Domestic Constraints in Crisis Bargaining

TL;DR

This paper examines how domestic political biases and audience costs influence a state's ability to reach peaceful crisis agreements, highlighting the importance of resource division and political incentives.

Contribution

It introduces a mechanism design model showing how domestic constraints affect crisis bargaining outcomes and the conditions for peace.

Findings

Peaceful agreements depend on dividing resources to appease high-type sides.

Political leaders' incentives are affected by audience costs, influencing information sharing.

Political bias alters a state's expected war payoff, impacting peace prospects.

Abstract

I study how political bias and audience costs impose domestic institutional constraints that affect states' capacity to reach peaceful agreements during crises. With a mechanism design approach, I show that the existence of peaceful agreements hinges crucially on whether the resource being divided can appease two sides of the highest type (i.e. the maximum war capacity). The derivation has two major implications. On the one hand, if war must be averted, then political leaders are not incentivized by audience costs to communicate private information; they will pool on the strategy that induces the maximum bargaining gains. On the other hand, political bias matters for the scope of peace because it alters a state's expected war payoff.