Journal of Peace Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Media, War and Culture

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, R.
Right arrow Articles by Spagnolo, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 6, 737-750 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343300037006005

The Prisoner's Dilemma and Regime-Switching in the Greek-Turkish Arms Race

Ron Smith

School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck College

Martin Sola

School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck College and Department of Economics, Universidad Torcuata di Tella

Fabio Spagnolo

School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck College

Despite intensive investigation, little evidence has been found for a traditional Richardson-style arms race between Greece and Turkey using regression methods. This article uses an alternative model of the arms race, which treats it as a simple repeated two-by-two game such as the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which each country can choose a high or low share of military expenditure. This gives four possible states: both high; Greece high Turkey low; Turkey high Greece low; both low. The strategies of each country, the choice probabilities given the current state, are then estimated using a discrete state regime-switching model, which estimates the transition probabilities between the four states. Various hypotheses about these strategies are tested as restrictions on these transition probabilities. One set of hypotheses is that the countries play `tit-for-tat', doing what their opponent did in the previous period. This is rejected for both countries. Another hypothesis is that each country plays independently. Each country has its own probabilities of switching between high and low, which do not depend on whether the other country is high or low. This hypothesis is accepted by the data. The estimates of the transition probabilities suggest that the states, high or low shares of military expenditure, are very persistent, with very high probabilities of staying in them. The estimates are not consistent with a traditional `external' action-reaction explanation of shares of military expenditure, but are more consistent with `internal' explanations which emphasize bureaucratic and political inertia.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?