IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v36y2024i2p132-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new formal model analysis of deterrent to brinkmanship and the causes of the armament dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Katsuzo Yamamoto

Abstract

How close does a nation come to the brink of war with an opponent during the process of crisis bargaining? The present study constructs a new formal model focused on a challenger’s incentive to intensify military provocations against a defender that involve a trade-off between securing a more profitable bargaining outcome and increasing the risk of accidental war. This model identifies the conditions under which the defender’s threat of military coercion effectively deters the challenger from engaging in his payoff-maximizing level of provocations. The numerical simulations suggest that a military buildup by a nation can cause counterintuitive results, namely, the armament dilemma, depending on the balance of the marginal benefits and costs for participants and the effectiveness of deterrence. Meanwhile, a state’s military buildup always strengthens its own bargaining power relative to its opponent’s regardless of the occurrence of this dilemma; that is, the paradox of power does not arise.

Suggested Citation

  • Katsuzo Yamamoto, 2024. "A new formal model analysis of deterrent to brinkmanship and the causes of the armament dilemma," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(2), pages 132-155, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:36:y:2024:i:2:p:132-155
    DOI: 10.1177/09516298241232654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09516298241232654
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09516298241232654?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. Allan Dafoe & Sophia Hatz & Baobao Zhang, 2021. "Coercion and Provocation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(2-3), pages 372-402, February.
    2. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    3. Powell, Robert, 1988. "Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 155-178, March.
    4. Durham, Yvonne & Hirshleifer, Jack & Smith, Vernon L., 2008. "The Paradox of Power," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 16, pages 127-137, Elsevier.
    5. Powell, Robert, 2015. "Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 589-626, July.
    6. Powell, Robert, 1989. "Nuclear Deterrence and the Strategy of Limited Retaliation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 503-519, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Laughren, Kevin & Sheremeta, Roman, 2020. "War and conflict in economics: Theories, applications, and recent trends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 998-1013.
    9. Jackson, Matthew O. & Morelli, Massimo, 2009. "Strategic Militarization, Deterrence and Wars," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 4(4), pages 279-313, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Sandeep Baliga & Tomas Sjostrom, 2013. "Bargaining and War: A Review of Some Formal Models," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 29, pages 235-266.
    12. Alt, James E. & Calvert, Randall L. & Humes, Brian D., 1988. "Reputation and Hegemonic Stability: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 445-466, June.
    13. Slantchev, Branislav L., 2005. "Military Coercion in Interstate Crises," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 533-547, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Acharya, Avidit & Grillo, Edoardo, 2015. "War with Crazy Types," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 281-307, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Muhammet A. Bas, 2012. "Measuring Uncertainty in International Relations: Heteroskedastic Strategic Models," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(5), pages 490-520, November.
    4. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.
    5. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2018. "Confronting an enemy with unknown preferences: Deterrer or provocateur?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-143.
    6. Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2004. "Politics at the Water’s Edge," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 459-486, August.
    7. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2019. "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 63-87, January.
    8. Hodler, Roland & Yektaş, Hadi, 2012. "All-pay war," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 526-540.
    9. Brian Lai, 2004. "The Effects of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 211-229, April.
    10. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2017. "Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 177-189.
    11. 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.
    12. Paul A. Papayoanou, 1997. "Intra-Alliance Bargaining and U.S. Bosnia Policy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 91-116, February.
    13. Keisuke Iida, 1993. "When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 403-426, September.
    14. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    15. Joe Clare & Vesna Danilovic, 2012. "Reputation for Resolve, Interests, and Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 3-27, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Kim, Jin Yeub, 2018. "Counterthreat of attack to deter aggression," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 112-114.
    18. McBride, Michael & Skaperdas, Stergios, 2014. "Conflict, settlement, and the shadow of the future," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 75-89.
    19. Randall J. Blimes, 2011. "International Conflict and Leadership Tenure," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Todd S. Sechser, 2011. "Militarized Compellent Threats, 1918–2001," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(4), pages 377-401, September.

    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:36:y:2024:i:2:p:132-155. 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.