IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v11y1990i1p17-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected Utility and Peace Science: An Assessment of Trade and Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Lois W. Sayrs

    (Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa)

Abstract

In this paper, I attempt to tease out the implications of expected utility models on conflict resolution and peace science. I also consider the trade-conflict model of Polachek (1980) and its extensions, as one example of expected utility in international relations. I raise three questions concerning the impact of expected utility: (1) when does trade mitigate conflict? (2) can trade provoke conflict? (3) can trade induce cooperation? From a review of empirical findings, I consider the political content of the trade-conflict model in particular, and of expected utility models, in general. Subsequently, I discuss two additional questions: (4) how do exchange norms influence trade and conflict? and (5) what incentives exist to foster cooperation from trade under expected utility? I advance the critique that while expected utility underrepresents political actions and motives, the implicit content of politics in the trade-conflict model is predominantly realist. Given this tendency, expected utility in conflict resolution and peace science will invariably be used to model strategic and geostrategic concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Lois W. Sayrs, 1990. "Expected Utility and Peace Science: An Assessment of Trade and Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(1), pages 17-44, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:11:y:1990:i:1:p:17-44
    DOI: 10.1177/073889429001100102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/073889429001100102
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/073889429001100102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Gasiorowski & Solomon W. Polachek, 1982. "Conflict and Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 709-729, December.
    2. Solomon William Polachek, 1980. "Conflict and Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 55-78, March.
    3. Gilles Oudiz & Jeffrey Sachs, 1984. "Macroeconomic Policy Coordination among the Industrial Economies," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 15(1), pages 1-76.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Polachek Solomon W, 2011. "Current Research and Future Directions in Peace Economics: Trade Gone Awry," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Polachek Solomon W., 1999. "Conflict and Trade: An Economics Approach to Political International Interactions," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, April.
    3. Reuveny Rafael, 2000. "The Trade and Conflict Debate: A Survey of Theory, Evidence and Future Research," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, January.
    4. Chang, Yuan-Ching & Polachek, Solomon W. & Robst, John, 2004. "Conflict and trade: the relationship between geographic distance and international interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 491-509, September.
    5. Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, 2009. "Economic Diplomacy and the Geography of International Trade," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13518.
    6. Reuveny Rafael, 2001. "Economic Openness As a Goal? The Bigger Picture for the Global System," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-30, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Polachek Solomon W., 1999. "Conflict and Trade: An Economics Approach to Political International Interactions," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, April.
    2. Chang, Yuan-Ching & Polachek, Solomon W. & Robst, John, 2004. "Conflict and trade: the relationship between geographic distance and international interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 491-509, September.
    3. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    4. Han Dorussen, 2006. "Heterogeneous Trade Interests and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 87-107, February.
    5. Lin Scott Y. & Seiglie Carlos, 2014. "Same Evidences, Different Interpretations – A Comparison of the Conflict Index between the Interstate Dyadic Events Data and Militarized Interstate Disputes Data in Peace-Conflict Models," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-26, April.
    6. Edward D. Mansfield & Brian M. Pollins, 2001. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 834-859, December.
    7. Reuveny Rafael, 2000. "The Trade and Conflict Debate: A Survey of Theory, Evidence and Future Research," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, January.
    8. Michelle A. Benson, 2005. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads in the Study of Interdependence and Dyadic Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 113-133, April.
    9. Tobias Böhmelt, 2010. "The Impact of Trade on International Mediation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(4), pages 566-592, August.
    10. Jaya Wen, 2012. "Industry-Level Supply-Side Market Concentration and the Price of Military Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 79-92, February.
    11. Solomon W. Polachek, 2002. "Trade-Based Interactions: an Interdisciplinary Perspective," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(2), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Polachek, Solomon, 2004. "How Outsourcing Affects Bilateral Political Relations," IZA Discussion Papers 1334, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Polachek Solomon W, 2011. "Current Research and Future Directions in Peace Economics: Trade Gone Awry," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Robert MacCulloch & Silvia Pezzini, 2010. "The Roles of Freedom, Growth, and Religion in the Taste for Revolution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 329-358, May.
    15. Martin, Philippe & Mayer, Thierry, 2010. "The geography of conflicts and free trade agreements," CEPR Discussion Papers 7740, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2011. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and International Conflict," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Jie Cai & Lian An, 2014. "Is Protectionism Rational Under the Financial Crisis? Analysis from the Perspective of International Political Relations," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(3), pages 278-299, March.
    18. Reuven Glick & Alan M. Taylor, 2010. "Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 102-127, February.
    19. Seitz, Michael & Tarasov, Alexander & Zakharenko, Roman, 2015. "Trade costs, conflicts, and defense spending," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 305-318.
    20. Desbordes, Rodolphe & Vicard, Vincent, 2009. "Foreign direct investment and bilateral investment treaties: An international political perspective," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 372-386, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:11:y:1990:i:1:p:17-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.