New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

POS 160 Wekk 3 Notes

by: Alexandra Notetaker

POS 160 Wekk 3 Notes POS160

Alexandra Notetaker
GPA 3.5

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover bargaining and war & domestic politics
Global Politics
Dr. Reed M. Wood
Class Notes
POS160, global, Politics, political science, notes, study
25 ?




Popular in Global Politics

Popular in Political Science

This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Alexandra Notetaker on Tuesday September 6, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POS160 at Arizona State University taught by Dr. Reed M. Wood in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 8 views. For similar materials see Global Politics in Political Science at Arizona State University.

Similar to POS160 at ASU

Popular in Political Science


Reviews for POS 160 Wekk 3 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/06/16
POS160 BARGAINING AND WAR  The “Utility”ofwar  Assumptions:  Wariscostly  Winning isuncertain  Winner=Gain –Cost  Loser =Nothing– Cost  Rationalleadersseektoresolve disputesnon-violentlythrubargaining  Bargaining  Interaction in whichactorsmust chooseoutcomesthatmakeone betteroffatthe expenseof another.  Bargaining =moving alongParetoFrontier  CrisisBargaining  (Coercive Diplomacy):Bargaining underthethreatofwar  Whystatesissue threats:  Deter challenge  Compelastatetochange statusquo  Effectivenessbasedon:  BeliefofCredibility  Resolveofthreatening state  The Bargaining Range  Rangeofacceptable dealsalwaysexists  Value–Cost=MinimumBargain  ProbabilityofVictory  50%pr(v)=.5  EU =[Probabilityofvictory*Value ofthe good]–Cost  EU =P(G)-C  ExpectedValue:dependson costandexpectation ofsuccess  FactorsThatInfluence Bargaining  Incomplete or incorrectinformation  Misjudgecapabilityor willingnesstofight  Misjudgecostofconflict  CommitmentProblems  Don’tbelieve state willabide bydecision  How doIknow youwon’tcheat?  Preemption/prevention  Beat themtothe“punch”  Attackwhile theyare weaker  Agoodisindivisible  Somethingscannotbe split POS160 DOMESTIC POLITICS  Approach:unitaryactors  Statesare composedofseveralentities  Domestic:focuson domesticpoliticalentitiesinteractionswithin thestate  Bureaucracy  Branchedofgov’t  Coalitions  Lobbying  Voters  NGOs  Allcreate countervailing pressureson leaders interaction between these groupsisa factor in decision making.  War& DomesticPolitics  Someactorswithin astatebenefitfromwar,while somepaythecostofwar.  Benefitsandcostsarenotevenlydistributed  Costsarebroadlydistributedwhile benefitsarefocused  Incentivesandstructures(institution ofstate)  Domesticactorshave differentincentivestopromote/preventwar.  Domesticpoliticalstructuresdetermine whichactors’preferencesare satisfied.  These structuresinfluencewhether astate “prefers”wartopotentialbargains  Democracyallowscitizenstopunishleadersfor dangerousdecisionslesslikelyfor war  Interactions,Institutions,& Influence  Statesoften treatedasunitaryactors,BUT  Statesare composedofmultipleactors  Bargaining among internalactorsinfluencesoutcomesofinternationalactors  KeyDomesticActors:  Bureaucracy:organizationsthat carryoutgovernance in astate  Military  State Department  CIA  HomelandSecurity  Eachhave specificgoals,views,andcultures  Influence leaders’attitude andposition  InterestGroups:organizedtopushfor policiesthat benefitmembers  Corporations  NGOs  ReligiousOrganizations  Have competingviewson policies,worktoinfluence(lobby) politicians.  WhatLeadersWant  Leader interests:  Powerisprimarysecurity  Ideologicalbeliefs,personalmotives  Leadersretainpowerbysatisfying coalition supporters  True even in non-democraticstates  Coalitionsdifferin democracyandautocracies  ShapingOpinion  Strategypoliticiansusetocontrolpolicytoshape politicalrestraints  DiversionaryWar:usethethreatofwar todivertpublicattention fromfailures.  RallyEffect:increasesupport byfocusing attention on threat.  The Falkland’sWar(1982)  ` Argentina sparkedwarwithBritainwhen theyinvadedtheFalklandIslands  The territorywasnotespeciallyvaluable(sheep)  Britain hadfar superiornavalforce  WhydidArgentina start thiswar?  DiversionaryWar  Bothgovernmentsfaceddomesticdissatisfaction  Economiesin severerecession  Argentina hadunpopularmilitaryjunta  Warinitiallypromotedpatriotism,distractedpublic.  Thatcherwasre-electedbywide margin in 1983  The PoliticalCostsof War  Warcan impose domesticpoliticalcosts  Ledtocollapseofmilitaryrule in Argentina  Warlossesarenever popular  Publicsupportfor war changesovertime  Aswarsdrag on,publicbecomeslesssupportive  Ifleaderscannotendwar(in victory),their popularitydeclines  Leadersface audience costs  Warisagamble  Notonlyfor thestate,butfor theleaders’politicalinterests  Institutionsdetermine howeasyitistopunishleaders  Democraticleadersface largeraudience costs  These leadersare lesslikelytogetinvolvedin costlywars; warstheythink theywill lose  Democraticleaders=morelikelytoloseoffice when theyloseawar,in comparison tonon- democraticleadersmakesdemocraticleadersmore selective aboutwar andnon-violent resolution.  BureaucraticPolitics& Military  Decisionsaboutwarandpeace alsoreflecttheinterestsofbureaucraticorganizations  Seek biggerbudget,moreinputtopolicies,andopportunityfor promotion  Institutionalframeworkandpolitical culturedetermine theirinfluence:  Militariesinfluence militaryregimes  Elitesinfluence oligarchies  Leaders’interestin self=pureautocracies  The DemocraticPeace  Observation that establisheddemocraciesdoNOTfightone another.  Aredemocraciesinherentlylessviolent? NO InternationalWars(1816-2005) = Democracyv.Democracy 0 Democracyv.Non-democracy 166 205 Non-democracyv.Non-democracy  Democraciesare NOTlesswar-prone  Frequentlyatwar with Non-democraticstates  Democraticvaluesalone doNOTreduce war  Institutionaleffect:accountability+audience costs  Asnumbersofworlddemocraciesincrease,globalviolence maydecline (Liberalism)  DemocracyandBargaining  Recall:Whybargainsfail?  Democraticinstitutionsmakeiteasiertoovercome information problems  Political systemsaremoretransparent  Betterable tosendcredible signalsduring crises.  Audience costs& War  Institutionsofaccountabilityandaudience allow democraticleaderstocredibly communicate their resolve:  Processismoretransparent(publicwatches)  Costlywarscreate disapproval  Backing down createspublicdisapproval  Shapesleaderbehavior during crisis choosewartheywillwin  Result  DemocraticstatesNOTlesswar-prone  TheydoNOTfightother democracies  Audience cost=double restraint  Democraticstatesinterestsalign  Democraticleadersare sensitivetogambles:  Lesslikelytoinitiate warswith uncertain outcomes  Morelikelytowin warstheyfight.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.