Pure Coercion vs. Carrot-and-Stick Offers in Crisis Bargaining

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3916971
AutoresSteven Greffeniu, Steven Greffenius (The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American Studies, Nanjing, China), Jungil Gill (Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin)
Año1992
Volumen29
Número1
Páginas39-52
Fecha de publicación1992-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Peace Research (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0022-3433 • E-ISSN: 1460-3578
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0022343392029001004
OpenAlexW2008846015
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas9
Referencias citadas15

In the crisis preceding the Gulf war, the United States favored pure coercion over carrot-and-stick offers. This article, which replicates and extends research reported by Leng (1984), supports the hypothesis that carrot-and-stick offers work better than pure coercion if an actor has already demonstrated resolve. Beginning with Jervis's (1976) distinction between deterrence and spiral theories of interaction, the article assesses the effects of various types of forceful moves in crisis bargaining. Interrupted time-series techniques are used with data on hostility levels in two confrontations to test the hypothesis that pure coercion tends to elicit a response in kind, whereas carrot-and-stick offers tend to elicit accommodation. Analysis of Behavioral Correlates of War data on actors' responses in the Cuban missile crisis and in the Egyptian-Israeli confrontation in 1967 corroborate Leng's original findings. Iraq's responses to the USA's threats in the Gulf conflict suggest that pure coercion can induce an opponent to fight even when it is weaker

Adversary · Coercion (linguistics) · Computer security · Criminology · Eavesdropping · Hostility · Political science · Terrorism · Computer Science · Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Law · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology