IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v64y2010i01p133-144_99.html

How Opportunity Costs Decrease the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game

Author

Listed:
  • Polachek, Solomon
  • Xiang, Jun

Abstract

This article shows that the opportunity costs resulting from economic interdependence decrease the probability of war in an incomplete information game. This result is strongly consistent with existing empirical analyses of the inverse trade-conflict relationship but is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Gartzke, Li, and Boehmer, who reject the opportunity cost argument in a game-theoretic framework. As a result of our findings, one cannot dismiss the opportunity cost argument as the explanation why trading nations fight less. Instead our study reaffirms the central position of opportunity costs as the basis for the inverse trade-conflict relationship, thus implying that one need not rely on signaling.

Suggested Citation

  • Polachek, Solomon & Xiang, Jun, 2010. "How Opportunity Costs Decrease the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 133-144, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:64:y:2010:i:01:p:133-144_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S002081830999018X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Ghulam Shabbir & Amjad Naveed & Muhammad Ali Khan & Shabib Haider Syed, 2022. "Does Peace Promote Bilateral Trade Flows? An Economic Analysis of Panel Data in Asian Perspective," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(1), pages 143-158, March.
    4. Nizan Feldman & Ehud Eiran & Aviad Rubin, 2021. "Naval Power and Effects of Third-Party Trade on Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(2-3), pages 342-371, February.
    5. Brandon J Kinne, 2014. "Does third-party trade reduce conflict? Credible signaling versus opportunity costs," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 28-48, February.
    6. Polachek Solomon W & Xiang Jun, 2010. "Opportunity Costs and the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game (With Comments by Lloyd Jeff Dumas)," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, June.
    7. Hauwah K. K. Abdulkareem & Sodiq Olaiwola Jimoh & Ebenezer Olubiyi, 2023. "Trade–peace conundrum in Africa: The moderating effects of poverty and inequality," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 35(4), pages 323-335, December.
    8. Yuleng Zeng, 2021. "Biding time versus timely retreat: Asymmetric dependence, issue salience, and conflict duration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 719-733, July.
    9. J Tyson Chatagnier & Haeyong Lim, 2021. "Does the WTO exacerbate international conflict?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 1068-1082, September.
    10. Max Gallop, 2017. "More dangerous than dyads: how a third party enables rationalist explanations for war," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(3), pages 353-381, July.
    11. Yuleng Zeng, 2024. "Microchips and sneakers: Bilateral trade, shifting power, and interstate conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 659-672, July.
    12. Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Steve Pickering, 2014. "Wars are becoming less frequent: a response to Harrison and Wolf," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 67(1), pages 214-230, February.
    13. Nizan Feldman & Tal Sadeh, 2018. "War and Third-party Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(1), pages 119-142, January.
    14. J. Tyson Chatagnier & Kerim Can Kavaklı, 2017. "From Economic Competition to Military Combat," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(7), pages 1510-1536, August.
    15. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:cup:intorg:v:64:y:2010:i:01:p:133-144_99. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.