Logo image
Rules for Dividing a Disputed Resource in the Context of the Classical Liberal Argument for Peace
Journal article   Open access

Rules for Dividing a Disputed Resource in the Context of the Classical Liberal Argument for Peace

Michelle R Garfinkel and Constantinos Syropoulos
Peace economics, peace science, and public policy, v 24(1), pp 1-16
09 Feb 2018
url
https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2017-0036View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)Open Access (License Unspecified) Open

Abstract

D30 D74 negotiated settlements F51 resource disputes C78 endogenous bargaining set variable threats gains from trade C72
In this paper, we study alternative forms of conflict resolution, both peaceful and non-peaceful, between two countries that compete for claims to a resource used to produce potentially traded goods. Consistent with the classical liberal argument, peace supports mutually beneficial trade, whereas war preempts it. War always induces countries to allocate resources into non-contractible arming (“guns”) for superiority in conflict. Under peaceful settlement, countries might choose to arm as well for gaining leverage in negotiations, but arming is typically less than what it is under war. Building on the observation that arming itself affects the countries’ bargaining sets, we compare the efficiency properties of division rules generated by three prominent bargaining solutions – namely, splitting the surplus, equal sacrifice, and Nash bargaining – and show how they depend on the gains from trade.

Metrics

9 Record Views
4 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Political Science
Logo image