Clarifying the mediation dilemma: A response to “Sticks and carrots for peace”

Abstract

This brief essay considers the “mediation dilemma” in the light of new analysis by Constantin Ruhe and Iris Volg. Ruhe and Volg’s analysis adds to our understanding of manipulative mediation in two important ways: (a) it demonstrates how an analysis that uses a lens of survival functions clarifies the policy trade-offs beyond what is possible from an analysis that uses a lens of changing hazard rates; and (b) it demonstrates that lighter (nonmanipulative) forms of mediation have a less positive effect on peace stability than in the original analysis. This response also offers important corrections to the conclusions drawn by Ruhe and Volg: (a) ignoring the lens of changing hazard rates misses key ways of testing for the observable implications that arise from the underlying theoretical arguments; (b) Ruhe and Volg misstate some of the theoretical claims made by Beardsley; and (c) almost all of the original implications explored by Beardsley remain supported.