The authors analyze a bargaining model of war that incorporates both commitment problems due to shifting power and asymmetric information. Four results emerge when both bargaining problems are present. First, in contrast to asymmetric information models, the resolution of uncertainty through fighting can lead to the continuation of war rather than its termination. Second, wars can be less—not more—likely to end in settlement the longer they last. Third, war aims increase over time as a belligerent becomes more confident that its opponent will grow unacceptably strong in the future. Finally, the dynamics that characterize wars in purely asymmetric information or commitment models should exist only when the other factor is absent.
BennettD. ScottStamAllan C. 1996. “The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985.”American Political Science Review90:239–57.
2.
BennettD. ScottStamAllan C. 1998. “The Declining Advantages of Democracy: A Combined Model of War Outcomes and Duration.”Journal of Conflict Resolution42:344–66.
3.
ChadefauxThomas. 2008. “Bargaining over Power: When Do Rapid Shifts in Power Lead to War?”Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
4.
ClausewitzCarl von.1976. On War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5.
FearonJames D.1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.”International Organization49 (3): 379–414.
6.
FearonJames D.1996. “Bargaining over objects that influence future bargaining power”. Typescript: Stanford University.
7.
FearonJames D.2004. “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer Than Others?”Journal of Peace Research41 (3): 275–302.
8.
FearonJames D.2007. “Fighting Rather Than Bargaining.”Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August30-September2.
9.
FilsonDarrenWernerSuzanne. 2002. “A Bargaining Model of War and Peace: Anticipating the Onset, Duration, and Outcome of War.”American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 819–38.
10.
GartnerScott Sigmund. 1997. Strategic Assessment in War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11.
GoemansHein E.2000. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
LeventogluBaharSlantchevBranislav. 2007. “The Armed Peace: A Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of War.”American Journal of Political Science51 (4): 755–71.
13.
OrganskiA. F. K.KuglerJacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
PowellRobert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
PowellRobert. 2004a. “Bargaining and Learning While Fighting.”American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 344–61.
16.
PowellRobert. 2004b. “The Inefficient Use of Power: Costly Conflict with Complete Information.”American Political Science Review98 (2): 231–41.
17.
PowellRobert. 2006. “War as a Commitment Problem.”International Organization60 (1): 169–203.
18.
ReiterDan. 2009. How Wars End. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
SlantchevBranislav. 2004. “How Initiators End Their Wars: The Duration of Warfare and the Terms of Peace.”American Journal of Political Science48 (4): 813–29.
20.
SmithAlastairStamAllan C.. 2001. “Issues, Stakes, and the Nature of War.”Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
21.
SmithAlastairStamAllan C. 2004. “Bargaining and the Nature of War.”Journal of Conflict Resolution48 (6): 783–813.
22.
VuchinichSamuelTeachmanJay. 1993. “Influences on the Duration of Wars, Strikes, Riots, and Family Arguments.”Journal of Conflict Resolution37 (3): 544–68.
23.
WagnerR. Harrison. 2000. “Bargaining and War.”American Journal of Political Science44 (3): 469–84.
24.
WittmanDonald. 2009. “Bargaining in the Shadow of War: When Is a Peaceful Resolution Most Likely?”American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 588–602.
25.
WolfordScott. 2010. “Leadership Turnover as a Commitment Problem.”Typescript, University of Colorado at Boulder.
