Resumo de Causes And Management Of Conflicts (1) - Christoph Engel in: Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 159 (2003) 1-15.

From the days of the Decalogue on,these have been core issues of morality. And not all conflict is undesirable. But the advancement of the social and behaviouralsciences provides us with a rich array of conceptual tools for understandinginstitutional responses to conflict. The causes and the management of conflictspurports to fill the lacuna by offering a systematic cut through the richmaterial. An institutional approach to conflict pre-supposes understanding thecauses of conflict and normatively assessing the desirability or the damagingpotential of conflict The originating conflict is thussimultaneously one of interest, of identity, and of emotions. Not surprisingly,the economic theory of conflicts is therefore basically a theory of conflictsof interest . Another classic conflict of interests is about redistribution. Itis at the heart of classic class conflicts In the world of Adam Smith, the invisible hand of themarket turns individual selfishnes into social welfare The term refers to ex post behaviour of a party toa contract. In anrepeated game, the sameparties anticipate playing the same game again in the future. Conflict can then originatefrom the will ofone of the parties to builda reputation of being a toughfighter. This istheviewpoint of non-cooperative game theory. It addsto the listof causes for conflict: individuals can andwill strategically invest inbuilding blocking coalitions (Sebenius <1995>). They differ from individuals in thattheir counterparts potentially can observethe contents and theformation of thesepreferences. If so, two gamesare linked: the game inwhich the collective or corporate actor is engaged; and the game at theinterior of this actor, usually interpreted as a principal-agent problem.Seemingly irrational behaviour of the collective or corporate actor can bedriven by the underlying, internal game. The logic of<4> membership andthe logic of influence can fall apart (Schmitter and Streeck <1999>).In the first case, even the probabilities are known.In the second case, at least the solution space is predetermined (Spiecker gen.<2003>), and to group dynamics more generally being the cause of conflict(Sunstein <2002>). Those who believe themselves less able to gain fromevolution can try to impose conflict in the interest of preserving the statusquo ante. The current, violent resistance to globalisation in manyindustrialized countries illustrates the point.<5>The economic model iscontext free. The English language makes the potential for conflict evenlinguistically obvious. The language of normative discourse is values<8>. Thesimple presence or visibility of non-members can be enough to generate conflict(cf. Hopkins and Murdoch <1999>).The risk of such artificial, constructed conflict isnot so rarely increased by the very institutions introduced to manage conflictonce it breaks out. The adjective micro points to the fact that this analysisstarts from individuals. In the end, all life is biological (Anderson <1990, p.17-23>). The only thing that should not be done is mixing them within one andthe same argument.What has the pico-level to offer for understandingconflict? First of all, it allows to reformulate causes of conflict alreadyknown from more aggregate levels of analyses. In particular, the role ofemotions for creating conflict should not be overlooked. Spotlight analysis isnot likely to get the emotions right. The rational choice model rests on thedistinction between preferences and restrictions. Among the domain-specificmental apparatuses, there is one for situations of exchange. The cost ofconflict is epitomized by physical violence, sabotage and the violation ofproperty rights (in this volume Mnookin <2003>; Posner <2003>). The opportunitycost of economic activity in the shadow of conflict (Anderton, Anderton et al.This is the case if the cost of conflict is not entirely borne by those whoengage in it (Falk, Fehr et al. <2003>.Take the case of opportunism. For not prohibitingconflict legally is tantamount to implicitly defining a property right for theintruder.Moreover, the definition of outside effects is notstraightforward. Even if the direct effects of conflict are limited to theparties, outsiders can suffer indirectly. The higher the degree of actualconflict, the more this generalized trust is in danger. In the tradition of Thomas Hobbes, a more radical wayof asking the normative question would be more appropriate: why is the socialcontract incomplete? For this is what his thinking is all about. Violence isthe prime social concern. In this perspective, no justification of conflict isconceivable. At closer sight, even the technical inability to preclude conflictis inconceivable. For the whole normative argument rests on the equation ofsovereign powers and peace.

Resumos Relacionados