Referendum, Response, and Consequences for Sudan : The Game between Juba and Khartoum
This paper presents a game theory model of the strategic interaction between Khartoum and Juba leading up to the referendum on Sudan's partition in 2011. The findings show that excessive militarization and brinksmanship is a rational response...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/07/9738591/referendum-response-consequences-sudan-game-between-juba-khartoum http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6816 |
Summary: | This paper presents a game theory model
of the strategic interaction between Khartoum and Juba
leading up to the referendum on Sudan's partition in
2011. The findings show that excessive militarization and
brinksmanship is a rational response for both actors,
neither of which can credibly commit to lower levels of
military spending under the current status quo. This
militarization is often at the expense of health and
education expenditures, suggesting that the opportunity cost
of militarization is foregone economic development. These
credibility issues might be resolved by democratization,
increased transparency, reduction of information
asymmetries, and efforts to promote economic and political
cooperation. The paper explores these devices, demonstrating
how they can contribute to Pareto preferred outcomes in
equilibrium. The authors characterize the military
expenditure associated with the commitment problem
experienced by both sides, estimate its costs from data for
Sudan, and identify the opportunity cost of foregone
development implied by continued, excessive, and
unsustainable militarization. |
---|