Chapter 1 Introduction
1.3 Argument and Hypotheses
However, globalization is a highly complicated concept. Therefore, scholars usually divide this process into a number of indexes and discuss them separately. According to Gygli, Haelg, Potrafke and Sturm (2019) three major types can be identified, namely, political, economic and social. Each of them may have distinct impact on the sanction outcome.
As it was said earlier, an increase in globalization index actually shows the number of those connections among sender and target states. Ties can be created by all types of globalization.
Nevertheless, the greatest number of ties and platforms established is shown by the political globalization index. Such variables as number international political institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGO), treaties singed, investments made and others, directly represent the number of institutions for cooperation or indirectly indicate that such platforms will be created due to the need to conduct further discussions for better interactions.
Economic and social indexes may assist in ties creation as well. Although some measurements intersect with political globalization. Number of economic and trade partnerships, social and interpersonal interactions require a great amount of political contacts, which are being established by political index. Hence, an assumption is that globalization may mainly have an inference with the sanction effectiveness via the political globalization level.
1.3 Argument and Hypotheses
The world is a system where everything is becoming linked with each other. In recent decades, an irreversible process of globalization has been boosted this interaction, which means the global process of integration and unification of the economic, political, religious and cultural aspects of society. During this process, states unite and create various international organizations, via which they can communicate in order to resolve various world problems.
The relevance of this problem lies in the fact that the process of globalization and integration continuously covers all countries so that ultimately this can lead to the state where issues in a Country A will directly or indirectly affect Country B. Due to the globalization process the world is becoming more connected. Everything that happens daily in individual states is reflected throughout the world.
‧
If globalization increases the dependence within international community, and sanctions not only affect target, but other players, as well as a sender, then the globalization index variable might have some kind of effect on sanctions and their result. The purpose of this paper is to look at different mechanisms of globalization and how it correlates with the effectiveness of sanctions. In a nut shell, I would like to concentrate more on three types of globalization: 1. economic; 2.
political; 3. social. This division into major groups was also made by Gygli, Haelg, Potrafke and Sturm (2019), who worked on the creation of the KOF (Swiss Economic Institute) dataset used in the research.
Other types of globalization will be tested as well, however, they will be considered to be part of the abovementioned groups.
Dividing the above-mentioned variable into three is highly important. The concept of globalization on its own is extremely complicated and consists of various dimensions (namely, political, economic and social). Each of them influences a connection level among parties by improving it, nevertheless, the increase happens via different spheres. Additionally, when assessing the globalization index scholars usually divide it into these categories, because each type of this concept creates a unique context. Therefore, political globalization creates an influence mainly via political institutions, social focuses more on social and psychological circumstances in the targeted society, and economic via economic structures (Duzcu, 2019).
Sanctions are a double edge sword tool, they influence both a sender and a target and lead to negative consequences in both nations. As the ties among countries increase due to the globalization variable, the connection also grows, thus, it may manifest itself in higher costs for both parties to curtail their communication and decreases a likelihood of sanctions threat or imposition.
First, according to sanctions literature there are many variables which correlates with the outcome of the coercive tool under discussion. At the same time those measurements can be linked to a certain type of globalization and closely interact with it. Here I will briefly mention those variables and their connection to globalization, and will discuss it in more detail in Chapter II. For the political globalization index these variables are: target’s relationship with third parties
‧
relationship between parties (discussed by Hufbauer et al., 2007 and Drezner, 1998); regime type (discussed by Brooks, 2002 and Allen, 2005); presence of veto players (discussed by Jeong and Peksen, 2019); opportunity cost and future conflict (discussed by Drezner, 2001).As far as economic globalization is concerned, these measurements are: economic help from third parties and target’s allies (discussed by Hufbauer et al., 2007); target’s economic costs (discussed by Drury,1998 and Bapat, Heinrich, Kobayashi and Morgan, 2013); presence of restrictions to global banking assets (discussed by Rosenberg et al., 2016); impact of sanctions-busting (discussed by Early, 2011).
For the social globalization relevant variables are: presence of humanitarian issues (discussed by Pierce, 1996); public attitude toward sanctions (discussed by Pape, 1996); whether there is in-country social and political instability or not (discussed by Hufbauer et al., 2007).
Second, it has to be mentioned that the political globalization index might have a higher impact on sanctions outcome. Based on the previous studies it can happen because globalization is highly connected with politics. Furthermore, some variables from other types of globalization affect political globalization (Gygli, Haelg, Potrafke and Sturm, 2019). Also based on the literature mentioned above such variables as access to global banking; sanctions-busting; presence of ally’s economic help; public opinion regarding sanctions can be linked to the political globalization, for instance, to number of mutual treaties singed and number of diplomatic ties measurements, which in their turn are the parts of the KOF political globalization index. All of the aforementioned phenomena create more ties between Sender and Target. Thus, it is the above-mentioned index, which may influence sanctions effectiveness the most. Also, it leads to the higher likelihood that globalization will have an effect on the outcome variable via the political index.
Third, political globalization increases an interaction with international organizations and institutes. Neuenkirch and Neumeier (2015) found that sanctions used by international organizations (the UN (United Nations) in this case), have much higher influence on countries economic growth and longer lasting effect, rather than sanctions implemented by a state (the US).
That being said, the influence of international organizations is profound. Because the level of
‧
globalization type may improve Target’s image in various institutions, making the possibility of deflecting sanctions higher.Additionally, I would like to mention the ways how globalization allows states to create a linkage via which actors communicate, and there are several issues why globalization can correlate with sanctions outcome. First, the index represents the number of ties of a target with a sender. If there are many platforms to establish a dialogue, countries will be more willing and will have more means for interaction with other nations. A better communication may lower the number of issues and circumstances, under which Sender has no other option but to implement sanctions.
Second, better communication is a powerful tool for improving trust. With a higher level of trust actors might be more incline towards a peaceful means of conflict resolution, because coercive actions will possibly be seen as a threat, which will negatively affect the trust level.
Third, because of the presence of different treaties, political, economic and socio-cultural missions, the degree of mutual dependency is going to be higher, due to this reason costs for violation any types of ties or changing the existing game rules by force may inflict more damage rather than provide more benefits to a sender. Thus, relative costs will negatively correlate with a probability of sanctions usage. States will be less tempted to use such a coercive measure as sanctions unless they executed other more peaceful tools.
All of these reasons show that globalization and its consequences of increasing level of interaction between states leads to the probable conclusion that a correlation sanctions effectiveness and globalization level may exist. As this index has been scarlessly researched a look on this variable may be needed. On top of that scholars on sanctions related literature convinced that assessing different variables separately is needed as there are too many factors, which affect or may affect this particular linkage (Bapat, Heinrich, Kobayashi and Morgan, 2013).
In sum, because political globalization can: 1. increase number of ties; 2. improves trust; and 3. raises political costs of executing sanctions, so I expect that with a spike in a target states’ degree of political globalization, the chances for a negative outcome for a target will be lower. However, economic and social globalizations cannot do the same improvements. It can be assumed due to
‧
consequently, I expect that target states’ degrees of economic and social globalization will not have clear impacts on sanction outcomes. It happens because of the following points. Firstly, social variable is poorly researched by the IPE scientists, it may mean that the measurement was found insignificant. Secondly, economic globalization in its turn is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, due to the higher costs for a target, it is more likely that it will accept sender’s demands. On the other hand, sender becomes more reluctant to impose sanctions, as his costs are also high.Although, the globalization indexes increase happens hand by hand, and some variables from different globalization types affect the growth of other types.
Thus, if my argument is true, I should be able to verify the following four hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Target states’ degree of economic globalization does not have significant influence on their probability of concession.
Hypothesis 2: Target states’ degree of social globalization does not have significant influence on their probability of concession.
Hypothesis 3: Target states’ who have higher degree of political globalization will be less likely to make concession when being sanctioned.
In the next section, I will talk about how I plan to verify the above three hypotheses.