The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fools Suffer Gladly: The Use of Economic Sanctions in International Crises
Abstract
A number of recent international situations have raised again questions regarding the usefulness of economic sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy. Sanctions continue to be applied in a variety of contexts, yet we have not developed a sufficient understanding of the processes involved to determine when, or even if, sanctions can "work." While a great deal has been written on the subject, there have been neither attempts to subject the theoretical arguments to empirical testing nor efforts to provide systematic theoretical explanations for the empirical results that have been produced. In this article, we attempt to address this shortcoming in the literature. We propose a theory of sanctions effectiveness that is based on the spatial model of bargaining in international crises and use this theory to derive a number of hypotheses regarding when sanctions should produce favorable policy outcomes. We then subject some of the derived hypotheses to an empirical test based on a large number of international disputes. The model suggests that while sanctions will not work in many cases, they can have a slight effect on the distribution of expected outcomes if the costs of the sanctions are sufficiently high relative to the values at stake. The available evidence appears to support these expectations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several theoretical arguments suggest that sanctions should not be expected to achieve their objectives except under very specific conditions.
“Second, several theoretical arguments suggest that sanctions should not be expected to achieve their objectives except under very specific conditions (Morgan and Schwebach 1997).”
From Economic Sanctions: Evolution, Consequences, and Challenges (2023) · cites this paper as Morgan and Schwebach 1997
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multilateral Versus Unilateral Sanctions Reconsidered: A Test Using New Data
Bapat, N. A., & Clifton Morgan, T. (2009) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00569.x · Cited by 230
Economic Sanctions: Evolution, Consequences, and Challenges
Morgan, T. C., Syropoulos, C., & Yotov, Y. V. (2023) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.37.1.3 · Cited by 177
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Morgan, T. C., & Schwebach, V. L.
- Affiliations
- Rice University (US)
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
- Venue
- International Studies Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-50
- ISSN
- 0020-8833 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2478
- OpenAlex
- W2109657820
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 21.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Studies Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Sanctions and International Relations
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Keywords
- economic sanctions, sanctions effectiveness, international crisis, international disputes, foreign policy instruments, negotiation outcomes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review