VOOZH about

URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/capabilities-perception-and-escalation/457B46EB1BB768E5569A3B3A4B1656DF

⇱ Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-ggg9q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-16T04:51:48.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
Affiliation:
Hoover institution
James D. Morrow
Affiliation:
Hoover institution
Ethan R. Zorick
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access 👁 Image
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evolution of crises depends upon interpreting intentions under uncertainty. We model crises as a game of two-sided incomplete information. Players are uncertain about their own payoffs from war because of differences between observable and actual capabilities. We derive four hypotheses, testing them against crises in Europe between 1815 and 1970. We show a nonmonotonic relationship between ex ante observable capabilities and the likelihood of violence in a crisis, as well as the ex ante likelihood of a negotiated settlement. We answer five questions: (1) How do differences in observable capabilities between rivals influence the likelihood of a crisis and the escalation to violence? (2) How do intangible capabilities alter the effects of observable capabilities on the likelihood of conflict and violence? (3) What do national leaders learn from the responses of their adversaries in crises? (4) Under what conditions can deterrence succeed? (5) Under what conditions are the strong likely to give in to the weak or vice versa in a crisis?

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Banks, Jeffrey S. 1990. “Equilibrium Behavior in Crisis Bargaining Games.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (08):599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Sobel, Joel. 1987. “Equilibrium Selection in Signaling Games.” Econometrica 55 (05):647–62.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1975. “Measuring Systemic Polarity.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 19 (06): 187–215.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981a. The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981b. “Risk, Power Distributions, and the Likelihood of War.” International Studies Quarterly 25 (12):541–68.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1985. “The War Trap Revisited.” American Political Science Review 79 (03):157–76.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lisa. 1995. “A Theory of Escalation and International Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 39 (09):511–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1990. “Deterrence and the Spiral Model: The Role of Costly Signals in Crisis Bargaining.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 30–09 2.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994a. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88 (09):577–92.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994b. “Signaling versus the Balance of Power and Interests.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38 (06):236–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (Summer):379–414.Google Scholar
Fucks, W. 1965. Formeln zur Macht. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlaganstalt.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gochman, Charles S., and Maoz, Zeev. 1984. “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1976: Procedures, Patterns and Insights.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (12):585–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul. 1988. Extended Deterrence and the Prevention of War. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul, and Russett, Bruce. 1984. “What Makes Deterrence Work?” World Politics 36 (07):496–526.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul, and Russett, Bruce. 1990. “Testing Deterrence Theory: Rigor Makes a Difference.” World Politics 42 (07):466–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kilgour, D. Marc, and Zagare, Frank. 1991. “Credibility, Uncertainty, and Deterrence.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (05):303–34.Google Scholar
Kilgour, D. Marc, and Zagare, Frank. 1993. “Asymmetric Deterrence.” International Studies Quarterly 37 (03):1–27.Google Scholar
Kilgour, D. Marc, and Zagare, Frank. 1994. “Uncertainty and the Role of the Pawn in Extended Deterrence.” Synthese 100 (09):379–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Woosang, and Bruce Bueno, de Mesquita. 1995. “How Perceptions Influence the Risk of War.” International Studies Quarterly 39 (03):51–65.Google Scholar
Kissinger, Henry. 1979. The White House Years. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Lalman, David. 1988. “Conflict Resolution and Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (08):590–615.Google Scholar
Langlois, Jean-Pierre. 1991. “A Theory of Rational Expectations in Recurrent International Disputes.” Department of Mathematics, San Francisco State University. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 1981. Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned, and Stein, Janice Gross. 1990. “Deterrence: The Elusive Dependent Variable.” World Politics 42 (04):336–69.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. 1989. “Assessing the Conventional Balance.” International Security 13 (Spring):54–89.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1987. “On the Theoretical Basis of a Measure of National Risk Attitudes.” International Studies Quarterly 31 (12):423–38.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1989a. “Capabilities, Uncertainty and Resolve: A Limited Information Model of Crisis Bargaining.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (11):941–72.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1989b. “Bargaining in Repeated Crises: A Limited Information Model.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Most, Benjamin A., and Starr, Harvey. 1983. “Conceptualizing ‘War’: Consequences for Theory and Research.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (03):137–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moul, William Brian. 1988. “Balances of Power and the Escalation to War of Serious Disputes among the European Great Powers, 1815–1939: Some Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (05):241–75.Google Scholar
Nalebuff, Barry. 1987. “Credible Pretrial Negotiation.” Rand Journal of Economics 18 (Summer): 198–209.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K. 1958. World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K., and Kugler, Jacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1987. “Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD.” American Political Science Review 81 (09):717–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1989. Nuclear Deterrence Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1996. “Stability and the Distribution of Power.” World Politics 48 (01):239–67.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty and Major Power War, 1820–1965.” In Peace, War and Numbers, ed. Russett, Bruce. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Thucydides, . 1959. History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Hobbes, T.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.
87

Save article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation

Reply to: Submit a response