Book/Simulation2War and TradePaper
AssignmentLecture OutlinesBook/Simulation2War and TradePaper
AssignmentLecture OutlinesR. Gilpin, War and Change In World Politics
Claim: International Relations is a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy --- realist but a bit different than Waltz
Gilpin’s Five Assumptions about how International Relations works
States are assumed to act as if they are guided by cost benefit calculations
Definition of equilibrium -- an international system is in a state of equilibrium if the more powerful states in the system are satisfied with the existing territorial, political, and economic arrangements – such that not powerful state believes that a change in the system will yield additional benefits that are greater than the costs required to make the change
|
diff growth in power -> | redistribution of power |
|
|
|
|
<-------- | system disequilibrium |
System disequilibirum --- economic, political, and technological developments help create differential rates of growth on these dimensions for states – at some point this differential growth changes the cost/benefit calculations for one or more major powers concerning changing the structure of the system
What is at stake in changing the system – the existing structure (prestige, division of territory, international division of labor, and rules of behavior in the system) reflect the interests of the dominant power or powers
If the relative power in the system changes, then other powers may see it in their interest to change the system so that the above features more reflect their interests
The disjuncture between the existing structure and the interests of the new more powerful nation or nations, creates a crisis and requires resolution –
Gilpin claim based on historical experience – War is the mechanism for system crisis resolution.
State Objectives
International System - an aggregation of diverse entities (essentially states) united by regular interaction (diplomatic, economic, and military relations) according to some form of control (claims anarchic but high degree of order due to the distribution of power among states)
Dominant states organize and maintain the international system --Dist of power principal form of control.
Types of international Change
Systems change – change in the nature of the actors that compose the system – change in the state system
Systemic change –change in the form of control or governance of an international system – new leader, new hierarchy or form of control
Stability and Change
Repeated Assumptions
Economic Factors -- means of production and changes in the means of production - factors which tend states in expand and to attempt the change the international system
Gilpin’s take on the role (effects) of the international structure on state behavior -- like oligopolistic market – interdependent decision-making and sufficiently few competitors so that behavior of one effects others -- expand due to relative power concerns -- same set of alliance counterbalancing alliance notions as Waltz
Gilpin – System stability and political chance is less a function of the static distribution of power and more a function of uneven and differential growth in rates of power among states
Final claim -- whether or not change will take place is ultimately indeterminant
R. Gilpin, War and Change In World Politics
Growth and Expansion
3. A state will seek to change the international system through territorial, political, and economic expansion until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal benefits.
Territorial, political, and economic expansion of the state increases economic surplus and ability to control - rise and decline of dominant states and empires is a function of the generation and dissipation of economic surplus
The logistic (S-curve Thesis) first increasing then decreasing returns to scale
And the attendant "relative capability curve"
Expansion by territorial conquest and economic expansion
S-curve and relative capability curve dynamics create new equilibria
- succession of hegemonic powers
Equilibrium and Decline
4. Once an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further change is reached, the tendency if for the economic costs of maintaining the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support the status quo.
Running an empire or leading the world economy is costly - At some point the costs overtake the benefits of leading and establishing and at that point the leader goes into decline
Running the "empire" - costs - military, financing allies, costs with maintaining the world economy
The costs of maintaining the status quo increase faster than the capacity to finance the status quo
The classic struggle between consumption, protection and investment strain the leader -- consumption rises (the good life), protection costs rise, and investment is reduced - reducing long term competitiveness
Military, technological, economic, or organizational advantages "created" and employed by the leading state eventually are copied or imitiated by other states and the advantages are lost Followers free ride
All this gives rising states the advantage on the growth curve and relative capability curve - till a point where there is a disequilibrium
Hegemonic War and International Change
5. If the disequilibrium in the international system is not resolved, then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting the redistribution of power will be established.
Hegemonic war the historic mechanism for systemic change
Others -
1. Internal rejuvenation and restructuring
2. preemptive war on rising challenger
3. Reducing costs by expanding further - defies logic of argument
4. reduction of foreign commitments - retrenchment
Pols 426 Lecture 3
Waltz, Gilpin and the War and Trade Simulation
Features
Waltz (Realism) War and Trade World Real IR
Anarchic Environment/Self help Yes Usually or at least often
Undifferentiated actors/ Only resource power Yes No
Non-hierarchical Mostly No
Goal - ensure survival/ Maximize Power/universal Domination Yes
sometimes
Essential system feature - Distribution of power Yes important
Behavior
Trust Yes and No Yes and No
Alliance-balancing Yes Sometimes
Bandwagoning Yes sometimes
System constrain actor Behavior and disposes of Those who fail
to act in Appropriate ways Yes usually/sometimes
Structure selects and rewards Behavior and punishes others Yes
usually
1) undifferentiated agents ? - Were there skill differences
among the groups? how well did each group play, socialization
and leaning - do you think people would play differently if they
played again? How important was negotiation? Did it matter who
talked with whom? Was there any evidence of altruism or did all
act clearly in their self-interest? Did emotion matter?
2) balance of power - Yes - alliances mattered
3) some "mistakes" - fail to align soon enough, fail
to break alliances soon enough, fail to align with states that
have injured the state in the past, fail to make appropriate or
smart moves -
4) evidence of balancing and/or bandwagoning
Gilpin and War and Trade Simulation Discussion
Recall Gilpin's Five Assumptions about how International Relations
works
1. An international system is stable (in equilibrium) if no state
believes it profitable to attempt to change the system
2. A state will attempt to change the international system if
the expected benefits exceed the expected costs (i.e., an expected
net gain)
3. A state will seek to change the international system through
territorial, political, and economic expansion until the marginal
costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal
benefits.
4. Once an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further
change is reached, the tendency is for the economic costs of maintaining
the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support
the status quo.
5. If the disequilibrium in the international system is not resolved,
then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting
the redistribution of power will be established. - by hegemonic
war
OK --- Lets do a translation to the Game of War and Trade Simulation
Power -- MUs and endowments - high endowments allow one to make
more MUs and to reach high prosperity levels so spending capital
(economic growth allows for increasing power)
Status - PUs -- the reflection of status achieved from power and
economic growth - via trades, endowments and economic growth
States with high PUs are benefiting from the system and are the
ascribed leaders of the game - they become the targets -- States
with high levels of PUs and low MUs want things to stay as is
States with high levels of MUs and low PUs seek to change the
game
The system is in equilibrium when leading states and leading challengers
and/or most states have equal ascribed and achieved status - that
is there is a balance between their PUs and MUs. -
The system is in disequilibrium when there is not a balance in
PUs and MUs for leading and challenging states
If there is a balance in the PU/MU ratio for leading and challenging
states then marginal costs to change the system (war) will exceed
marginal benefits
When there is a significant enough imbalance in the PU/MU ratio,
then perceived marginal costs will be less than perceived benefits
-- and war is likely.
Leading states - those with large PUs are targets if their PU/MU
ratio gets too large -- Gilpin claims that leading states have
a difficult time running the system and that there is a drain
on their resources so that challengers have an advantage catching
up -- In the game, it is hard to increase both MUs and PUs at
the same time. PUs can accumulate but MUs do not increase as fast
and as the leader becomes a target, challengers increase the costs
by fighting attrition wars that wear down MUs increasing the ratio
- till things finally tip
Clear interaction between war and trade - war coalitions and trade coalitions overlap dramatically
A little hypothetical argument --- There are 6 nations and
each needs 20AUs and 20IUs for subsistence which comes up to 120
of each per round -- Now it is possible then for each to have
30 AUs and 30 Ius to generate prosperity - for all six nations
that generates 180 of each for a total of 360 PUs --- in addition
all states can gain 10PUs for gains from trade for a total of
a potential of 420 PUs -- the hypothetical maximum before any
state reaches 200 PUs
Now the system starts with 190 AUs and 240 Ius
That leaves 70AUs and 120 IUs above subsistence to generate PUs
- There is a severe shortage - a structural situation that increases
the likelihood of conflict - the system could "use 110 more
AUs and 60 more IUs - Even with a more severe shortage of AUs,
it is IUs that can be converted to MUs
At the start of the game and until state's cash in 50PUs or more
to raise their endowments, there is the potential for 250 PUs
- 60 from gains from trade and 190 (70AUs and 120IUs) -
states and the system did not come close to this maximization.
You get the picture - This assumes everyone is nice - no MUs are
converted and no wars and everyone shares fairly and evenly --
such is not life when the object is to get the most Pus
Group A - Analysis
Winner UK
War - Yes in 6of 10 rounds -- 4,5,6,8,9,10
With two decisive wars
India lost round 5 and Russia lost in round 6 -- these were what
I would call predatory wars - States that did not adequately protect
themselves -- not wars among leaders and challengers
But both India and Russia were targets in that they had high PU/MU ratios -- each more than 2/1
In Round four it was US,UK,CH, vs Ind, Rus - the war was not decisive
In round five it was the same coalition vs Ind - Russia bails out. India is not that big a prize as both Ind and Rus used Pus to raise endowments
Leaders US and UK are looking for easy pickings notice that it is the US that is really the unbalances nation with a more than 3/1 PU/MU ratio
Round 6 the same coalition goes after Russia - The UK makes itself less of a target by raising endowments - interestingly in this round the real target is Pak with more than a 2/1 ratio
Round 7 no war but the UK becomes a target 136/59 PU/MU ratio -- What is interesting is that noone goes after them. The US in coordination with Ch, and Ind or Rus could have done in UK. Why not? US had just gone to war with UK and still had an alliance -- too nice or alliances are more "sticky" than Waltz gives them credit for
Round 8 THE BIG CHANGE
The two leaders (US and UK) part company - And the world goes
totally bipolar - Two hard alliances
US, CH, Pak and UK, RUS, Ind - note that trading also becomes
totally bipolar- - there are only 12 bilateral trading partners
- all 6 nations only trade with two partners and they are strictly
within their military alliance -
The UK goes for protection with former losers -- RUS and Ind -
these two states both have more Mus than PUS . They are have nots
with power but not status - why did they align with the UK - the
biggest target - UK still unbalanced with >2/1 ratio - US more
balanced while Pak remains a target with >2/1 ratio
Rounds 8,9, and 10
Big war losses but alliances stay together and are balanced in terms of military strength and prosperity
Round 8 US-led coalition MU 294 PU 517
UK-led coalition MU 259 PU 317
Round 9 US-led coalition MU 285 PU 402
UK-led coalition MU 268 PU 363
Round 10 US-led coalition MU 298 PU 512
UK-led coalition MU 301 PU 503
China, India, Russia, and Pakistan realize that they cannot win but they do not all bandwagon and ride with either the US or the UK and wipe out one of the two big challengers. Instead they balance. This allows the UK to stay a bit ahead of the US and win.
China and India just become military machines for their prospective alliances and Russia and Pakistan add military capability to the alliances as well as some prosperity.
Why balancing and not bandwagoning
My take - fear of being picked off later - lesson learned from predatory wars in rounds 4,5, and 6 -- If they participate in taking out the US or the UK, then they are next
Note there are real imbalances in the PU/MU rations within coalitions but not across coalitions - Things are more sticky and history matters more than either Waltz and especially Gilpin take into account
MUS and Pus essentially split 50/50
Here is the mix as of the end of round 10
% MU %PU %MU %PU
UK .11 .34 US .18 .33
IN .25 .01 CH .30 .00
RUS .13 .17 PAK .02 .14
.50 .52 .50 .47
Group B - Analysis
Winner US
War - Yes in 8 of 12 rounds -- 2,3,6,8,9,10,11,12
With three decisive wars
China lost round 8 and round 9 and India and Russia lost in round
11 -- The wars on China these were what I would call predatory
wars - States that did not adequately protect themselves -- not
wars among leaders and challengers
But both India and Russia were targets in that they had high PU/MU ratios -- each much much more than 2/1
In Round two it was Ch, Rus, IND vs Pak, US, UK- the war was not decisive but the UK and Pak were easy targets with almost no MUs - only alignment with the US saved them
In round five it was the same coalition vs Ind - Russia bails out. India is not that big a prize as both Ind and Rus used Pus to raise endowments
Leaders US and UK are looking for easy pickings notice that it is the US that is really the unbalances nation with a more than 3/1 PU/MU ratio
In Round 3 there was a reprise of the round 2 war again with inconclusive results - again the US saved both UK and Pak
Round 6 the same coalitions go after each other after a two round pause. No clear why - the two coalitions are of relatively equal strength 252 MU vs 219 MU -- Most states are not too unbalanced except India 135/58
Round 7 no war but the UK becomes a target 136/59 PU/MU ratio -- What is interesting is that noone goes after them. The US in coordination with Ch, and Ind or Rus could have done in UK. Why not? US had just gone to war with UK and still had an alliance -- too nice or alliances are more "sticky" than Waltz gives them credit for
Round 8 THE BIG CHANGE as in Group A as well
Unlike in Group A where the two leaders (US and UK) parted company and the world went totally bipolar, here the CH, INd, RUS alliance fell apart and Ch and RUS joined the other coalition and wiped out China. This is an interested case as after round 7 all three members of the CH, IN, and Rus coalition were all quite unbalanced and thus ripe for attack PU/MU ratios all greater than 2/1 but interestingly China the least desirable prey of the three - most was India - China loses and the victors obtain war gains
Round 9 is a continuation of the war to destroy China by all others - China is wiped out again but war gains total only 65 and war losses total 105 for the five victors.
In the process of the grand coalition wiping out China in Rounds 8 and 9, several things happen - First of course China is now out as a contender to win, Second, Pakistan wisely limits its PU total so as to not look like a target, and Three and most importantly all four remaining contenders US, UK, IN, and Rus suffer significant war losses and obtain substantial war gains and Pus gains so all are quite unbalanced - US and UK approx 2/1 but Ind and Rus periously at more than 5/1
Rounds 10 - In surprise a coalition of US, UK, and Pak go after Ind and Rus -- China stays out - Losses cut deeply into the weak IND and RUS
Round 11 - China joins in and India and Russia are defeated - with the winners enjoying substantial wars gains - 87Pus each
The war coalition containing the two leaders (US and UK) that
wipes out India and Russia does several things
1) it wipes out India and Russia
2) creates two uncontested leaders US and UK but with the US in
a commanding position so that it cannot be caught for a while
3) creates a world that is quite out of balance - the leaders
US, UK have PU/MU ratios of more than 4/1, China even worse -
but there is so little military capability in the system Total
MUS after round 12 are 349 -- So even if all other states ganged
up on either the US or the UK, either state could survive for
a one round and probably two but not more
The lesson is that unlike group A, this system is quite unstable -- Group A - states balance
Here in group B - states in effect bandwagon and wipe out first China, and then India and Russia
Here the lesson of getting picked off are not learned - but perhaps more importantly in this group US and UK stick together whereas they break in Group A and create balanced coalitions around them
| Group A | AU | IU | TOT | GRT | PUS | Net MUS | War Gains | War losses | PU/End | Cum PU | Cum MU | War | PU/MU ratio bal | Trading Part | War alliance |
| Round 1 | 70 | 35 | 105 | 55 | 160 | 85 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 160 | 85 | No | NA | 20 | all defensive |
| Round 2 | 70 | 32 | 102 | 55 | 67 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 227 | 183 | no | no | 14 | all defensive |
| Round 3 | 75 | 25 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 150 | 327 | 283 | no | yes | 14 | all defensive |
| Round 4 | 87 | 61 | 148 | 60 | -42 | -7 | 0 | 89 | 200 | 285 | 276 | Yes | yes | 18 | US,UK,CH vs IN, RU |
| Round 5 | 120 | 9 | 129 | 60 | 41 | 66 | 30 | 85 | 150 | 326 | 342 | Yes | No | 18 | US,UK,CH vs IN |
| Round 6 | 125 | 10 | 135 | 60 | 205 | 45 | 33 | 110 | 0 | 531 | 387 | Yes | yes | 16 | Us,UK,CH vs RU |
| Round 7 | 130 | 14 | 144 | 60 | 114 | 166 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 645 | 553 | no | no | 17 | all defensive |
| Round 8 | 140 | 0 | 140 | 60 | 282 | 0 | 0 | 192 | 0 | 835 | 553 | Yes | no | 12 | US,CH,Pk vs IN,RU,UK |
| Round 9 | 115 | 0 | 115 | 60 | -20 | -39 | 0 | 244 | 250 | 815 | 519 | yes | no | 12 | US,CH,Pk vs IN,RU,UK |
| Round 10 | 150 | 80 | 230 | 60 | 140 | 70 | 0 | 250 | 150 | 955 | 589 | Yes | no | 12 | US,CH,Pk vs IN,RU,UK |
| 1082 | 266 | 1348 | 590 | 1047 | 584 | 63 | 970 | 1050 | 153 |
| Group A | Tot MU | ToT Pus | Ch MU | CH Pu | Uk MU | UK PU | US MU | US PU | Pk MU | PK PU | IN MU | IN PU | RU MU | RU PU |
| Round 1 | 85 | 160 | 18 | 20 | 7 | 50 | 30 | 25 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 30 | 10 | 20 |
| Round 2 | 183 | 227 | 43 | 40 | 22 | 20 | 53 | 60 | 10 | 27 | 30 | 55 | 25 | 55 |
| Round 3 | 283 | 327 | 68 | 10 | 47 | 50 | 68 | 100 | 15 | 7 | 45 | 30 | 40 | 80 |
| Round 4 | 276 | 285 | 70 | 0 | 32 | 100 | 70 | 85 | 28 | 35 | 43 | 10 | 33 | 55 |
| Round 5 | 342 | 326 | 83 | 50 | 48 | 90 | 88 | 115 | 35 | 21 | 35 | 5 | 53 | 35 |
| Round 6 | 387 | 531 | 99 | 111 | 59 | 136 | 91 | 166 | 38 | 71 | 60 | 40 | 40 | 17 |
| Round 7 | 553 | 645 | 126 | 101 | 89 | 171 | 123 | 196 | 45 | 115 | 100 | 5 | 70 | 57 |
| Round 8 | 553 | 835 | 134 | 136 | 87 | 201 | 115 | 236 | 36 | 145 | 113 | 20 | 68 | 97 |
| Round 9 | 519 | 815 | 150 | 71 | 93 | 236 | 131 | 226 | 17 | 155 | 134 | 0 | 74 | 127 |
| Round 10 | 589 | 955 | 175 | 6 | 68 | 326 | 106 | 316 | 12 | 130 | 149 | 10 | 79 | 167 |
| Group B | AU | IU | TOT | GRT | PUS | Net MUS | War Gains | War losses | PU/End | Cum PU | Cum MU | War | PU/MU ratio bal | Trading Part | War alliance | War Loser? |
| Round 1 | 80 | 32 | 112 | 50 | 162 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 162 | 78 | No | NA | 23 | all defensive | |
| Round 2 | 70 | 40 | 110 | 60 | 20 | 50 | 0 | 30 | 150 | 182 | 128 | yes | yes | 24 | Ch,RU,IN vs US,UK,PK | no |
| Round 3 | 90 | 15 | 105 | 60 | 165 | 77 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 347 | 205 | yes | yes | 16 | Ch,RU,IN vs US,UK,PK | no |
| Round 4 | 80 | 10 | 90 | 60 | 160 | 125 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 507 | 330 | no | No | 14 | all defensive | |
| Round 5 | 90 | 0 | 90 | 60 | 40 | 140 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 547 | 470 | no | No | 16 | all defensive | |
| Round 6 | 90 | 0 | 90 | 60 | 150 | 160 | 0 | 126 | 0 | 697 | 490 | Yes | yes | 14 | Ch,RU,IN vs US,UK,PK | no |
| Round 7 | 95 | 40 | 135 | 60 | 195 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 892 | 595 | no | yes | 12 | all defensive | |
| Round 8 | 105 | 70 | 175 | 60 | 205 | -152 | 100 | 248 | 50 | 1257 | 411 | yes | no | 15 | Us,UK,RU,PA, IN vsCH | Ch |
| Round 9 | 100 | 50 | 150 | 60 | 160 | -32 | 65 | 209 | 50 | 1070.5 | 439.5 | yes | no | 16 | Us,UK,RU,PA, IN vsCH | CH |
| Round 10 | 102 | 55 | 157 | 60 | 137 | -39 | 0 | 139 | 50 | 1394 | 372 | Yes | no | 16 | Us,UK,PA vs In Ru | no |
| Round 11 | 110 | 45 | 155 | 60 | 56 | -23 | 348 | 136 | 150 | 1470 | 349 | yes | no | 12 | US,UK,PA,CH vs In, RU | IN, RU |
| Round 12 | 125 | 20 | 145 | 60 | 105 | 151 | 0 | 104 | 100 | 1575 | 500 | yes | no | 16 | US,PA vs IN,CH,RU,UK | no |
| Total | 1137 | 377 | 1514 | 710 | 513 | 1034 | 700 | 194 | ||||||||
| Group B | Tot MU | ToT Pus | Ch MU | CH Pu | Uk MU | UK PU | US MU | US PU | Pk MU | PK PU | IN MU | IN PU | RU MU | RU PU |
| Round 1 | 78 | 162 | 25 | 20 | 3 | 34 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 28 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 30 |
| Round 2 | 128 | 182 | 40 | 45 | 10 | 16 | 23 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 30 | 45 | 20 | 55 |
| Round 3 | 205 | 347 | 43 | 80 | 32 | 38 | 30 | 60 | 30 | 24 | 38 | 70 | 33 | 75 |
| Round 4 | 330 | 507 | 58 | 110 | 62 | 62 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 35 | 43 | 110 | 48 | 100 |
| Round 5 | 470 | 547 | 83 | 130 | 92 | 86 | 90 | 70 | 70 | 16 | 58 | 135 | 78 | 110 |
| Round 6 | 490 | 697 | 87 | 150 | 101 | 110 | 99 | 110 | 79 | 32 | 52 | 160 | 72 | 135 |
| Round 7 | 595 | 892 | 102 | 180 | 121 | 144 | 109 | 170 | 109 | 53 | 67 | 185 | 87 | 160 |
| Round 8 | 443 | 1097 | 25 | 90 | 96 | 230 | 99 | 247 | 99 | 61 | 57 | 242 | 67 | 217 |
| Round 9 | 411 | 1257 | 25 | 45 | 85 | 287 | 98 | 320 | 103 | 60 | 49 | 280 | 51 | 265 |
| Round 10 | 372 | 1394 | 40 | 15 | 72 | 329 | 90 | 375 | 110 | 100 | 29 | 305 | 31 | 290 |
| Round 11 | 349 | 1470 | 26 | 152 | 86 | 423 | 91 | 520 | 116 | 227 | 15 | 3 | 15 | 145 |
| Round 12 | 500 | 1575 | 43 | 177 | 73 | 473 | 95 | 570 | 110 | 272 | 62 | 13 | 17 | 70 |
Book/Simulation2War and TradePaper
AssignmentLecture Outlines