crisis bargaining, even though the act of accepting an offer changes the proposer's beliefs about the probability that an offer is acceptable. However, allowing a proposer to continue bargaining in lieu of fighting does change the dynamics of bargaining, although this effect diminishes as players become more patient. Finally, when there is no commitment to offers (or fighting after a rejected proposal), the behavior is the same as that found in the model with only renegotiation of agreements, and thus mirrors the behavior in the model in which both forms of commitment are present.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , June 2013 , pp. 27 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Mark Fey is Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Rochester, Harkness Hall, Rochester, NY, 14627, United States (mark.fey@rochester.edu). Adam Meirowitz is John Work Garrett Professor of Politics, Princeton University, Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, United States (ameirowi@princeton.edu). Kristopher W. Ramsay is Associate Professor of Politics, Princeton University, Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ, 08544, United States (kramsay@princeton.edu). We thank Avi Acharya, Alex Hirsch, Matias laryczower, David Myatt and Francesco Squintani for useful discussions on this topic. We appreciation helpful comments at the University Wisconsin, Yale, SUNY-Binghamton, University of Warwick, the London School of Economics and the University of Rochester.

References

Ausubel, Lawrence M., Cramton, PeterDeneckere, Raymond J.. 2002. ‘Bargaining with Incomplete Information’. In Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Vol. 3, edited by Robert J. Aumann and Serqiu Hart, 1897–1945. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brito, Dagobert L.Intriligator, Michael D.. 1985. ‘Conflict, War, and Redistribution’. American Political Science Review 79(4):943–957.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’. International Organization 49(3):379–414.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 2007. ‘Fighting Rather than Bargaining’. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fey, MarkRamsay, Kristopher W.. 2011. ‘Uncertainty and Incentives in Crisis Bargaining: Game-Free Analysis of International Conflict’. American Journal of Political Science 55(1):149–169.Google Scholar
Filson, DarrenWerner, Suzanne. 2002. ‘A Bargaining Model of War and Peace’. American Journal of Political Science 46:819–838.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, DrewTirole, Jean. 1991. ‘Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium and Sequential Equilibrium’. Journal of Economic Theory 53(2):236–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Oliver D.Tirole, Jean. 1988. ‘Contract Renegotiation and Coasian Dynamics’. The Review of Economic Studies 55(4):509–540.Google Scholar
Laffont, Jean-JacquesTirole, Jean. 1988. ‘The Dynamics of Incentive Contracts’. Econo-metrica 56(5):1153–1175.Google Scholar
Leventoğlu, BaharSlantchev, Branislav L.. 2007. ‘The Armed Peace: A Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of War’. American Journal of Political Science 51(4):755–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2004. ‘Bargaining and Learning While Fighting’. American Journal of Political Science 48(2):344–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. ‘War as a Commitment Problem’. International Organization 60(1):169–203.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Slantchev, Branislav L. 2003. ‘The Principle of Convergence in Wartime Negotiation’. American Journal of Political Science 97(4):621–632.Google Scholar
Smith, AlastairStam, Allan C.. 2004. ‘Bargaining and the Nature of War’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(6):783–813.Google Scholar
Thucydides. 1972. History of the Peloponnesian War. New York: Penguin Classics Series.Google Scholar
Tingley, Dustin H. 2011. ‘The Dark Side of the Future: An Experimental Test of Commitment Problems in Bargaining’. International Studies Quarterly 55(2):521–544.Google Scholar
Wolford, Scott, Reiter, DanCarrubba, Clifford J.. 2011. ‘Information, Commitment, and War’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 55(4):556–579.Google Scholar