Consensus Hypotheses and Conflict of Interest: an Attempt at Theory Integration

E-ISSN： 1469-2112|3|1|73-98

ISSN： 0007-1234

Source： British Journal of Political Science, Vol.3, Iss.1, 1973-01, pp. : 73-98

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Axelrod has demonstrated the equivalence of a measure of structural propensity to conflict, based on game-theory and applicable to certain types of social interaction, and spatial conceptions of policy agreement. However his spatial model rests on assumptions of interval status not commonly met by data from which consensual interpretations have evolved and against which they have been tested. The generality and rigour of consensual explanations of democratic stability can be enhanced by integration with Axelrod's framework. At the same time consensus hypotheses focus on a question left unanswered by game-theoretic formulations: why do democratic political games continue to be played by existing rules? Following Axelrod's recommendation to integrate conflict of interest with other bodies of theory, 1 this paper assesses points of contact between Axelrod's discussion and one line of consensual reasoning, extends the equivalence between conflict of interest and policy agreement to all levels of measurement, and details the contributions which game-theoretic and consensual formulations can make to each other.