IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v51y2007i5p691-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity to Costs of Fighting versus Sensitivity to Losing the Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Darren Filson

    (Department of Economics Claremont McKenna College, California)

  • Suzanne Werner

    (Department of Political Science Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia)

Abstract

Nations differ in their tolerance for costs of fighting and in their willingness to make concessions. We use a bargaining model of war to analyze these sensitivities. Incentives created by heightened sensitivity to costs often—but not always—contradict those created by heightened sensitivity to making concessions. The results establish the effects of the two sensitivities on key conflict variables such as the frequency with which nations initiate conflicts, are targeted, engage in long or short wars, or receive favorable or unfavorable settlements. It is often asserted that democratic leaders are more sensitive to costs and conflict outcomes than autocrats. If so, then our model suggests that when the two sensitivities reinforce each other, empirical work will yield robust effects of regime type on conflict variables, but when the two sensitivities counter each other, estimated effects will be more ambiguous unless researchers consider which sensitivity dominates.

Suggested Citation

  • Darren Filson & Suzanne Werner, 2007. "Sensitivity to Costs of Fighting versus Sensitivity to Losing the Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(5), pages 691-714, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:51:y:2007:i:5:p:691-714
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002707304426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002707304426
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002707304426?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. Ausubel, Lawrence M & Deneckere, Raymond J, 1989. "Reputation in Bargaining and Durable Goods Monopoly," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 511-531, May.
    2. Larry M. Ausubel & Raymond J. Deneckere, 1989. "Reputation in Bargaining and Durable Goods Monopoly," Levine's Working Paper Archive 201, David K. Levine.
    3. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M. & Woller, Gary, 1992. "War and the Fate of Regimes: A Comparative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(3), pages 638-646, September.
    4. Reiter, Dan & Stam, Allan C., 1998. "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 377-389, June.
    5. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. "Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 233-266, April.
    6. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    7. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M., 1995. "War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 841-855, December.
    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. Jeff Carter, 2017. "The Political Cost of War Mobilization in Democracies and Dictatorships," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(8), pages 1768-1794, September.
    2. Robert Ulrich Nagel, 2021. "Gendered preferences: How women’s inclusion in society shapes negotiation occurrence in intrastate conflicts," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 433-448, May.
    3. Stephen Nemeth & Brian Lai, 2022. "When do natural disasters lead to negotiations in a civil war?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(1), pages 28-42, January.
    4. Phil Henrickson, 2020. "Predicting the costs of war," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, , vol. 17(3), pages 285-308, July.
    5. Eric Min, 2021. "Interstate War Battle dataset (1823–2003)," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(2), pages 294-303, March.

    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. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    2. Paul K. Huth, 1998. "Major Power Intervention in International Crises, 1918-1988," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 744-770, December.
    3. Fiona McGillivray & Alastair Smith, 2005. "The Impact of Leadership Turnover and Domestic Institutions on International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 639-660, October.
    4. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    6. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    7. H.E. Goemans, 2008. "Which Way Out?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 771-794, December.
    8. William D. Baker & John R. Oneal, 2001. "Patriotism or Opinion Leadership?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(5), pages 661-687, October.
    9. Elizabeth A. Stanley & John P. Sawyer, 2009. "The Equifinality of War Termination," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 651-676, October.
    10. Suzanne Werner, 1998. "Negotiating the Terms of Settlement," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(3), pages 321-343, June.
    11. James D. Fearon, 1997. "Signaling Foreign Policy Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 68-90, February.
    12. Joe Eyerman & Robert A. Hart Jr., 1996. "An Empirical Test of The Audience Cost Proposition," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(4), pages 597-616, December.
    13. Philip Arena, 2008. "Success Breeds Success? War Outcomes, Domestic Opposition, and Elections," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 136-151, April.
    14. Matthew A. Baum, 2004. "Going Private," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(5), pages 603-631, October.
    15. H. E. Goemans, 2000. "Fighting for Survival," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 555-579, October.
    16. Juan‐Pablo Montero & Juan Ignacio Guzman, 2010. "Output‐Expanding Collusion In The Presence Of A Competitive Fringe," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 106-126, March.
    17. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2010. "Quality, Upgrades, and Equilibrium in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 10-36, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    18. John Boyce & Jeffrey Robert Church & Lucia Vojtassak, "undated". "Capacity Constraints in Durable Goods Monopoly: Coase and Hotelling," Working Papers 2012-07, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 08 Aug 2012.
    19. Beccuti, Juan & Möller, Marc, 2021. "Screening by mode of trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 400-420.
    20. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2007. "Quality Upgrades and the (loss) of Market Power in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 18, Portuguese Competition Authority.

    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:jocore:v:51:y:2007:i:5:p:691-714. 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.