In a thought-provoking discussion, economist and political scientist Chris Blattman explores the political and institutional causes of conflict.
Drawing from his new book ‘Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Path to Peace’, Blattman delves into the dynamics of power concentration, the role of technology, and the complexities of coalition formation in warfare.
He also discusses the changing trends of war over time and the potential for nuclear attacks.
Challenges in Predicting Military Action
Predictions of military action are often incorrect.
Political speech does not always reflect actual intentions, as politicians may adopt a stance to bolster their bargaining power, leading to inaccurate predictions.
I think there’s some sort of cost-benefit calculus that is at the root of all of these… the technology is going to change the costs and it’s going to change the potential negative externalities potential which is just another kind of cost and how much it blows back to you. – Chris Blattman
Competitiveness of State Systems
The competitiveness of state systems is a key driver of state capacity.
War is an occasional byproduct of this competition, but most of the time, the competition is peaceful.
Societies often revolutionize their technology and systems in response to competitive threats, even if these threats do not result in violence.
For me, the one that people talk the least about that strikes me as the most important is how concentrated is power in a country… it’s maybe the most important margin in history and it’s maybe the one that one of my tribes which are political economists think and talk the least about. – Chris Blattman
Organizational Factors in War Decisions
The decision to go to war is more influenced by organizational factors than psychological ones.
Decisions are made by groups or bureaucracies, and organizational errors can amplify psychological tendencies, such as processing insufficient information or succumbing to availability bias.
Power Dynamics and Warfare
The likelihood of a country engaging in war is significantly influenced by the concentration of power within it.
Countries where power is highly concentrated often overlook the implications of war on their people.
On the other hand, societies with decentralized power, termed ‘polycentric’, are less prone to warfare.
Technology’s Influence on Warfare
Technology can shift the cost-benefit analysis of war, making it a more appealing option for decision-makers.
For example, the use of drones can drastically reduce the costs and risks associated with warfare.
However, technology does not fundamentally change the decision-making process.
Complexities of Coalition Formation
The formation of coalitions and the destabilizing effect of many decentralized actors with the means of violence is a complex area of conflict research that warrants further study.
Allies can pull each other into war, as seen in World War I, where smaller countries dragged larger ones into conflict.
Changing Trends in Warfare
While state-controlled interpersonal violence is decreasing, violence between strategic actors, different polities, or factions with inequality is not necessarily decreasing.
War is becoming less frequent but more deadly, particularly when it involves nuclear powers.
Probability of Nuclear Attacks
The likelihood of a limited use of nuclear weapons in the next 50 years is extremely high.
Smaller countries like North Korea, Pakistan, or India are more likely to use nuclear weapons than larger powers like Russia or the United States.
Institutional Rigidities Leading to Conflict
Institutional or ideological rigidities often hinder compromise, which can result in conflict.
For instance, the absence of rigid red lines in Hong Kong has helped prevent violence.
Impact of War Veterans on Society
The most significant aspect of war veterans’ experience is not the exposure to trauma, but the organizational experience and bonding.
Society is less socialized into large bureaucracies and obedience, which could be a result of fewer people having military experience.
State Capacity and Conflict
State capacity, or the ability of a government to effectively administer its territory, can alter relative bargaining power but does not necessarily affect the likelihood of war.
High state capacity can be a result of historical conflict and can increase the variance of outcomes.
Nested Games Leading to Conflict
During fragile moments, small splinter groups, driven by their own ideological reasons or errors, can trigger a chain of events that are hard to reverse, potentially leading to conflict.
These groups, accountable only to themselves, can escalate a situation into violence that was otherwise likely to remain peaceful.
