{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PS 367 Midterm study guide 2 - 1 Why can we say that not...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. Why can we say that not all con ict is malign and not all cooperation is benign? Because sometimes conflict is good, actors have to fight, sometimes necessary for a better life Ex: humanitarian intervention, fighting for civil rights Cooperation is not always good, two actors could cooperated for a bad goal. Cooperation is good at solving coordination problems 2. Does military and economic might always translate into bargaining power? Why (not)? No One must be willing to use such power. An adult wouldn’t beat up a kid even though they could. The US is the strongest in military power but then why did we not win in Vietnam? Because they only used certain aspects of their power. Military doesn’t mean you’ll get what you want. Willingness to employ power is very important. The US should be the strongest in economic power but then why was the US unable to open Japanese markets to US auto markets? Because in comparison to Japan it was not that strong because Japan had a lot of US assets and US didn’t want to lose them. Always a relative game. The strongest military/economy might have an advantage in general, but it does not mean guaranteed victory. Why? Because you need to be able to convince an opponent you will use your force. Bargaining power is so much more than military and economic power. Remember that bargaining is a process through which actors try to influence each other’s expectations and bargaining power is an actor’s ability to influence an opponent’s expectations in a way that benefits the actor. Commitments are the primary means that an actor can influence expectations 3. What makes a commitment credible? - having an alliance can make a promise more credible. (think cold war and NATO) - just saying you will is not enough - sometimes it can pay to be uniformed because of the relationship between credible commitments and compliance. It is particularly relevant when a threat is used. - there must be a degree of trust between the actors because of the nature of anarchy - if you have a good reputation other actors will believe you are credible. However, one action could ruin your reputation. - what makes you trust someone: prior actions/commitments, context, familiarity (common ethnic, linguistic, heritage, etc.), cost you would have if you broke the trust, future interactions, second hand observations - depends on reduce freedom of action, relinquish initiative to opponent, and manipulate pay offs. Reduce freedom of action: structure the situation such that one has no choice but to carry out the action one has threatened or promised, i.e. make tempting option unavailable to oneself, game of chicken, burning bridges, you want your enemy to have a way out though. Relinquish initiative to
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
opponent: relinquish initialive saddles the other side with the painful choice of making the step that might result in disaster for both. Important not to force the other side into a position from which it cannot retreat. Manipulate payoffs: reduce
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}