All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Factionalization and the Granting of Autonomy
Unformatted Document Text:  9 bargained agreement for the group occurs at the point on the continuum just shy of (1-p)+cost S . This agreement gives the group the greatest expected utility, but is still preferred to fighting by the state. When information about the capabilities of both parties are not revealed to each other, they both have an incentive to overstate their own capability in order to move the outcome to their favored edge of the bargaining range. Even when parties understand the risk of strategically over-representing their capabilities, they may continue to do so because revealing private information about their capabilities may lessen their strategic advantages if conflict does result. A third possible cause for conflict in this bargaining framework is the possibility of issues indivisibility. This is a scenario in which the issue under disagreement cannot be divided up between the parties in dispute. Fearon (1995) does not give much credence to this explanation because of the ability of parties in a bargaining situation to make side payments. Even if a particular issue was not infinitely divisible, two sides can often use concessions on other issues to make a deal. In addition to the body of literature on general bargaining failure, there are three schools of theory that directly address the incentives for states and self-determination groups (or rebel groups more generally) to begin or continue fighting: economic theories, opportunity/greed theories, and reputation theories. Economic theories predict that states and groups will support greater regional autonomy when they think they will do better economically. Scholars have hypothesized different factors will affect these calculations (Gourevitch, 1979; Hechter, 1979; Bolton and Roland, 1997, and Alesina and Spolaore, 1997). Opportunity and greed based theories posit that groups will be unlikely to settle their claims with the state when there are clear monetary benefits to continued contestation, such as easy access to finance (Collier and Hoeffler, 2001) or lootable resources in the regional

Authors: Gallagher Cunningham, Kathleen.
first   previous   Page 9 of 46   next   last



background image
9
bargained agreement for the group occurs at the point on the continuum just shy of
(1-p)+cost
S
. This agreement gives the group the greatest expected utility, but is still preferred
to fighting by the state. When information about the capabilities of both parties are not
revealed to each other, they both have an incentive to overstate their own capability in order
to move the outcome to their favored edge of the bargaining range. Even when parties
understand the risk of strategically over-representing their capabilities, they may continue to
do so because revealing private information about their capabilities may lessen their strategic
advantages if conflict does result.
A third possible cause for conflict in this bargaining framework is the possibility of
issues indivisibility. This is a scenario in which the issue under disagreement cannot be
divided up between the parties in dispute. Fearon (1995) does not give much credence to
this explanation because of the ability of parties in a bargaining situation to make side
payments. Even if a particular issue was not infinitely divisible, two sides can often use
concessions on other issues to make a deal.
In addition to the body of literature on general bargaining failure, there are three
schools of theory that directly address the incentives for states and self-determination groups
(or rebel groups more generally) to begin or continue fighting: economic theories,
opportunity/greed theories, and reputation theories. Economic theories predict that states
and groups will support greater regional autonomy when they think they will do better
economically. Scholars have hypothesized different factors will affect these calculations
(Gourevitch, 1979; Hechter, 1979; Bolton and Roland, 1997, and Alesina and Spolaore,
1997). Opportunity and greed based theories posit that groups will be unlikely to settle their
claims with the state when there are clear monetary benefits to continued contestation, such
as easy access to finance (Collier and Hoeffler, 2001) or lootable resources in the regional


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 46   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.