Anne E. Sartori

 

Associate Professor of Political Science and (by courtesy) of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences

Northwestern University

 

 

Mailing address

Department of Political Science

Scott Hall

601 University Place

Evanston, IL 60208

 

email: a-sartori at northwestern dot edu

phone: (847) 491-4017

fax: (847) 491-8985

 

I often forget to check my voice-mail messages. Please send me an email if you are having trouble reaching me.

 

Research Interests

 

Most of my research uses game-theoretic and statistical methods to understand international relations, with particular attention to international conflict and cooperation and to communication among states. My book, Deterrence by Diplomacy (Princeton University Press, September, 2005) explains why states often are able to use diplomacy to resolve their differences, though diplomacy is only “cheap-talk.”  (The book is available from Princeton University Press. More on the book below.)

 

I also work on developing research methods. I am particularly interested in methods for testing game-theoretic models empirically. (See the paper on selection bias below.)

 

Current Research

 

 

  • Chronic Wars. Why do a small number of pairs of states (e.g. India and Pakistan) engage in such a disproportionate number of wars? A dramatically large percentage of wars and other forms of militarized conflict take place between the same pairs of states, which the literature calls rivals or enduring rivals.  (See, e.g, Goertz and Diehl 1993). By definition, rivalries include the present-day's most recalcitrant conflicts; they also include some of its most serious, such as the relationship between India and Pakistan, both recent members of the nuclear club, and the rivalry between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Such rivalries are inadequately explained by current theory.

My second paper on international rivalry, “Leadership Incentives, International Rivalry, and War,” re-conceptualizes rivalry as an international relationship that is particularly salient to the “selectorates” of the countries involved (the group of people who have the power to select and remove leaders, which differs by country).  I argue that selectorates, like other people, do not have the time to pay equal attention to all of their countries’ foreign relations. War focuses their attention on a particular foreign relationship, and repeated conflicts and war with the same adversary focuses their attention further. I show that rivalries often are self-perpetuating because leaders have greater incentives to begin international conflicts when the relationship has high salience, and these additional conflicts further increase the salience of the international relationship. My explanation about why leaders are more likely to start conflicts in the context of high-salience relationships concerns leaders' incentive to retain office. A preliminary version of this paper is available here.

  • Reputation formation with partially persistent resolve. A key contribution of the theoretical literature on reputation formation has been to show that sometimes the weak or irresolute types will take the actions necessary to obtain a reputation (in some sense, undeserved) for being strong or resolute. There is a disjuncture between this conception of reputations and the discussion of reputations in the public policy sphere, which often suggests that the United States should fight over lesser interests to get a reputation for being willing to fight over greater interests. The authors who suggest that the U.S. should act tough and even fight to maintain a reputation probably are not trying to say that the U.S. is a weak type that should pretend to be strong. In this paper, I consider what it means for a strong type to establish a reputation. I argue that part of the disjuncture between these two literatures stems from the fact that resolve to fight is only partially a persistent quality. The paper examines reputation formation when a strong state is more likely, but not certain, to be a strong state tomorrow.

 

 

 

Back to top

Publications

 

Journal Articles

 

 

  • An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models without Exclusion RestrictionsPolitical Analysis 11:2 (Spring 2003) 111-138. STATA program to implement the estimator is in selection.zip. If you want to use this program, put the files in your Adopersonal directory and type “help sartsel” in STATA. Note: The most common problem people have with the software is that they forget to recode the dependent variables in the selection into one: Y=0 if the observation does not select in/is not selected; 1 if it selects in but does not go on; 2 if it selects in and goes on.

 

 

Book Chapters and Shorter Publications

 

 

  • “Who Wants War?” forthcoming in Gary King, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Norman Nie, eds. The Future of Political Science: 100 Perspectives, Routledge Taylor Frances.

 

Book

 

Deterrence by Diplomacy. Princeton University Press, September, 2005. Why are countries often able to communicate critical information using diplomacy, despite incentives to bluff? Why are they often able to deter attacks using verbal threats to use force? International-relations theory is largely pessimistic about the prospects for effective diplomacy, yet leaders nevertheless expend a great deal of time and energy trying to resolve conflicts through verbal negotiations and public statements. This book challenges standard approaches to deterrence by studying it as a form of talk. It stresses the importance of reputation and of honesty in establishing effective diplomacy.  The book argues that diplomacy often is effective precisely because it is so valuable.  States take pains to use diplomacy honestly most of the time because doing so allows them to maintain reputations for honesty, which enhance their ability to resolve future disputes using diplomacy rather than force. To do so, however, they pay a cost: they sometimes acquiesce to others' demands when they might have been able to attain their goals through successful bluffs.  The book develops its arguments about effective diplomacy through a game-theoretic argument, illustrates them using a case from the Korean War, and tests the resulting implications using statistical analyses.

 

Additional Working Papers Available for Download (Please e-mail me if you would like others.)

 

 

 

Back to top

 

Last revised: 07/08