Bildtext får vara max två rader text. Hela texten ska högerjusteras om den bara ska innehålla fotobyline! Photo: B. Christensen/Azote
REFLECTIONS ON COVID-19
Conflict and collaboration in pandemic times
- Many potential conflicts have instead boosted collaboration
- Answers to why actors respond the way they do can be found in the extent to which they are already collaborating or stuck in conflicts with others
- Network analysis helps study patterns of relations among actors in greater detail
How network analysis can help understand why some actors choose to pick a fight while others want to collaborate
DISCLAIMER: This reflection presents insights that are relevant to the discussions related to both the causes for the pandemic and the solutions needed to build a more resilient, global society. Covid-19 affects all aspects of our lives, we want to help make sense of this tragedy, in empathy with all those suffering from it.
EACH TO THEIR OWN? The corona crisis arose quickly and unexpected. After an initial stumbling period where the magnitude and severity of the crisis was sinking into our collective consciousness, many governments acted swiftly with more or less draconian measures to stop or at least reduce the spread of the virus.
But did they act as a collective of collaborating states or more like individual countries left to their own destiny?
Clearly more toward the latter, at least initially.
How could this happen in Europe which is supposed to be a focal point for interstate collaboration?
There are multiple reasons why countries or other stakeholders resort to either conflict or collaboration. Historical ‘baggage’ is one. Uncertainty and fear are two others.
Tension over fish stock management
Conflict research has long distinguished a cause for a potential conflict from actual conflictual behaviour.
For example, multiple states with stakes in a common resource, such as a fish stock, might decide to join forces to protect the stock from overfishing. The relative success of the regional fishery management organization The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in reducing Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Southern Ocean serves as a good example of such collaborative effort.
But the Atlantic mackerel dispute shows how a similar setting could also spur states to engage in conflict. The dispute started in 2007 when Icelanders started fishing mackerel in their own waters. This was a point of tension for EU and Norwegian fishers whom believed that mackerel exclusively belonged to their quotas. However, their reluctance to revisit “total allowable catch” mackerel quotas fuelled Iceland’s discontent with the EU and Norway.
Such conflicts could escalate into navy vessels attacking fishing fleets from the other state, although in this case the conflict stopped before that.
Why they do what they do
As expected, there are multiple reasons why countries or other stakeholders resort to either conflict or collaboration. Historical ‘baggage’ is one. Uncertainty and fear are two others (it certainly appears so in the handling of the current crisis).
Assume state A respond to an upcoming crisis by closing its border to state B, and potentially also shutting down ongoing trade agreements.
How should state B respond?
If state B has well-established relationships with many other states, it might think it can ‘afford’ to engage in a tit for tat conflict with state A. B might even drag other states into the conflict.
On the other hand, if state A and B share strong and collaborative relations with others (states C and D), B might respond with much less hostility to avoid creating further unbalances in this larger set of states.
In other words, closing borders goes against the overarching collaborative relationships that connect states A, B, C and D.
Having many common allies would likely have prevented state A from instigating non-cooperative measures in the first place.
The role of network analysis
Discussions like these suggest that the answers to why actors respond the way they do can be found in the extent to which they are already collaborating or stuck in conflicts with several others.
This is where network analysis comes in.
Through such analysis we are able to study patterns of relations among actors in greater detail, how they relate to each other and others and how all this interaction expands into a wider net of actors and entities.
This can help shed some light on why some actors choose to pick a fight while others want to collaborate
Bodin, Ö., M. M. García, G. Robins. 2020. “Reconciling Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Governance: A Social Network Perspective.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45 (1): (online first).
For more information, contact Örjan Bodin or María Mancilla García below:
Research news | 2022-06-27
Sand extraction: the biggest resource crisis you’ve never heard about
Sand is the world’s most exploited mineral but little is known about the industry behind it
Research news | 2022-06-23
What's at stake at the UN Ocean Conference?
We asked some of our experts why all eyes are turned to the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon
Research news | 2022-06-23
Where to find us at the UN Ocean Conference
Where and when to find us during the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Portugal 27 June - 1 July
Research news | 2022-06-21
Ocean research lacks female leaders
In senior academic positions women are still struggling to break the glass ceiling, new study shows
Research news | 2022-06-20
Malin Jonell awarded for novel approaches to Baltic Sea research
Centre researcher Malin Jonell has won the Östersjöakuten award 2022 for her research contributions to the Baltic Sea
Research news | 2022-06-17
Concerns over intensive brackish-water aquaculture in eastern India
Rapid expansion of brackish-water shrimp farming may have severe long-term socioeconomic consequences, new study warns