Home Three is a Crowd: Using Reciprocity to Explain Involvement in Ongoing Disputes
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Three is a Crowd: Using Reciprocity to Explain Involvement in Ongoing Disputes

  • Gennady Rudkevich ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 11, 2021

Abstract

I investigate the determinants of interstate political alignment, examining why states take part in ongoing conflicts and which side they take in them. The puzzle I seek to address is why some states are much more likely to gain support than others, and whether the likelihood of such support varies on the basis of the issue under dispute and the characteristics of the state itself. I emphasize the interests of rulers, particularly their need to obtain support on issues of high salience to them. The desire for future reciprocity lies at the heart of these alignment decisions. First, leaders consistently reciprocate positive and negative alignments. Second, rulers avoid positively aligning with leaders of unstable or politically unrepresentative states, as the latter are less likely to be in a position to return the favor. In order to test this alignment explanation, I compile a dataset of interventions into existing wars, MIDs, and sanctions regimes, covering the 1816–1999 time period. The results show that not all types of states are likely to enter an ongoing conflict. When those states do join a dispute, they do so on the side of those who helped them in the past.


Corresponding author: Gennady Rudkevich, Georgia College & State University, 231 Hancock St., CBX 018, 31061-3375 Milledgeville, GA, USA, E-mail:

References

Axelrod, R. M. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Coplin, W. D., S. L. Mills, and M. K. O’Leary. 1973. “The PRINCE Concepts and the Study of Foreign Policy.” In Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, edited by P. J. McGowan, 73–103. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Corbetta, R., and W. J. Dixon. 2005. “Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (1): 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940590915318.Search in Google Scholar

Corbetta, R. 2010. “Determinants of Third Parties’ Intervention and Alignment Choices in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946–2001.” Foreign Policy Analysis 6 (1): 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2009.00102.x.Search in Google Scholar

Corbetta, R. 2015. “Between Indifference and Coercion: Third-Party Intervention Techniques in Ongoing Disputes.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 32 (1): 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894214544879.Search in Google Scholar

Crescenzi, M. J. C., and A. J. Enterline. 2001. “Time Remembered: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Interaction.” International Studies Quarterly 45 (3): 409–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00207.Search in Google Scholar

Crescenzi, M. J. C., J. D. Kathman, K. B. Kleinberg, and R. M. Wood. 2012. “Reliability, Reputation, and Alliance Formation.” International Studies Quarterly 56 (2): 259–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00711.x.Search in Google Scholar

Crisman‐Cox, C., and M. Gibilisco. 2018. “Audience Costs and the Dynamics of War and Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (3): 566–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12347.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, G. A. M., and R. Johns. 2013. “Audience Costs Among the British Public: The Impact of Escalation, Crisis Type, and Prime Ministerial Rhetoric.” International Studies Quarterly 57 (4): 725–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12045.Search in Google Scholar

Diehl, P. F., and P. Regan. 2015. “The Interdependence of Conflict Management Attempts.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 32 (1): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894214544880.Search in Google Scholar

Dreyer, D. R. 2010. “One Issue Leads to Another: Issue Spirals and the Sino-Vietnamese War.” Foreign Policy Analysis 6 (4): 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00114.x.Search in Google Scholar

Erlanger, S. 2020. Biden Wants to Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, but it Won’t Be Easy. New York: The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/world/middleeast/iran-biden-trump-nuclear-sanctions.html (accessed February 1, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Ford, H. J. 1905. “The Scope of Political Science.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 2: 198–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/3038383.Search in Google Scholar

Gartzke, E., and K. S. Gleditsch. 2004. “Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 775–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00101.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gaubatz, K. T. 1996. “Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations.” International Organization 50 (1): 109–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300001685.Search in Google Scholar

Gibler, D. M. 2008. “The Costs of Reneging: Reputation and Alliance Formation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (3): 426–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707310003.Search in Google Scholar

Greig, J. M., and A. J. Enterline. 2017. Correlates of War Project National Material Capabilities Codebook, Version 5.0. Also available at https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/national-material-capabilities/nmc-codebook-v5-1.Search in Google Scholar

Heaney, M. T. 2004. “Issue Networks, Information, and Interest Group Alliances: The Case of Wisconsin Welfare Politics, 1993–99.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4 (3): 237–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400301.Search in Google Scholar

Heckman, J. J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47 (1): 153–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352.Search in Google Scholar

Jou, W. 2010. “The Impact of Supporters’ Ideological Preferences on Parties’ Coalition Choices: Evidence from New Zealand and Japan.” Political Science 62 (2): 166–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032318710384959.Search in Google Scholar

Joyce, K. A., and B. Alex. 2013. “Geographic Proximity and Third-Party Joiners in Militarized Interstate Disputes.” Journal of Peace Research 50 (5): 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313489587.Search in Google Scholar

Keohane, R. O. 1986. “Reciprocity in International Relations.” International Organization 40 (1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300004458.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, J. P., G. Goertz, and P. F. Diehl. 2006. “The New Rivalry Dataset: Procedures and Patterns.” Journal of Peace Research 43 (3): 331–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343306063935.Search in Google Scholar

Leeds, B. A., M. Mattes, and J. S. Vogel. 2009. “Interests, Institutions, and the Reliability of International Commitments.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 461–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00381.x.Search in Google Scholar

Leeds, B., J. Ritter, S. Mitchell, and A. Long. 2002. “Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815–1944.” International Interactions 28 (3): 237–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620213653.Search in Google Scholar

Levy, J. S., M. K. McKoy, P. Paul, and G. P. R. Wallace. 2015. “Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 988–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12197.Search in Google Scholar

Mansbach, R. W., and J. A. Vasquez. 1981. In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Maoz, Z. 2000. “The Street Gangs of World Politics: Their Origins, Management, and Consequences, 1816–1986.” In What Do We Know About War?, edited by J. A. Vasquez, 111–44. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Maoz, Z., P. L. Johnson, J. Kaplan, F. Ogunkaya, and A. P. Shreve. 2019. “The Dyadic Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) Dataset Version 3.0: Logic, Characteristics, and Comparisons to Alternative Datasets.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63 (3): 811–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002718784158.Search in Google Scholar

Melin, M. M., and M. T. Koch. 2010. “Jumping into the Fray: Alliances, Power, Institutions, and the Timing of Conflict Expansion.” International Interactions 36 (1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620903328696.Search in Google Scholar

Morgan, T. C., N. Bapat, and Y. Kobayashi. 2014. “Threat and Imposition of Economic Sanctions 1945–2005: Updating the TIES Dataset.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 31 (5): 541–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894213520379.Search in Google Scholar

Norton-Taylor, R. 2011. Tony Blair’s Promise to George Bush: Count on Us on Iraq War. London: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jan/21/tony-blair-george-bush-iraq (accessed October 11, 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Pierson, P. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” The American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011.Search in Google Scholar

Puhani, P. 2000. “The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and its Critique.” Journal of Economic Surveys 14 (1): 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00104.Search in Google Scholar

Ratner, E. 2009. “Reaping What You Sow: Democratic Transitions and Foreign Policy Realignment.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (3): 390–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002709332206.Search in Google Scholar

Sarkees, M. R., and F. Wayman. 2010. Resort to War: A Data Guide to Inter-State, Extra-State, Intra-State, and Non-State Wars, 1816–2007. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.10.4135/9781608718276Search in Google Scholar

Schultz, K. A. 2017. “Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy.” The Washington Quarterly 40 (4): 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660x.2017.1406705.Search in Google Scholar

Senese, P. D., and J. A. Vasquez. 2008. The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400837830Search in Google Scholar

Signorino, C. S., and J. M. Ritter. 1999. “Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions.” International Studies Quarterly 43 (1): 115–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00113.Search in Google Scholar

Singer, P. 2011. The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400838431Search in Google Scholar

Sobek, D., and J. Clare. 2013. “Me, Myself, and Allies: Understanding the External Sources of Power.” Journal of Peace Research 50 (4): 469–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313484047.Search in Google Scholar

Tago, A. 2007. “Why Do States Join US-Led Military Coalitions?: The Compulsion of the Coalition’s Missions and Legitimacy.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (2): 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcl001.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, W. R. 2001. “Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 45 (4): 557–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00214.Search in Google Scholar

Weeks, J. L. 2008. “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve.” International Organization 62 (1): 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818308080028.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-07-07
Accepted: 2021-02-18
Published Online: 2021-03-11

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 10.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/peps-2020-0038/html
Scroll to top button