Bringing Cooperation Back In: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Interaction

Abstract

In an earlier article (Crescenzi & Enterline, 2001), we developed a formal, dynamic model of the cooperative and conflictual dimensions central to interstate relationships. However, the empirical data employed as inputs into the original model informed only the model's conflictual dimension. Here, we operationalize the conflictual and cooperative dimensions of the model, with the latter derived by inputting information on joint participation in intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) for the period 1965—2000. Doing so enables us to trace the joint cooperative—conflictual temporal trajectories of interstate dyads, in addition to capturing the degree and dynamism of these relationships. We demonstrate the flexibility and practicality of the model-derived empirical indicators of interstate interaction with an analysis of dyadic interstate conflict. Our dynamic approach to studying interstate relationships promises to facilitate fruitful contributions to several research agendas in comparative politics and international relations.

Strategic Interaction and the Iran–Iraq War: Lessons to Learn for Future Engagement?

“…And while the final period showed residual cooperation of the side of Iraq, once the revolutionary government continued to ferment discontent and domestic instability within the Shi‘a majority, Iraq quickly began to reciprocate the hostile interaction it received, and continued escalating to the precipice of war in 1980. These findings all point to support for extant literature from the IR field (including Axelrod, ; Crescenzi et al, ; Ward, ) and the applicability of reciprocity characterizing relations between Iran and Iraq.…”

“…This extends from the findings of Goertz et al () and Hensel et al (), providing initial support that more recent interaction is more important than historical. This is particularly the case when considering the cyclical nature of relations between Iran and Iraq, and provides support to the argument of Crescenzi et al () that the timing (recent) of events is important.…”

Reliability, Reputation, and Alliance Formation1

“…Where states share a number of mutual alliance partners, their likelihood of allying with one another should increase given the overlap of their foreign policy preferences. Lastly, the Interstate Interaction Score (IIS) measures past conflict and cooperation more broadly (Crescenzi et al 2008). Rather than assessing alliance behavior, the IIS assesses the overall tenor of the conflictual or cooperative relationship between i and j.…”

“…10 10 See Crescenzi, Enterline and Long (2008) for a detailed discussion of the structure of this model as well as the bounding function. …”

Reputation and Interstate Conflict

“…8 8 See Crescenzi, Enterline, and Long (2006) for a detailed description of the modified measure. Change in joint IGO membership is adjusted for the size of each IGO such that joint membership in an IGO has a decreasing cooperative impact relative to the size of the IGO.…”