IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v5y1993i4p432-454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When is it Rational to be Magnanimous in Victory?

Author

Listed:
  • STEVEN J. BRAMS

    (New York University)

  • BEN D. MOR

    (University of Haifa)

Abstract

There are two contending schools of thought on how a victor should treat a defeated party after a war or other major dispute. Whereas magnanimity might quell the desire of the defeated party for revenge, it might also be instrumental in the defeated party's resurrection. Similarly, the defeated party might face the conflicting choices of whether to cooperate or not cooperate with the victor. These interdependent choices are modeled by a generic 2 × 2 “magnanimity game†(MG), which subsumes 12 different specific games that might arise in the aftermath of a war. Rational choices in MG are based on two-sided analysis, in which players can think ahead several moves and take account of each other's preferences. Cycling may or may not be permitted; if it is, which player possesses “moving power†can be critical to the outcome. The analysis is illustrated by historical examples from 19th- and 20th-century wars.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven J. Brams & Ben D. Mor, 1993. "When is it Rational to be Magnanimous in Victory?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(4), pages 432-454, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:5:y:1993:i:4:p:432-454
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463193005004003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463193005004003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463193005004003?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
    ---><---

    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. Steven J. Brams, 1992. "A Generic Negotiation Game," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 53-66, January.
    2. Steven J. Brams, 1997. "Game Theory And Emotions," Rationality and Society, , vol. 9(1), pages 91-124, February.
    3. Steven J. Brams & Walter Mattli, 1993. "Theory of Moves: Overview and Examples," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 12(2), pages 1-39, February.
    4. Ben D. Mor & Zeev Maoz, 1999. "Learning and the Evolution of Enduring International Rivalries: a Strategic Approach," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 17(1), pages 1-48, February.
    5. Steven J. Brams, 2001. "Response to Randall Stone," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(2), pages 245-254, April.
    6. Ben D. Mor, 1995. "Crisis Initiation and Misperception," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(3), pages 351-367, July.

    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:ratsoc:v:5:y:1993:i:4:p:432-454. 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: 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.