IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v10y1998i1p59-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deterrence Theory and the Spiral Model Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Frank C. Zagare
  • D. Marc Kolgour

Abstract

The theoretical literature of interstate conflict is dominated by two conceptual models, classical deterrence theory and the spiral model. The fundamental tenet of classical deterrence theory is that credible and capable threats can prevent the initiation, and contain the escalation, of conflict. By contrast, proponents of the spiral model claim that the prescriptions associated with deterrence theory frequently lead to vicious cycles of reciprocated conflict. According to Jervis `both sets of theorists fail to discuss the conditions under which their theories will not apply'. In this article we do just that, identifying and comparing the conditions associated with conflict spirals and with crisis stability, in the context of a game-theoretic escalation model with incomplete information. For the special case in which a challenger is likely willing to endure an all-out conflict, our analysis indicates that the conditions associated with successful deterrence, limited conflict, and escalated conflict are mutually exclusive.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank C. Zagare & D. Marc Kolgour, 1998. "Deterrence Theory and the Spiral Model Revisited," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 59-87, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:10:y:1998:i:1:p:59-87
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692898010001003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692898010001003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692898010001003?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. R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    2. Powell, Robert, 1996. "Uncertainty, Shifting Power, and Appeasement," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(4), pages 749-764, 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. Brams, S.J., 1998. "To Mobilize of Not to Mobilize: Catch 22s in International Crises," Working Papers 98-11, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    2. Kilgour D. Marc & Zagare Frank C., 2001. "The Impact of Conventional Force Reductions on Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, April.

    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. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    2. Ding, Zhanwen & Shi, Guiping, 2009. "Cooperation in a dynamical adjustment of duopoly game with incomplete information," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 989-993.
    3. Jhinyoung Shin & Rajdeep Singh, 2010. "Corporate Disclosures: Strategic Donation of Information," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 313-337, September.
    4. Mario Guajardo & Kurt Jörnsten & Mikael Rönnqvist, 2016. "Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(1), pages 25-50, January.
    5. Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "Morality Beyond Social Preferences: Smithian Sympathy, Social Neuroscience and the Nature of Social Consciousness [La moralité au delà des préférences sociales. La sympathie Smithienne, les neurosc," Post-Print hal-01645043, HAL.
    6. Nan Xia & S. Rajagopalan, 2009. "Standard vs. Custom Products: Variety, Lead Time, and Price Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 887-900, 09-10.
    7. Gerard Llobet & Javier Suarez, 2010. "Entrepreneurial Innovation, Patent Protection and Industry Dynamics," Working Papers wp2010_1001, CEMFI.
    8. Platz, Trine Tornøe & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2017. "The curse of the first-in–first-out queue discipline," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 165-176.
    9. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    10. Dinah Rosenberg & Eilon Solan & Nicolas Vieille, 2009. "Protocols with No Acknowledgment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 905-915, August.
    11. Yusuke Kamishiro & Roberto Serrano & Myrna Wooders, 2021. "Monopolists of scarce information and small group effectiveness in large quasilinear economies," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(4), pages 801-827, December.
    12. Tristan Tomala, 2011. "Fault Reporting in Partially Known Networks and Folk Theorems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 754-763, June.
    13. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    14. Sent, Esther-Mirjam, 2004. "The legacy of Herbert Simon in game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 303-317, March.
    15. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    16. Valentiny, Pál, 2019. "Közgazdaságtan a jogalkalmazásban [Forensic economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 134-162.
    17. Ünsal Özdilek, 2020. "Land and building separation based on Shapley values," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Ichiro Nishizaki & Tomohiro Hayashida & Yuki Shintomi, 2016. "A core-allocation for a network restricted linear production game," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 238(1), pages 389-410, March.
    19. Hiroki Saitoh & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2008. "Vickrey allocation rule with income effect," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(2), pages 391-401, May.
    20. Geoffroy de Clippel & David Perez-Castrillo & David Wettstein, 2010. "Egalitarian Equivalence under Asymmetric Information," Working Papers 2010-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.

    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:jothpo:v:10:y:1998:i:1:p:59-87. 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: .

    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.