Poli 150 Midterm

Nationalism

A political ideology that seeks to advance the interests of one’s nation, a group defined by common origin, ethnicity, language, or cultural ties.

National Interests

The interests of the country as a whole, mainly security and economic well-being, as opposed to particularistic interests.

Coordination

Cooperation where everyone benefits from making the same choice and no one wants to break away once others do.

Collaboration

Cooperation where everyone gains from working together, but each has an incentive to cheat. Example: the prisoner’s dilemma.

Power

The ability of an actor to compel another actor to do something it otherwise would not do.

The more power an actor has, the more it can expect to get in the final outcome of bargaining.

Coercion

The threat or imposition of costs on other actors to reduce the value of the reversion outcome (no agreement) and change their behavior. Lets actors demand a better bargain.

Outside option

What an actor gets if bargaining fails and it walks away. A better outside option means more bargaining power.

Agenda Setting

Power to decide which options are considered or voted on, which tilts outcomes toward whoever controls it.

War

Organized use of military force by at least two parties, reaching a minimum level of severity

Interstate War

A war between two or more states

Compellence

A threat meant to make a target change its behavior. Example: Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

Deterrence

A threat meant to stop a target from changing the status quo. Example: Netanyahu’s “red line” on Iran.

Resolve

Willingness to bear the costs of war: how much a state values the disputed object relative to those costs. (Capabilities = physical power.)

Credibility

Believability of a threat or promise

Audience Costs

Domestic political costs a leader pays for backing down from a public threat; the mechanism behind tying hands. Fearon: because democracies face audience costs, they can send credible signals.

First-strike advantage

The military benefit of attacking first; creates incentives for preemptive war (e.g. Schlieffen Plan).

Bureaucracy

The government agencies that carry out policy, such as the military and the State Department.

Interest Groups

Organized groups with shared interests that try to influence policy, e.g. arms firms, United Fruit Company.

Diversionary Incentive

A temptation to spark an international crisis in order to rally public support at home

Accountability

Citizens’ ability to punish or remove leaders, mainly through elections

Bandwagoning

Joining the stronger or threatening side instead of balancing against it. The opposite of balance of power.

Warsaw Pact

The Soviet-led alliance of Eastern European communist states, rival to NATO; dissolved when the USSR broke up in 1991.

League of Nations

The collective security organization created after WWI. The US never joined, and it failed to stop aggression in the 1930s.

Genocide

The intentional killing of members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group because of that identity. Example: Rwanda (1994).

Humanitarian Intervention

Military intervention to protect civilians from mass atrocities, often without the target state’s consent. Linked to R2P.

Asymmetrical Warfare

Conflict between sides with very unequal military power, where the weaker side uses tactics like insurgency.

Extremists

Actors whose interests are not widely shares, or are held with much more intensity than most people’s

Coercion (terrorist strategy)

Using attacks to impose costs until the target concedes

Provocation

Attacking to provoke a harsh government crackdown that hurts civilians and pushes them toward the terrorists

Spoiling

Attacking to wreck peace talks between the government and more moderate groups

Outbidding

Rival groups using more extreme violence to show they’re the most committed and win supporters.

International Humanitarian Law

The laws of war, such as the Geneva Conventions

Norm entrepreneurs

Individuals or groups that seek to advance principled standards of behavior for states and other actors. They drive the first stage of the norm life cycle.

Private authority

Nonstate actors, such as firms or NGO’s creating and enforcing rules or standards

Treaty of Westphalia (1648)

Settled borders of European states after extended war; set up sovereignty and non-intervention.

Sovereignty

A state’s right to govern itself without outside interference

Theory

A logically consistent set of statements that explains a phenomenon

Actors

Basic units of analysis: states, politicians, burequcracies, IOs, firms, NGOs, voters

Interests

What actors want from political actions. States: security, power, wealth, ideology. Politicians: staying in office.

Interactions

The ways two or more actors’ choices combine to produce outcomes

Strategic Interaction

Each actor’s strategy depends on what it expects others to do

Cooperation

Interacction that makes at least one actor better off without making others worse off

Bargaining

Interaction where one actor gains only at another’s expense.

Pareto frontier

The set of outcomes where no one can be made better off without someone being made worse off.

Instiutions

Rules known and shared by the community that structure interactions

Anarchy

No world government above states to enforce rules

Policy bias

Instiutions favor the interests of their most powerful members

Interation

Repeated interactions between the same actors

Issue Linkage

Tying cooperation in one area to cooperation in another

Public good

A good everyone enjoys whether or not they helped pay for it

Mercantillist Era (1492-1815)

Political and military power through wealth and colonies

Pax Britannica (1815-1914)

Power plus market access for industrial goods

Thirty Years’ Crisis (1914-1945)

Security through alliances, expansion, self-sufficiency

Cold War (1945-1990)

Superpowers maximize global influence; all seek wealth Ex: US vs. USSR blocs; proxy wars; decolonization; Non-Aligned Movement.

Post-Cold War (1991-present)

Wealth through trade, with security still central

What states fight over

Territory (over half of wars in 300 years), national policy, regime type, ethnic or religious divisions.

Alternative explanations

Anarchy and the security dilemma, misperception, domestic politics.

Security dilemma

One state’s efforts to be safe make others feel less safe, creating a spiral.

Crisis bargaining

Bargaining where at least one side has threatened force if demands aren’t met

Coercive diplomacy

Using threats of force to influence the bargaining outcome.

Deterrent threat

A threat meant to keep the status quo

Compellent threat

A threat meant to change the status quo

Bargaining range

The set of deals both sides prefer to war. Exists because war is costly

Complete vs. incomplete information

Whether both sides know each other’s capabilities (affects outcome) and resolve (affects costs)

Incentive to misrepresent

States have reasons to appear stronger or more resolved than they are, i.e., to bluff

Cheap talk

Statements that cost nothing to make, so they aren’t believable.

Costly signal

An action that only a truly responsible state would take. Makes a threat credible

Brinkmanship

Deliberately raising the risk of war to show resolve

Tying hands

Making a public commitment so backing down becomes costly at home (audeince costs)

Paying for power

Spending to raise capabilities, e.g. mobilizing troops

Risk-return trade-off

Pushing for a better deal raises the risk of war.

Commitment problem

A state can’t credibly promise to honor a deal later

Preventive war

Fighting now to stop a rising power from getting stronger later. Responds to future power shifts

Preemptive war

Striking first because an attack is imminent and the first blow is decisive

Indivisibility

The good can’t be split, so no bargain seems possible. Can be socially constructed or strategic.

War duration

Information wars tend to be short (fighting reveals private info); commitment wars tend to be long

Why war is declining

Changing interests (territory less valuable), interactions (nuclear weapons, MAD, economic interdependence), instiutions (democracy, IOs).

National Interest

Goals that benefit a narrow group

Particularistic Interest

Goals that benefit a narrow group

Four key domestic actors

Leaders, bureaucracies (military, State Dept.), interest groups, the general public.

Rally around the falag

Short-term boost in approval during a foreign crisis

Diversionary war (rally effect) evidence

Political benefits of war let State A demand more, shifting the range toward A.

Collective action problem

Large groups struggle to organize because members free ride.

Free riding

Enjoying a benefit without paying the cost of providing it

Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs

When a small group gains a lot and costs are spread thinly, special interests tend to win.

Military-industrial complex

Eisenhower’s warning about the defense industry and military influence on policy

Military as actor

Might favor war for budgets and prestige, but is often cautious since soldiers bear the costs.

United Fruit Company/Guatemala (1954)

Guatemala seized company land; the CIA toppled President Arbenz

Hawks vs. doves

Hawks see lower costs from warl doves see higher costs

Kantian peace

Kant: unaccountable rulers find war easy because they don’t bear its costs

Democracy vs. autocracy

Democracy: leaders are competively elected. Autocracy: not.

Democratic peace

Democracies very rarely fight each other, but are no less likely to fight autocracies.

Transparency

Open debate and free press reveal capabilities and resolve

Endogeneity

Problems showing that democracy causes peace

Common (alternative) cause

A third effect actually causes the supposed cause

Reverse causation

The effect actually causes the supposed cause

Spurious association

The link is a coincidence of circumstances

Transitional democracies

Young, unstable democracies may be more war-prone

Iraq invades Kuwait (Aug 1990)

Iraq invaded over debt (~$14B) and claims of “diagonal drilling.” A UN-backed 42-country coalition led by the US pushed it out.

Alliance

A commitment between states to cooperate on security.