The Relative-Gains Problem for International Cooperation

Abstract

Modern realism claims that the fear that others will enjoy relatively greater benefits frequently impedes international cooperation. Recent articles in this Review by Duncan Snidal and Robert Powell modeled conditions under which the impact of relative gains varied. Joseph Grieco criticizes Snidal's model as based on assumptions that allow him to avoid, rather than confront, the realist arguments. He also argues that Powell's model, while constructive, ignores important additional sources of sensitivity to relative gains. In response, Powell discusses the value of alternative assumptions about preferences and constraints in international relations. Snidal defends his analysis and presents an additional proof to support the independence of his central result—the diminishing impact of relative gains with increasing numbers of states—from assumptions of concern to Grieco. Both responders emphasize their work as contributing to a contextually rich theory of international politics that builds on elements of both realism and neo-liberalism.

An identified systemic model of the democracy‐peace nexus

“…28 Our results illustrate the necessity of facing these new situations by studying systemic conjunctures of mutual causation. Perhaps the extended debate between structural realism and its opponents might yield to a more fruitful discussion about which variables are usefully treated as endogenous or exogenous in an identified, interactive system (Waltz, 1986;Keohane, 1986;Grieco, Powell and Snidal, 1993;Polachek, 1994;Midlarsky, 1995).…”

Perverse Institutionalism: NATO and the Greco-Turkish Conflict

“…See Keohane 1993and Snidal 1991. For a critique of both, see Grieco 1993. On the relative-absolute gains debate, see Baldwin 1993. ized alliances such as NATO do bring greater transparency, functional differentiation, and issue linkage, they also introduce dynamics that, though not entirely unique to security, are more accented in that domain.…”

‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

“…The problem with the hierarchical mode, as laid out by Jørgensen and Valbjørn, is that it always involves an asymmetrical master-servant relationship, where one dialogue partner draws much more from the engagement than the other (see also Balkin, 1996). Dialogue in hierarchical mode is reminiscent of how neorealist International Relations scholars view international cooperation: as a process that yields relative rather than absolute gains (Grieco, Powell and Snidal, 1993).…”