Throughout the course of EC 415WX we have looked at a variety of different models to understand conflict. By looking at the various models I was able to come to the conclusion that all conflicts come down to the same driving factors of cost and benefit that they incur when associated with conflict. I argue that no matter the situation or model used, these two factors and the overall net benefit from a conflict will be the deciding factor for a party about to enter conflict and can been seen in my Reflective Essay presented here.
Throughout the course EC 415WX, Political Economy of Conflict, I have learned about different models and how they can be used to analyze conflicts between two opposing parties. Even though all these models are extremely different from each other one can see that all conflicts are driven by economics. No matter the situation that may arise between two or more parties they will always been driven and influenced by the cost and the payoff associated with the conflict. The cost and payoff faced by each party will vary due to different outside factors such as trust and monetary situations but will be the deciding factors for a party when contemplating entering conflict.
The cost and benefit model is driven based off of different preferences along with different influences from outside sources. A variety of factors can influence what the cost and benefit will be for a particular participant based off their past experiences, political views, and an abundance of other outside forces that can be both controlled and others that are out of a parties reach that may drive up or down the cost and benefit associated with the conflict. Whether these influences are positive or negative will be based on the preferences of the party participating and how they are affected by it.
Conflict arises everyday between parties for a variety of reasons, some more serious then others, but conflict nevertheless. It is an inevitable thing that happens over and over again, and for most cases the same reasons as conflicts have occurred in the past. History tends to repeat itself giving way for similar conflicts to arise even if they are between two different parties, their cost and benefit from a situation will be the same, leading to similar results that past conflicts have come to. Even if a situation seems unique there has most likely been an extremely similar case in the past.
Throughout the semester we looked at and analyzed conflict using the conflict model, game theory, terrorism, civil and intrastate conflict, and joint conflict models and have came to the same conclusions of how each party will act and what the outcome will be, all drawing off of the same cost and payoff that will be associated with each conflict. Although each model uses different rules and distinctions to analyze conflict they all derive their cost and payoff to each party based on the same preferences and influences, leading to the same outcome no matter what model is used.
The cost for a party involved in conflict, or what they must give up when entering into the conflict, is an important factor in the decision process of entering conflict, though is not as influential as the payoff or benefit will be towards a party deciding what they will do in a situation. A cost is almost always negative towards a side since they are losing whatever the cost may be when entering the situation, however the benefit can be both positive and negative for the party. Depending on how the other side in the situation decides to play and the outside influences act you can either both gain, lose, or have a mixture of the two. If both sides cooperate and show convergent preferences it is most likely they will both receive a positive gain from the situation. On the other hand, if one side shows divergent preferences and goes against the opposing side they will gain while the opponent loses. Lastly, if both sides disagree and display malevolent preferences towards each other they both may lose in the situation, putting them in a worse situation than before. This unreliability of payoffs will drive most sides to try and force a desired payoff, though driving up their cost in the process.
By applying all of these variables together we can look at virtually any model and analyze why the outcome came to be what it was. The cost to benefit ratio is the easiest key to use in understanding an outcome, the higher the cost with low benefit will leave the player at a negative net benefit, thus making the conflict not a feasible action, where on the other hand if the party faces low cost with high benefit they will be more inclined to enter conflict. This can be shown through an example of airport security between tow different nation looking to protect themselves from terrorist attacks (Artifact 5). A country wanting high security will most likely face high cost in seeking to provide the desired security, or benefit. Their benefit from providing high security though will rely on the other country to provide the same level of security though. If one country does not apply the same level of security they will gain the added benefit from the country providing security at no additional cost, making their net benefit positive. However the country that provided they high security gains a negative net benefit since they do not receive the same added security from the other country.
In this situation both countries get security, though since one country does not apply the same the same level the other country loses. The only way to over come this lose is to establish trust or rules with the other country that they will provide the same level of security. By doing so both sides now get the same positive net benefit and infer the same cost in the situation. Trust or treaties between two parties is enough to overpower all other outside factors in a situation so that it may come to the same resolution every time it is played out (Artifact 2). Also by having trust two sides are able to cut down on cost and increase benefit that comes from the situation by not having to worry about outside forces and having the reliability of what the outcome of the situation will be.
Although human behavior is unpredictable, we can still predict with much accuracy how a party will react during a situation involving conflict. Based on the cost and benefit that will be applied to the party, along with preferences and trust displayed by both parties involved in the conflict, we can make assumptions and conclusions as to how a side will act in a conflict. History repeats itself and the same problems that were raised in the past tend to arise again with the same outcomes as before. Though when it comes down to it, all conflicts will come down to the same two driving factors, the cost and benefit faced by the party. And as we discovered in class, economics is the root of all conflict.
Work Cited
Anderton, C. H., & Carter, J. R. (2009). Principles of Conflict Economics, A Primer for Social Scientist . New York, United States: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, Taylor., Artifact 2.
Kennedy, Taylor., Artifact 4.
Kennedy, Taylor., Artifact 5.