Malevolence Flashcards
Explain the thinking behind the malevolence model
This model also violates our strict assumption of rationality, and is in effect a presentation of the (neo)realist model. In this case players are willing to sacrifice income in order to make their opponent worse off. Such an approach could be reconciled with rationality if there were dynamic elements that meant that a weaker opponent today meant more income in the future. However, malevolence does not guarantee violent conflict either.
Explain the malevolence model on page and what happens as a result:
In the diagram points above, A gets utility from B having less income, and vice versa. So A’s indifference curves are upward sloping and points down and to the right are preferred. B’s indifference curve is also upwards sloping, and points above and to the left are preferred by B.
The UA curve wants to move closer down and to the right. The UB curve wants to move higher and to the left. When we start at some point E, both sides prefer moving to point W, where income for both are reduced. In other words, both would be happier to destroy the income of the other player and move to war.
Explain the second model on page 10, and why imperfect information alone is not enough to cause war, but when coupled with malevolence it is sufficient
In the text there is an additional assumption of imperfect information. A thinks that if it has a war with B they will end up at D, while B thinks war would lead to a division C. Even if the two sides could credibly communicate their minimal incomes, they would be unable to identify a feasible point that would leave them both better off than what they think war would bring.
Player A wants more income to themselves and less for B so it prefers anything down and to the right of UA, same for player B, so it prefers anything to the left and up of UB.
If you see, previously the indifference curves for A and B, even in a case of imperfect information would have resulted in a settlement on the green curve, but because they have malevolent indifference curves, the settlement opportunities are outside the PPF. Thus malevolence coupled with incomplete information causes war.
Malevolent behaviour is reflected in humans (in-group dynamics, evolving social divisions, identity-based discrimination)
While malevolence violates the assumption of rationality, it is consistent with actual human behaviour. It is common to picture ourselves as being part of different groups, to interact more intensely within those groups and generate rules or norms of behaviour, and to behave more generously with other “in-group” members of our group than other “out-group” non-members.
Social divisions can evolve to become far less cooperative, and in the extreme members of other groups can be demonized and treated harshly, even violently. Events such as past wars can harden these identity structures, creating not just incentives for war as illustrated in the malevolent war diagram, but also creating obstacles to peace by eroding the trust needed for negotiations and settlement.
Malevolent leaders may, of course, try to manipulate norms and encourage identity-based discrimination either because of their own individual preferences, or because it will enhance their political or economic standing.
