The Global Cooperation Problem

 Blake Burchill

3/22/2022

Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy

Kenneth Oye

The Global Cooperation Problem 

In international politics, cooperation is essential for the well-being of all the states involved. In times of prosperity and peace, it is easy for states to cooperate with each other and make it so all parties stay at peace and also benefit economically. However, cooperation is much more important when there is anarchy. As stated by the article, “Relations among states are marked by war and concert, arms races and arms control, trade wars and tariff truces, financial panics and rescues, competitive devaluation and monetary stabilization”. When there is a conflict between states, there needs to be cooperation or more problems can occur. While it would seem like almost every conflict can be solved with mutual cooperation, the shadow of the future and the payoff structure gets in the way. This fact creates a structure that will make it very difficult for cooperation to occur among states even in times of anarchy. 

The payoff structure plays a very important role in successful cooperation but it can make it very difficult for an agreement to occur. When two or more states are looking to cooperate with each other over a certain conflict, they expect certain payoffs for the cooperation to be worth it. In the case of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union cooperated and decided to not use nuclear weapons on each other with the mutual payoff being that the states did not get destroyed. Each state has its own intentions, and for them to come to an agreement, they need to get what they want while also achieving the goal of the agreement. This leads to problems because states will always want more than what the other state is willing to give up and this is why it is so hard for agreements to occur. If both states do not like the deals they were given whether in struggling economic times or in times of war, they will not agree. While the payoff structure can create cooperation, it can be difficult when states have distrust for each other. This distrust can be illustrated through the prisoner's dilemma. In a nutshell, the two prisoners are being accused of a crime and if they both admit to it they get a small sentence. If prisoner A blames prisoner B while prisoner A confesses, the prisoner goes free while prisoner B gets the full sentence. If both prisoners blame each other, they both get the full sentence. Relating this theory back to the Cold War, if the Soviet Union and the US both decided to get rid of their weapons they would no longer be in conflict which would benefit everyone. However if one of them agreed to get rid of the weapons while the other didn't, that state would hold all power. If they both decided to keep the weapons, war is now still mutually on the table which is the worst outcome. As seen through the prisoner's dilemma, distrust of the other's intentions can make it hard for cooperation to occur. “For coordination to be necessary to the realization of the mutual benefit, actors must prefer unilateral defection”. Even when anarchy is occurring and cooperation would benefit all parties, it is unrealistic a lot of the time. This is because why would a state cooperate with another when there is a chance they will end up worse than before. A lot of the time this creates a situation where the state would want to try and get the upper hand on the other instead of taking the risk. 

In many situations, cooperation can be over a single conflict at one point in time but many times states understand that multiple agreements over time will have to occur to solve any real problems. This is where the shadow of the future comes into play which can affect cooperation over time. While states will come to agreements over one topic and will achieve cooperation, it is hard for them not to distrust that the next agreement might backfire. It is much easier for states to cooperate when only one agreement needs to be made but when it seems like many need to occur, states begin to distrust each other. When it seems like multiple agreements are going to occur in the future, it can harm the current one. “The possibility of hurting each other in the future can hurt what relationships happen in the present”. Because of distrust of future intentions, it is very hard for states to come to agreements that will benefit them in the present. 

Comments

  1. Jack CahalaneMarch 28, 2022 at 1:45 PM

    I thought that this was a good post. In my blog I also talked about cooperation and how NGO's fit into this picture relative to IR theory. In your blog, you talk about how cooperation is usually unrealistic and give the example of the Cold War. How do you think cooperation can become realistic? In relation to the Cold War to today, do you think that dismantling all nuclear weapons will bolster or hinder cooperation in international politics?

    ReplyDelete
  2. IngridMarch 29, 2022 at 11:39 AM

    I also wrote about cooperation between states and I agree with you about how it is often unrealistic considering the amount of factors that need to be taken into consideration. I like how you outlined the prisoner's dilemma and it's role in cooperation well in a way that is easy to understand, and I especially agree with how you stated that multiple agreements are usually necessary to solve real world problems, which is why cooperation is much more difficult than it can seem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cassie LawlerApril 3, 2022 at 1:19 PM

    I really enjoyed how you put combatted the technicality and complexities of the payoff structure and cooperation mechanism by putting what you mentioned in terms of the Cold War, it certainly helped to increase my understanding. I wonder what changes could've been made or if the states had a better understanding of these theories if the outcome would've been different.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 4

                                                                        Paris climate accords The Paris Agreement, which required the United States to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a horrible deal for American taxpayers, energy corporations, and every single American who relies on inexpensive, reliable energy. It was also not ideal for any of the countries involved, therefore Trump made the correct decision by pulling out of it. The first reason it was a bad deal was its economic impact it would have on the United States. If the Obama administration's Paris energy restrictions were implemented, they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm to American industry, and a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035. The United States was also paying ...
Read more

Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane Professor Shirk POLS 170 May 4, 2022 Diplomatic Risk For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.      The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five ...
Read more

The Unintended Consequences of NGOs

  Cassie Lawler International Politics: POLS 170-03 Professor Shirk Due: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Blog Post #4 The Unintended Consequences of NGOs Non-governmental organizations are non-profit that operate outside of the government, are independently organized and run to further a political motive, whether that motive be in the realm of humanitarianism, labor protections, or environmental, among many other things. Although the overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are well-meaning with aspirations to pick up where the government leaves off and serve a purpose for the greater good, they are typically not as advantageous for those they seek to help as they intend. The major caveat among NGOs in modern society is that they reap unintended consequences upon creation at whatever community, national, or international level they require mainly due to the fact that they crowd out government services and impede the existing and future efforts for the cause. Unfortunately, this ...
Read more