Political Science Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Political Science - Essay exemplarThe first quality is that the theory should beg off why interethnic relations are mostly based on tension and mistrust. The second one should explain why the results of interethnic relations are peace and cooperation instead of madness. Lastly, it should explain why in about situations interethnic relations result in genus Helixs of violence or sometimes in war. According to Fearon and Laitin, interethnic conflicts have claimed over ten million lives worldwide since the end of the Second World contend (715). However, the approach of many scholars to analyzing this situation is biased, especially while selecting the cases of ethnic conflicts. They focus mainly on post-Soviet and African countries where actual cases of ethnic violence are relatively fewer than potential cases of ethnic violence. In stray to avoid biased selection of ethnic violence cases, there is the need for theories that not only figure for causes of ethnic violence but also the outcomes of ethnic tension other than violence. The first are positivist theories, which refer to ethnic conferences as control stick forces that take or defend beneficial materials from others. These materials include education, crowd and state investments. In case one ethnic congregation denies the other the right to possess a certain material, then violence would result between the two groups. The others are mental theories that refer to moral principle groups as a satisf litigate to the need of belonging to a group. Therefore, in this case ethnic violence may occur if one group threatens the psychological satisfaction of the other. In addition to rationalist and psychological theories, game theories would be more precise in explaining outcomes of ethnic conflicts other than violence. Game theories consist of spiral chemical equilibrium and in-group policing equilibrium. Spiral equilibrium is where an individual action during the game is taken to be a joint action of the whole group. In this case, all members of group A punish group B members by-line unacceptable behavior from one member of group B. A single player from either group immediately triggers a state of complete breakdown of cooperation that once existed between the groups. On the other hand, in-group policing equilibrium is where one group ignores violating actions from the other group, assuming that the other group is going to take disciplinary action against the individual that caused the violation (Fearon and Laitin 730). In this case, a defection of a member from either group does not affect the reaction of the other group. Instead of members from group B responding negatively to members in group A because one of the members from group A portrayed unacceptable behavior, the game continues as if nothing had happened. In some cases, there is the presence of noise which, in this context, refers to additional defections such as drunkenness, misinterpretations or sudden passions. In such a case, the best theoretical approach to addressing ethnic outcome would be in-group policing equilibrium. In group policing, unlike spiral regime, punishment is only applicable to the individual responsible for a defection. The other rationality that makes in-group policing more appropriate is the fact that in spiral equilibrium members respond to a tiny loose in the same way they would respond to a serious