Convention All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: International Studies Association URL: http://www.isanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p71904_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Lindley, Daniel. and Schildkraut, Ryan. "Is War Rational? The Extent and Some Sources of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p71904_index.html>

Lindley, D. and Schildkraut, R. , 2005-03-05 "Is War Rational? The Extent and Some Sources of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p71904_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: ISA 2005 Proposal Is War Rational? The Extent and Some Sources of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War A central but often implicit debate in the causes of war literature centers on the question: is war mostly the rational and Clausewitzian pursuit of states and groups, or is it primarily the result of miscalculation and misperception? Explanations for war relying on offensive realism, expected utility theories, elite manipulation, or pre-emption all tend to be rational. On the other hand, hypernationalism, optimistic miscalculation, and the Cult of the Offensive are miscalculation and misperception explanations. Most theories about the causes of war, and most arguments about particular wars, can be parsed into either the rational camp or the miscalculation and misperception camp. Yet few scholars have tried to give a broad gauge answer to the question: Is War Rational? In this paper, we perform statistical analyses to assess the extent of miscalculation and misperception, and to identify some sources of miscalculation and misperception. We ask: how many war initiators lost wars, how many states started wars against more powerful states (and won or lost), how many states initially won their wars, but got balanced against and ended up losing, and so forth. When Bueno de Mesquita wrote War Trap, initiators won 42 of 58 interstate wars (72 percent), leading him to argue that states generally make rational calculations when going to war and allowing him to justify his expected utility approach to the study of war. We find that war initiators only win between 59 percent (COW) and 48 percent (MID) of the time. Furthermore, the win rate of initiators has dropped by almost 30 percent over the past 100 years (from 77 percent 1815-1899 to 47 percent 1900-1997 in COW; 68 percent down to 34 percent in MID). If Bueno de Mesquita is right that high win rates signify rational decisions for war, then miscalculation and misperception is increasing fairly dramatically. The presence of joiners also affects the duration of war. Non-joiner wars (where initiators are more successful) average 387 days. On the other hand, joiner wars average 552 days in length. Finally, as one might suspect, high relative power increases the odds of winning - but joiners greatly influence the outcome.. For example, in dyadic wars where the initiators had a 3:1 or greater power advantage, they won 23, lost 4, and tied 3 wars. And when there were joiners, initiators with a 3:1 or greater power advantage won 1 war and lost 6 (COW, MID numbers are similar). Across all joiner wars I find that wars with joiners strongly tip the win rate against initiators, showing that we live in a balancing and not bandwagoning world, and that the presence and effects of joiners are a source of miscalculation and misperception for initiators.

Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War

Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War

Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War