James Fearon
Encyclopedia
James D. Fearon PhD is the Theodore and Francis Geballe Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Stanford University
, known for his work on the theory of civil war
s, international bargaining, war's inefficiency puzzle
and audience costs.
Fearon's work on wars emphasizes the need to explain why rationally-led states end up fighting a war instead of bargaining, in light of the fact that bargaining can make both sides better off a-priori. He also elaborates on how democracies are better able to signal intent in war based on domestic audience costs.
His numbers-based approach toward complicated problems like war has received criticism from some political scientists. It has been argued that he ignores important sociological elements, such as culture.
Stanford University
The Leland Stanford Junior University, commonly referred to as Stanford University or Stanford, is a private research university on an campus located near Palo Alto, California. It is situated in the northwestern Santa Clara Valley on the San Francisco Peninsula, approximately northwest of San...
, known for his work on the theory of civil war
Civil war
A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation state....
s, international bargaining, war's inefficiency puzzle
War's inefficiency puzzle
War’s inefficiency puzzle is a research question asking why unitary-actor states would choose to fight wars when doing so is costly. James Fearon’s Rationalist Explanations for War and Robert Powell's In the Shadow of Power, which launched rational choice theory in international relations, provide...
and audience costs.
Fearon's work on wars emphasizes the need to explain why rationally-led states end up fighting a war instead of bargaining, in light of the fact that bargaining can make both sides better off a-priori. He also elaborates on how democracies are better able to signal intent in war based on domestic audience costs.
His numbers-based approach toward complicated problems like war has received criticism from some political scientists. It has been argued that he ignores important sociological elements, such as culture.