Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:53:32.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reagan and the Russians: Crisis Bargaining Beliefs and the Historical Record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Russell J. Leng
Russell J. Leng*
Affiliation:
Middlebury College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reagan's view of how to deal with the Soviet Union is compared to the U. S. performance record in three Soviet-American crises: Berlin, 1948-1949, Berlin, 1961, andCuba, 1962. Reagan's public statements indicate that he views the Soviets as incorrigibly hostile, so that conflict bargaining with the Soviets is a zero-sum game requiring a coercive U.S. bargaining strategy. This is characterized as a “bullying” strategy and contrasted with a “reciprocating” approach. The two approaches provide competing hypotheses for an examination of Soviet responses to U.S. influence attempts. The study tests the association between types of U.S. influence attempts and initial Soviet reactions and then proceeds to an interrupted time series analysis of the longer effects of U. S. threats of force on the mix of coercion-accommodation in Soviet crisis bargaining. The author finds a positive association between specific U.S. threats of force and initial Soviet responses in kind, and between carrot-and-stick inducements that use less specific threats and more accommodative Soviet responses. With the exception of the Cuban crisis, U.S. threats of force have not been associated with significant extended shifts in the level of Soviet hostility. The article concludes that, on balance, the performance record of the United States is more supportive of the efficacy of a reciprocating strategy than the coercive bargaining strategy implied by Reagan's beliefs.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 338 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, G.Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missiles crisis. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M.Time series analysis: forecasting and control. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1976.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C.Intervention problems with application to economic and environmental problems. Journal of American Statistical Association, 1975, 70, 70–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B.The war trap. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Conquest, R.Present danger: towards a foreign policy. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Cook, T. M., & Campbell, D. T.Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis for field settings. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1979.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D.The theory and practice of blackmail. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1968.Google Scholar
Esser, J. K., & Komorita, S.Reciprocity and concession making in bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 7, 181–184.Google Scholar
Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A.Untangling the Cold War. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.Google Scholar
George, A.The causal nexus between cognitive beliefs and decision-making behavior: the “operational code.” In Falkowski, L. (Ed.), Psychological models in international politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1979.Google Scholar
George, A.The operational code. International Studies Quarterly, 1969, 13, 190–222.Google Scholar
George, A., Hall, D., & Simons, W.The limits of coercive diplomacy: Laos, Cuba, Vietnam. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.Google Scholar
George, A., & Smoke, R.Deterrence in American foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Hoagland, S. W., & Walker, S. G.Operational codes and crisis outcomes. In Falkowski, L. (Ed.), Psychological models in international politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1979.Google Scholar
Hopmann, P. T., & Smith, T. C.An application of a Richardson process model: Soviet-American interactions in the test ban negotiations, 1962-1963. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1911, 21, 701–726.Google Scholar
Jervis, R.Perception and misperception in international relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Kaplowitz, N.Psychological dimensions of international relations II: the reciprocal effects of conflict orientations. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of International Studies (Mimeo), 1982).Google Scholar
Kennan, G.Two views of the Soviet problem. New Yorker, 1981 (11 2), 54–62.Google Scholar
Kissinger, H.The White House years. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.Google Scholar
Kissinger, H.Years of upheaval. Boston: Little, Brown, 1982.Google Scholar
Leites, N.The operational code of the Politburo. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.Google Scholar
Leng, R. J.Strategies of influence in interstate conflict. In Singer, J. D. (Ed.), The correlates of war II. New York: Free Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Leng, R. J.When will they ever learn? coercive bargaining in recurrent crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1983, 27, 379–419.Google Scholar
Leng, R. J., & Gochman, C. S.Dangerous disputes: a study of conflict behavior and war. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 25, 64–87.Google Scholar
Leng, R. J., & Singer, J. D.Toward a multitheoretical typology of international relations. In Bunge, M., Galtung, J., & Malitza, M. (Eds.), Mathematical approaches to international politics. Bucharest: Romanian Academy of Social and Political Science, 1977.Google Scholar
Leng, R. J., & Wheeler, H.Influence strategies, success, and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1979, 23, 655–684.Google Scholar
Lockhart, C.Bargaining in international conflicts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
North, R., Brody, R., & Holsti, O.Some empirical data on the conflict spiral. Peace Research Society (Int.) Papers, 1964, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Pipes, R.Soviet global strategy. Commentary, 1980, 69, 31–39.Google Scholar
Rapoport, A.Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1960.Google Scholar
Rubin, T., & Hill, G.Experiments in the scaling and weighting of international events data. Arlington, Va.: Consolidated Analysis Center, Inc., 1973.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C.Arms and influence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C.The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, A. M.A thousand days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965.Google Scholar
Snyder, G., & Diesing, P.Conflict among nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Starr, H.The Kissinger years: a study of individuals and foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, 1980, 24, 465–498.Google Scholar
Tanter, R.Modelling and managing international crises. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1974.Google Scholar
Triska, J., & Findlay, D.Soviet foreign policy. New York: Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar
Walker, S. G.The interface between beliefs and behavior: Henry Kissinger's operational code and the Vietnam war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1977, 21, 129–168.Google Scholar
Ward, M. D.Cooperation and conflict in foreign policy behavior: reaction and memory. International Studies Quarterly, 1982, 26, 87–126.Google Scholar
Wilkenfeld, J., & Brecher, M.Superpower crisis management behavior. In Kegley, C. & McGowan, P. (Eds.), Foreign policy USA/USSR. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982.Google Scholar
Winch, P. F., & Campbell, D. T.Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. The significance of tests of statistical significance. American Sociologist, 1969, 140–143.Google Scholar
Yergin, D.Shattered peace. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1977.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.