Monday, September 1, 2014

Why States go to War

 - A paper I wrote in the Fall of 2013

Reasons for War

            War. States have gone to war countless times over the history of the modern international system, and well before this system existed. A Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz who lived in through the Napoleonic Wars, once declared, “War is nothing but the continuation of policy by other means” (Clausewitz). The Correlates of War has a typology of war that looks at the state within the international system. Focusing on interstate war, meaning war between formally recognized states; one can find many factors that influence a country towards war.  Of course, there is no single set of variables that initiate wars between states and therefore one has to look at many. However, in this essay, we will look at a few variables. In particular, this paper will examine Vasquez’s key factors relating to the onset of war, including, territorial disputes, rivalry, arms races, and relative capabilities among major powers.
            To start, territorial disputes can be a major cause of war among states. In fact, a majority of wars that are fought are preceded by some sort of territorial dispute (Packer Notes 2013(a)). When one talks of territorial disputes, it is only logical that a large number of disagreements occur between neighbors with shared borders. Indeed, between 1816-1980, excluding imperial wars, every interstate war was fought between neighbors (Small and Singer, 1982). Rival territorial claims between neighbors can lead to war, with unclear defined borders being a source of dispute. Though, it is said that since 1945 territory is less of a cause for conflict, territory still revokes sentiments of national pride and prestige (Holsti 1991). Perhaps because borders are now clearly defined in a large part of the world and therefore there is less disagreement among states over territory. However there are still wars fought over territory. One such example, after 1945 was the Falklands War between Britain and Argentina fought over the Falkland Islands. The two countries fought over a piece of territory, which evoked a lot of nationalism and pride within both countries. In conclusion, territory is something that can be a source of disagreement between states in the international system. Territorial disputes can also form rivalries due to prolonged disagreement, as we will look at soon.
Rivalries exist all over the world, in many facets of life, however they also exist between states in the international system. In the interstate system, it is understood that these rivalries can have an effect on the propensity for a state to go to war. Rivals can be defined as, “a competitive relationship between two actors over an issue that is of the highest salience to them” (Vasquez 1993). These rivals have sustained mutually contingent hostile interaction with each other (Packer Notes (a)). The data shows that rivals have a greater tendency to go to war, with further study leading to the finding that of principle rivalries, three fourths of all wars were linked to rivalries (Vasquez 2012). Furthermore, a rivalry can break out over a territorial dispute between two countries. If neighbors have a disagreement about a certain piece of land, it can become a longer lasting disagreement. A long term rivalry can form between the two bordering countries over a contested territory or border. That being said, enduring rivalries also have an effect on the probability of war, Vasquez shares, “war among states involved in an enduring rivalry is comparatively high… which means they are almost four times as likely to have a war than states that have only one or two disputes (Vasquez 2012). This can be further exemplified in domestic politics of two rival countries trying to cooperate. When one side cooperates but the other does not, the country that tried to cooperate and didn’t receive reciprocation is caught with the sucker’s payoff. We know that neither country wants the sucker’s payoff, and when two countries are negotiating, the one that doesn’t arm can get the suckers payoff (Packer Lecture 2013). So, if country A & B are rivals, they are both less likely to cooperate because if one gets the suckers payoff, for instance say A does, then there is a good chance the leader of A will lose domestic support of his/her own people. Therefore, cooperation is risky for leaders of rival countries, and rivalries can add to that risk because domestic opposition will surely hold the leader accountable if they end up with the sucker’s payoff at the rival’s expense. This demonstrates how difficult it can be to cooperate and mediate disputes between rivals, and so it can lead to war. Lastly, rivalry can take the form of a power struggle between two states; an idea that Realists mostly. However, this brings us into the discussion of relative capabilities factor associated with the onset of war.
            Arms races can occur between two states that may not even have the intention of initially starting one. This occurs because when one state tries to improve its capabilities, even if in a defensive way, another state sees that as a loss in relative capability for itself. Therefore, that state now has to improve its own capabilities in response. This leads to a spiral theory, an action reaction process that ends up in an arms race. Due to the fact that A tried to enhance its security, B feels less secure. This can lead to a higher probability of war because once the spiral starts and arms race, it can be hard to stop.
Major powers have a lot more interests at stake in the international system than minor powers. When speaking of relative capabilities among these major powers, there are two schools of thought. One is the parity school, which argues that a balance of power is necessary to keep peace within the international system, and that upsetting the balance of power can cause war. Due to the relative balance of power among the major states in the system, it becomes unclear who would win a war. There is so called “structural ambiguity” that results in peace within the system (Packer Notes 2013(b)). Balance of power theory leads to the assumption that there are two ways for states to balance out the system, “external balancing” and “internal balancing”. Internal balancing occurs when the state builds up forces internally, mobilizing military power and building economic and industrial strength (Levy and Thompson 2010). This can also lead to an arms race, as stated earlier, when one country improves security, it is viewed as a loss of security for another country which then sees the need to improve its own security. Conversely, external balancing occurs when states form counterbalancing alliances against an aggressor state or with the aim to deter a potential aggressor. External balancing and alliances have an impact on war, especially when taking into account whether the alliance is made up of satisfied or dissatisfied countries. Dissatisfied powers are more likely to go to war, because they would rather go to war than continue the status quo. However, satisfied powers are benefiting from the status quo and would like to see it continue. This leads to assumptions, for instance if any one state threatens to gain hegemony then other states will form a balancing coalition against it. In that way, balance of power theorists claim that hegemons rarely form. On the other hand, the preponderance school maintains that there is anarchy without a hegemon. A Hegemon is a country with such large capabilities relative to all others that it can shoulder the cost of collective goods. This state is willing to carry the costs by providing collective security and maintaining order within the international system, allowing free riders to benefit at the expense of keeping the status quo. So, in the opposing view, when one state has a large advantage in relative capabilities, it is able to deter any would be revisionists to the system, thereby keeping the status quo in check. There is no lack of information as to who would win a war, because the hegemon has such a large advantage in relative capabilities. This leads to power transitions within the international system that can occur when a country starts to gain enough capabilities to possibly challenge the status quo. Again, it is also important to understand whether the challenger is satisfied or dissatisfied with the current system. If they are dissatisfied, then they are more likely to go to war to change the system to their favor, so-called “revisionists”. Say for instance, country A has more relative capability than country B, but country A is slowly growing or stagnating while country B is growing faster so that country B will surpass country A in capabilities at some point in the future. The defender, country A, does not know whether the challenger is satisfied or dissatisfied with the system. Therefore, country A has an incentive to launch a strike, a preventive war against country B so as to protect itself before B can catch up in relative capabilities. So a power transition between hegemons, can lead to conflict between the two states involved, the defender and the challenger. Put another way, “faced with a rising adversary, especially a potentially hostile one, a state may be tempted to fight now, when it is stronger, rather than later, when conditions are less favorable” (Levy and Thompson 2010). Again, this all depends on whether the challenger feels satisfied with the system, many argue that the power transition between the USA and the United Kingdom was peaceful because the USA was satisfied with the international system. Conversely, the transition between the UK and Germany at the start of the 20th century can be viewed as a cause of WW1 according to preponderance theorists because Germany is not viewed as having been satisfied. So, a power transition does not always have to lead to war. However, when the challenger is dissatisfied, there is a much greater chance of war because they prefer going to war over the status quo. In this way, both the parity school and the preponderance school have differing opinions on what system perpetuates peace and when there is a tendency for war within the system. In the balance of power argument, if a state tries to upset the “balance of power” system in place, it will be counterbalanced against by the status quo.
Ultimately, there are many factors that influence and affect a state’s propensity for war. Both domestic politics as well as the international system play a part as leaders face pressures and signals from both. Focusing on territorial disputes, arms races, rivalry, as well as relative capabilities among states, one is able to ascertain when states may be more likely to go to war. Taking it all into account, the study of war is complex and tough to navigate through all the factors, as each situation has a multifaceted approach for all actors involved. 


Clausewitz, Carl Von . On War. Princeton University Press, 1832. Print.

Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989 (1991): 306-334

Levy, Jack, and William Thompson. Causes of War. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Packer Lecture. September 6, 2013

Packer Notes. War Typology. 2013. (a)

Packer Notes. Parity v. Preponderance. 2013 (b)

Small, M., & David, S. (1982). Resort to arms: International and civil wars, 1816-1980.

Vasquez. The War Puzzle. 1993

Vasquez. What do we know about War? New York, 2012.

International Political Economy of Foreign Aid

- A paper I wrote in fall 2013

International Political Economy of Foreign Aid
            Foreign aid has become routine among developed countries, used as a political tool to further interests or attempt to gain policy changes in less developed countries. Many factors play into the decision making process for giving foreign aid, and the goals hoped to be achieved also change depending on who is in power in the donor country. Overall, we must first study why countries give foreign aid in the first place, focusing on the type of country, its relative strength in the international structure, and the ideological view of the group in charge of the donor country. Next, seeing whether foreign aid can play the same role as resource revenues in the budget for recipient governments, examining how the aid received is similar to resource rents. Next, how economic reform, whether caused through the politics of foreign aid or not, can lead to political change in the recipient countries. Lastly, we look at how democratic transitions, occurring as a country moves from autocracy to democracy, can be increase the risk of conflict prone.
            Countries have multiple reasons for giving financial aid to developing countries, and those reasons vary as situations and the international power system changes. Not only does it depend on the relative strength of the donor country, but also the ideological position of the group in charge of giving the money. Policy goals can include supporting the internal economic development of a recipient country, getting external reciprocation from the recipient’s government, as well as promoting domestic businesses by strengthening commercial ties with the recipient government (Packer Notes 2013). First, looking at whether a donor country is a major power or minor power in the global power structure is important in determining what the goals might be. Realist security concerns are a genuine worry for larger powers and therefore the aid may be in response to some threats, seeking policy reciprocation from the recipient state. Conversely, minor powers are much less likely to have realist security concerns and therefore are more likely to give the aid with the goal of economic development if the recipient state. However, both large and small powers want to promote domestic businesses and thereby strengthen commercial ties within the recipient state. For instance, “Germany might give a recipient money, but only if they use it to buy German tractors” (Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, 2011). In essence, foreign aid can be a form of subsidy to Germany manufacturing. Next, the ideology of the party in power of the donor country factors into the decision making process of giving foreign aid. On one hand, globalists argue that instability in a recipient country is driven by an external threat, meaning some sort of group like jihadists or communists are behind any domestic instability. Therefore, the donor country, that may feel threatened by those very same groups, will want to give foreign aid to keep a ‘friendly’ or non jihadist government in power of the recipient country. This is also known as external policy reciprocation, foreign aid in exchange for a stable regime that is friendly to the donor country and will fight the external threat (Packer Notes 2013). On the other hand, if regionalists are in power, they view domestic instability of the recipient state driven by internal threats, meaning there is a need for economic reform or political reform. Therefore, foreign aid politics may largely be driven by the demand for policy changes to alleviate those pressures within the government receiving the aid. This promotes stability. Taking all this into account, there are many factors that play into the goals and decision making of donor states in regard to giving foreign aid. Overall, the domestic groups and type of state play an important role in this process.
            Next, now that it is understood why countries will give foreign aid, one must look at what role that aid plays fore the recipient country. Specifically, whether the aid can take the same shape and use as a revenue stream for a government as resource rents. Resource rents are extracted by governments who are able to control the resources within a country, say oil for instance. Since the government controls the oil, it is able to derive large revenues from the resources; it no longer has much of an incentive to tax its citizens. In this sense, the revenue stream is coming from an ‘external’ source, the oil, and not an internal source like the people. The government can get a large enough revenue stream from the resources to pay off its winning coalition without needing extra revenue from taxing the citizens. This has serious implications; first it means that if the government no longer needs to tax its citizens, it will not feel responsible to public demands of any sort. If the government is not responsible to the people, the country may experience political decline and overall less freedoms and protection by the government. Furthermore, a government will have no incentive to provide public goods for its citizens as it is receiving no payment in taxation and can probably stay in power through its winning coalition. This is especially true of a small winning coalition, in which case money will be spent solely on private goods to keep that winning coalition happy. Any spending on public projects is money wasted by the government, as it does not benefit the winning coalition, assuming it is relatively small, and therefore does not keep the winning coalition satisfied. In this sense, a steady stream of foreign aid can take act very much in the same way as resource revenue. The money is coming from an outside source; therefore there is less of an incentive or need to tax the people, very much like a government getting its revenue from a resource. This can be especially true if the aid is coming from globalists, those who are giving the aid in response to external threats and want to see a ‘friendly’ government in power. The donor state will not pay much attention to the policies of that government, so long as they support the donor state in its overall goal of stopping the threat. Put promptly, “political logic suggests that democratic donors are ready to turn a blind eye to theft            and corruption when they need a favor” (Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, 2011). An example of this would be the US giving over $500 million to the leader of Liberia and in return got support for US policy towards Libya and Iran during the cold war. Again, the leader, President Doe, “[gave] far greater priority to short-term political survival… than to any long-term [economic] recovery… President Doe had great allegiance to his tribe’s people and inner circle. His support of local groups on ill designed projects undercut larger social objectives” (Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, 2011). In essence, the leader used the funds much as a leader would use a revenue stream, on pork barrel projects that favored the winning coalition and paid little notice to the public as a whole. This is how foreign aid can actually be very much like a revenue stream, which usually does not play out well for the public and helps leave an unresponsive government in power.
            Economic reform can become a crucial tipping point for many regimes receiving foreign aid that leads to political change. As stated above, foreign aid revenue streams are basically interchangeable with resource rents. So, just as revenue streams from resources can be cut off when commodity prices dip, so too can foreign aid be cut off due to a multitude of reasons. If globalists were in power in the donor country, and then regionalists come to power, the donor country can start to demand economic reform in the recipient country in exchange for aid. Whereas the previous, globalist, donor country was not requiring any policies, now a new donor change can force a recipient government to start making economic reforms. The regime receiving aid has a tough decisions to make, it can either make the changes called for, which may result in political opposition, or face the loss of revenue from foreign aid, which also makes it harder for the leader to continue keeping his winning coalition happy. The reforms may include, devaluation of the currency or privatization of businesses controlled by the state. Both situations result in a loss of control over the economy by the government. Devaluation results in a loss of purchasing power for the winning coalition, which can be especially harsh if the winning coalition is in an urban area. This means ending the monopsony marketing boards that were keeping farm prices artificially low to allow urban citizens increased purchasing power. Once the winning coalition, or the public in general begins to feel the loss of purchasing power they will turn on the regime. Furthermore, privatization of business weaken the grip that a dictator has over the economy and therefore the leader loses another way he could have manipulated the economy to favor the winning coalition. In the end, a loss of revenue from foreign aid can spell disaster for many regimes that were coercing and coopting their citizens while benefiting the winning coalition with that revenue stream.
            Lastly, if the policy changes become political, it may result in a trend toward democratization. Although for westerners this sounds like a good idea, it actually has large risks associated with the process. Put another way, “during the initial phase of a democratic transition, states face a heightened risk of civil war. When authoritarian regimes break down, a panoply of elite factions and popular groups jockey for power in a setting in which repressive state authority has been weakened, yet democratic institutions are insufficiently developed to take their place” (Mansfield & Snyder 2008). Essentially, whether due to the economic reforms being put in place or whatever else is causing internal pressure, a move towards democracy in a previously authoritarian country is susceptible to conflict. Furthermore, if an authoritarian leader sees a democratic transition coming, he may appeal to nationalist or populist motives, which can be drive people within the country against each other. For instance, pitting urban workers against the rural farmers can lead to massive support from one side or the other, but there is also an increased chance of conflict as a result. Mansfield and Snyder find that, “incompletely democratizing countries are more than twice as likely to become embroiled in a civil war as a stable regime…” (Mansfield & Snyder 2008). In the end, this can be for a variety of reasons, whether because groups jockeying for power attest to ethnic, populist, nationalist, or sectarian roots to gather support, conflict can likely erupt over the struggle for power due to the weak institutions inherent in a democratizing country.
            To conclude, the politics of foreign aid are vast and have far reaching implications for the regime of recipient countries and for the people of those recipient countries. Aid is given for a variety of reasons, depending on the goals of the donor country and the type of policy initiative being undertaken. Ultimately, once it is known how aid can affect different regimes, and what policy changes entail for the recipient country, foreign aid can be better tooled and become more effective in its aims. 


Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Smith, A. (2011). The dictator's handbook: Why bad behavior is almost always good politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Mansfield, Edward., & Synder, Jack (2008). Democratization and War.