Uncertainty in crisis bargaining with multiple policy options

Abstract

Formal models commonly characterize interstate bargaining as dichotomous, ending in either war or peace. But there are many forms of coercion—including supporting rebel groups, sanctions, and cyberattacks. How does the availability of intermediate policy options affect the incidence of war and peace? We present an analysis of crisis bargaining models with intermediate policy options that challenges conventional results about the relationship between private information and negotiation outcomes. In our “flexible‐response” modeling framework, unlike in traditional crisis bargaining models, we find that greater private war payoffs may be associated with a lower probability of war or worse settlement values. When intermediate options are available, the relationship between the private efficacy of war and the private efficacy of these other options largely determines equilibrium outcomes. By utilizing the tools of mechanism design, we derive game‐form–free results on how private information shapes international conflict, regardless of the precise negotiating protocol.