Hubbry Logo
CoalitionCoalitionMain
Open search
Coalition
Community hub
Coalition
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Coalition
Coalition
Coalition
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A coalition is formed when two or more people or groups temporarily work together to achieve a common goal. The term is most frequently used to denote a formation of power in political, military, or economic spaces.[1][2][3]

Formation

[edit]

According to A Guide for Political Parties published by the National Democratic Institute and the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, there are five steps to coalition building.[4] The first step in coalition building involves developing a party strategy that will prepare for successful negotiation. The more effort parties place on this step, the more likely they are to identify strategic partners, negotiate a good deal and avoid some of the common mistakes associated with coalition building.

The second step is negotiating a coalition. Based on the strategy that each party has prepared, the parties come together to negotiate and reach an agreement on the coalition terms. Depending on the context and objectives of the coalition, these negotiations may be completely secret or partially public. While some issues may be agreed on with relative ease, others may be more contentious and require different approaches to reach compromise.

As negotiation concludes, the agreement between political parties needs to be formally sealed. This third step includes finalizing a written agreement, securing formal approval of the deal from the relevant structures of the coalition's member parties and announcing the coalition details to the general public. The next step involves working in coalition. As the coalition partners begin working to implement their agreement, they will need to maintain good relations by continuing efforts to increase or sustain trust and communication among the member parties. Each party will also need to find a balance between respecting its obligations to the coalition and maintaining its individual identity.

The final step is to identify lessons learned. Regardless of whether it plans to move forward alone or in another coalition, it is important for each party to review and document lessons learned from each coalition-building experience. This will make it possible to get a clearer picture of the positive and negative impacts of coalition-building on the party and to identify lessons learned that can inform any future coalition-building efforts.

Coalitions manifest in a variety of forms, types, and terms of duration.[5] Campaign coalitions are high intensity and involve long-term cooperation. Federations are characterized by a relatively lower degree of involvement, intensity, and participation, also involving long-term cooperation but with members' primary commitment remaining with their own entities. Instrumental coalitions have low-intensity involvement without a foundation to mediate conflict. Finally, event-based coalitions are those that have a high level of involvement and the potential for future collaboration.

In contrast to alliances, coalitions may be termed partnerships of unequals, since comparative political, economic, and military might, as well as the extent to which a nation is prepared to commit to the coalition, dictate influence. Coalitions can often occur as unplanned responses to situations of danger, uncertainty, or extraordinary events, directed at interim objectives.[6]

Function

[edit]

Coalitions can be classified as internal or external. Internal coalitions consist of people who are already in an organization, such as a workplace.[7] For example, a trade union is a type of coalition formed to represent employees' wages, benefits, and working conditions. Without this unity between employees, workers may be subjugated to harsh working environments and low pay due to no practical regulations.[8] Often, organizations prefer to meet with members of their respective internal coalitions before implementing changes in the workplace to ensure support.[7]

In contrast, external coalitions consist of people that are members of different organizations who collaborate their efforts to achieve an overall objective.[7] For example, in order to prevent gun violence and advocate gun control, several groups, unions, and nonprofit organizations banded together to form the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. External coalitions base their confidence in gaining credibility on inviting unlikely partners who wish to attain the same end goal, even if the reasons to achieve the goal differ.[7]

Use

[edit]

Government and politics

[edit]
Part of the Politics Series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Syncretic
Major ideologies
Types
Leaders and organization
Internal elections
Party discipline
Party systems
Coalitions between parties
Lists of political parties
icon Politics portal

Coalition governments are coalitions of legislative groups to form governments. Most typical analyses of coalitions in politics deal with the formation of multiparty cabinets in parliamentary regimes.[9] In Germany, every administration has been a multiparty coalition since the conclusion of the Second World War – an example of coalition government creation in a parliamentary system. When different winning coalitions can be formed in a parliament, the party composition of the government may depend on the bargaining power of each party and the presence or lack of a dominant party.[9]

Groups of political entities can be called parliamentary groups or caucuses.[10] Fluid coalitions, which change with each vote, exist in the European Parliament[11] and Swiss parliament to pass legislation.

Pre-election coalitions due to electoral thresholds are also called electoral alliances.[12]

International relations

[edit]
Diagram of some international coalitions established by Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa: BASIC, BRICS, G5 and IBSA

The temporary collaboration of two or more separate parties with a set goal and common purpose can be viewed as a coalition in international relations.[13] Coalition competitions are represented in international political dynamics.[14] A coalition can be an ad hoc grouping of nations united for specific purposes.[15] Although persons and groups form coalitions for many and varied reasons, the most common purpose is to combat a common threat or to take advantage of a certain opportunity, resulting in the often temporary nature of coalitions. The common threat or existence of opportunity is what gives rise to the coalition and allows it to exist as all parties involved see the benefit in working together. Such collaborative processes allow the actors of the coalition to approach a common goal or accomplish the same task.[16] The behavior and dynamics of coalitions in international relations are created by commonalities and differences within the groups joining together. Rationality, group dynamics, and gender are all contributing factors of coalitional behaviors in an international security framework.[17]

Economics

[edit]

Economic agents can form coalitions.[18] When a coalition is formed around economic goals, the reasoning is financial. In economics, when two opposing sectors, such as a buyer and seller or two sellers, come together, it can be thought of as a coalition in the denotative sense, as the two groups come together temporarily to achieve a goal.[19] One example would be the 1997 deal between Microsoft and Apple. The deal consisted of Microsoft rescuing the then-struggling Apple with a cash infusion of $150 million.[20] Unions can be viewed as coalitions of workers, usually of the same job sector. When the agents considered are countries, the formation of an international treaty (e.g. trade agreements or international environmental agreements) can also be seen as a coalition. In economics, a coalition's formation and its stability is mostly studied using game theory.

Civil society

[edit]

In civil society, a coalition denotes a group effort or a population of people coming together who believe strongly in their cause. The term also describes alliances between civil society organizations, such as labor unions, community organizations, and religious institutions. In France for example, workers from different sectors and unions band together to aid each other in communicating a point. This coalition of unions is often very effective as it can cause massive inconvenience to the country.[21] The formation of coalitions such as the Community-Labor Coalition have proven to be an important strategy for social change in many contexts.[22] In social groups, a coalition often forms from private citizens uniting behind a common goal or purpose, sometimes within a coalitional identity. Many of these private citizen groups form grassroots organizations, such as the Christian Coalition, which is the largest grassroots political group in the US.[23] Activist groups in civil society are also viewed as coalitions for their respective cause. These activists are joined together by their belief in what they want to achieve or accomplish.

Military

[edit]
See also: Military alliance

Military coalitions can be built and united under a singular power by multiple states and governments. They are fluid in terms of membership – not only does a country not have to have been a traditional ally to join a coalition, but nations can join, vary their contributions and caveats, withdraw, and be replaced by new members as the situation changes or national agendas change.[6] The expansion of assets accessible to member nations to perform military operations is a crucial attribute of coalitions. In many ways, coalition warfare serves to make the crafting of a peace more difficult than winning the war itself.[24] An example of such a coalition happened after World War I during the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference, when the Allied powers attempted to reach a peace agreement.

Examples of military coalitions include the Coalition of the Gulf War, when George H. W. Bush ended Saddam Hussein's aggression in the Middle East by enlisting and leading a military coalition in the 1991 Gulf War's Operation Desert Storm[25] as well as his son George W. Bush's efforts in the Coalition of the Willing, a phrase employed during the 2003 campaign for the war in Iraq led by the US and its allies. A contemporary example is the United Nations coalition that intervened in the 2011 Libyan Civil War against Muammar Gaddafi. For coalitions to be effective in principle or in action, participating nations have tended to require a single overpowering threat – perhaps to freedom or a way of life or a crucial national interest – or the presence of a single despotic figure or regime whose continued existence is considered not only abhorrent to the generality of nations but also destabilizing to the region or world order.[6]

Mathematics

[edit]

In mathematics, the term coalition is linked to an equation which uses the coalition model for exponential population growth. This analytical equation was first published by mathematician Pierre François Verhulst in 1838 to allow for the approximation of the world's population at a given time by applying differential and integral techniques.[26]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Coalition

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A coalition is a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states formed for joint action, typically to achieve a shared objective while preserving the autonomy of participants. In political contexts, coalitions most often refer to arrangements where multiple parties collaborate to form a [[Government|government]], especially in [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary systems]] following elections that result in a [[Hung parliament|hung parliament]] without a single-party majority. These pacts necessitate negotiation over policy priorities and cabinet positions, fostering compromise but also risking internal discord due to divergent ideologies and short-term alignments. Beyond domestic politics, coalitions appear in international relations as ad hoc groupings of nations coordinating on issues like security or trade, exemplified by economic blocs among emerging markets. While enabling broader representation and stability in fragmented electorates, coalition governments historically exhibit higher turnover rates and policy dilution compared to single-party administrations, reflecting the inherent tensions of unified action amid competing interests.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Etymology

A coalition is defined as the act or process of coalescing, whereby originally distinct elements unite to form a single body or alliance, often temporarily, for coordinated action toward a shared purpose. This union typically involves parties, groups, or entities that maintain separate identities but agree to collaborate, as distinct from permanent mergers or fusions. In broader applications beyond politics, such as business or social movements, coalitions enable resource pooling and collective influence without dissolving individual autonomy. The word "coalition" entered English usage in the early , with the recording its earliest appearance in 1605. It derives from the French coalition, which itself stems from coalitiōnem (accusative of coalitiō), formed from the past participle of Latin coalēscere, meaning "to grow together" or "unite." The Latin root breaks down to co- ("together with") and alēscere ("to nourish or grow," from alere, "to nourish"), evoking the image of separate entities merging into a cohesive whole akin to . This etymological sense underscores the transient, adaptive nature of coalitions, contrasting with more rigid structures like confederations.

Theoretical Frameworks

Coalition theory in originates from n-person , where rational actors form alliances to achieve collective outcomes superior to individual action, often modeled as games where coalition value is the sum of member payoffs. This framework assumes actors prioritize , with coalition stability depending on the distribution of gains and costs. A foundational model is William Riker's size principle, articulated in his 1962 analysis of zero-sum political games, positing that winning coalitions minimize membership to just exceed the threshold for victory, thereby maximizing payoffs and minimizing free-riding risks. Riker derived this from empirical cases like 19th-century U.S. party formations and legislative logrolls, arguing that larger "oversized" coalitions dilute spoils and invite internal instability unless non-zero-sum elements like policy proximity intervene. Critiques note its limited predictive power in multi-dimensional policy spaces, where minimal winning coalitions form only 40-50% of observed parliamentary cases, per post-1945 European data analyses. Robert Axelrod extended Riker's approach in 1970 by introducing the minimal connected winning (MCW) coalition concept, incorporating ideological or policy dimensionality: coalitions form among ideologically proximate parties forming a minimal "connected" along a left-right spectrum to reduce bargaining friction and enhance stability. Empirical tests on Western European cabinets from 1945-1980 found MCW predictions outperforming pure size models, explaining up to 70% of formations in unidimensional settings, though deviations occur in fragmented systems with veto players. Bargaining models, building on since the 1980s, emphasize sequential negotiations where a (often the largest party) proposes divisions of policy or office payoffs, with outcomes shaped by patience, outside options, and recognition probabilities. In these dynamic games, coalition values vary by implementable policies, predicting surplus coalitions when ideological overlap yields higher joint utilities than minimal ones; simulations of 300+ European governments (1950-2010) validate that correlates with seat shares and agenda control, yielding stable predictions for cabinet durations averaging 1.5-2 years. Limitations include assumptions of , which real-world (e.g., post-election volatility) undermines, leading to hybrid models integrating elements.

Formation Processes

Preconditions and Incentives

Coalitions typically emerge in contexts where no single actor possesses sufficient resources or support to unilaterally achieve its objectives, such as forming a in parliamentary systems lacking a dominant . This structural precondition is most prevalent in multi-party democracies employing electoral systems, which distribute legislative seats in proportion to vote shares, often resulting in fragmented parliaments. For instance, empirical analyses of postwar indicate that approximately 70% of have been coalitions, driven by the inability of any one to secure an absolute following elections. Such fragmentation incentivizes among parties to aggregate seats and form minimal winning coalitions—those just large enough to control the without excess partners that could complicate . At the level, preconditions include ideological proximity and mutual compatibility, as parties distant in preferences face higher transaction costs in , reducing the likelihood of stable alliances. Game-theoretic models of coalition formation, such as those emphasizing based on party size and pivotal positions, further condition viability: larger parties often serve as "formateurs" due to their leverage in proposing coalition formulas, while smaller parties join if they secure disproportionate concessions or cabinet posts. Empirical studies confirm that coalitions rarely span ideological extremes; instead, they cluster around the voter or core dimensions, as evidenced in cross-national from parliamentary democracies where -seeking parties prioritize platforms over maximal aggregation. Incentives for coalition participation stem primarily from office-seeking motivations, where parties trade policy compromises for executive positions and influence, enabling governance that would otherwise be impossible under opposition status. Policy-seeking incentives arise when aligned parties can enact partial agendas through shared platforms, as isolated actors risk policy irrelevance; for example, in fragmented systems, joining a coalition allows smaller parties to amplify their voice via rights or junior ministries. Vote-seeking considerations also play a , particularly in repeated electoral cycles, where successful coalitions signal competence to voters, potentially boosting future support, though empirical evidence shows mixed outcomes depending on economic performance and internal cohesion. These incentives are amplified in high-stakes environments, such as post-election deadlines for , where the alternative—prolonged instability or rival-led rule—imposes reputational and institutional costs.

Negotiation and Bargaining Dynamics

In multiparty parliamentary systems, dynamics commence immediately following elections when no single holds a legislative , compelling parties to form coalitions to govern. centers on distributing cabinet portfolios, concessions, and legislative agendas, with parties leveraging their seat shares as primary . Theoretical models, such as non-cooperative frameworks, predict that outcomes reflect players' outside options, including feasible alternative coalitions, leading to equilibria where pivotal parties extract disproportionate shares unless constrained by ideological proximity or time pressures. Empirical patterns substantiate Gamson's Law, which asserts that executive positions are allocated roughly proportional to each party's legislative seats contributed to the coalition, as observed in datasets spanning European governments and beyond. For example, analyses of 148 coalition formations in 13 democracies from 1945 to 1999 found allocations deviating from proportionality by less than 5% on average, though smaller parties often receive a modest premium due to their status or intra-party points. This law aligns with office-seeking incentives but falters in high-uncertainty environments, where complex policy trade-offs or non-unitary parties introduce deviations explained by models incorporating rights and recognition probabilities. Policy-seeking dynamics introduce causal tensions, as parties concede on low-salience issues to secure gains on core priorities, often formalized in spatial models where ideological distance raises costs and favors minimal winning coalitions over broader ones. Experimental evidence from unrestricted settings confirms that stronger players—those with more resources or central positions—paradoxically face exclusion risks if perceived as domineering, a "strength-is-weakness" replicated in lab studies with human subjects dividing fixed prizes. In real-world cases, such as German coalitions post-1949, negotiations averaging 40-60 days incorporate detailed policy appendices to mitigate future disputes, though prolonged talks correlate with reduced legislative output in the coalition's first year, per data from 16 democracies (1946-2016) showing a 10-15% drop in enacted laws per month. Temporal and institutional factors amplify these dynamics: Caretaker governments impose deadlines, enhancing the formateur party's (often the largest) leverage, while federal structures or systems foster more fragmented , increasing the incidence of oversized coalitions for stability. Recent extensions, like Gamson-Shapley indices, refine predictions by weighting seats with Shapley values from , outperforming raw proportionality in panels of 33 democracies through , with accuracy improving by 20% over baseline models. Overall, these processes underscore causal realism in coalition stability, where enforceable agreements hinge on credible commitments rather than mere promises, as breakdowns often trace to unaddressed asymmetries.

Operational Functions

Core Purposes Across Contexts

Coalitions fundamentally enable participating entities to surmount individual limitations by aggregating resources, expertise, and influence, thereby attaining collective outcomes unattainable in isolation. This core purpose stems from the necessity to address coordination challenges and scale effects in environments where unilateral action yields insufficient leverage, as articulated in coalition formation theories that model agents uniting to jointly determine actions and maximize joint payoffs. Across domains, coalitions distribute risks and costs—such as financial burdens in economic ventures or operational hazards in operations—while amplifying against external opponents or systemic barriers. In political and governmental settings, a primary function is to forge majorities for , where parties or factions combine electoral seats or voter bases to enact policies, form administrations, or block rivals, as evidenced by post-electoral that prioritizes resource complementarity over ideological purity alone. This extends to pre-electoral alliances aimed at vote maximization through unified platforms, reducing fragmentation and enhancing governability in multiparty systems. Similarly, in and coalitions, the emphasis lies on collective threat response, where states pool , , and forces to deter or prosecute conflicts more effectively than solo efforts, with historical U.S.-led operations demonstrating burden-sharing as key to . Economic and corporate coalitions pursue market dominance or regulatory influence by coordinating production, pricing, or advocacy, allowing firms to internalize externalities and achieve that individual actors cannot, though such arrangements often invite antitrust scrutiny for potential monopolistic effects. In and advocacy domains, coalitions integrate diverse stakeholders to sustain long-term initiatives—like or environmental campaigns—by fostering task-focused , continuity, and participatory incentives that counteract free-riding. Mathematical and game-theoretic models underscore these purposes through payoff structures, where stable coalitions emerge when members anticipate net gains from over , as in scenarios balancing power indices and minimal winning sets. Overall, these functions hinge on credible commitment mechanisms to prevent dissolution, ensuring enduring alignment toward shared objectives.

Decision-Making and Governance Mechanisms

Coalition decision-making typically relies on formalized agreements that outline procedural rules, such as requirements for consensus or qualified majorities on pivotal issues like approvals or , to mitigate conflicts arising from divergent member preferences. These agreements, common in parliamentary systems, allocate ministerial portfolios proportionally to seat shares, granting the occupying substantial autonomy over in its while binding all members to collective compromises on shared priorities. For instance, in multiparty cabinets, the controlling for a given ministry often directs implementation without routine interference from coalition partners, preserving ideological consistency but risking intra-coalition friction if policies deviate from the agreement. Governance structures frequently incorporate dedicated coordination bodies, such as coalition committees or steering groups, to facilitate ongoing and outside formal legislative channels. These mechanisms devolve routine decisions to subcommittees or working groups, empowering lower-level actors while reserving strategic choices—like votes or constitutional amendments—for senior consensus, thereby reducing overload on top executives. Empirical studies of European coalitions indicate that such inclusive processes, while enhancing buy-in, can prolong bargaining and lower policy output velocity compared to single-party governments, as threats from junior partners enforce compromises. In non-parliamentary contexts, such as international or coalitions, emphasizes and within defined scopes to accommodate heterogeneous goals, though persistent power asymmetries—often reflecting resource contributions—shape outcomes more than formal rules. For example, economic coalitions may employ schemes akin to those in , where influence correlates with capital stakes, ensuring efficiency but potentially marginalizing smaller members. Overall, effective hinges on enforceable contracts that align incentives, yet breakdowns occur when external shocks or ideological drifts erode trust, prompting renegotiation or dissolution.

Political Applications

Governmental and Parliamentary Coalitions

Governmental coalitions in parliamentary systems arise when no single obtains an absolute majority of legislative seats, necessitating alliances to form and sustain a cabinet with the confidence of . These arrangements distribute executive power, including ministerial portfolios, among coalition partners who commit to a negotiated agenda, often formalized in a coalition agreement specifying legislative priorities, fiscal targets, and procedures. Parliamentary coalitions, a related but sometimes distinct mechanism, involve parties providing external support for stability—such as confidence-and-supply pacts—without full cabinet participation, though the terms are frequently used interchangeably for majority-forming blocs. Such coalitions predominate in nations with , where electoral fragmentation yields diverse legislatures requiring compromise for governance. Formation typically follows elections through intensive bargaining, where parties weigh ideological compatibility, policy concessions, and electoral incentives against the alternative of opposition or . Empirical data indicate coalitions govern in roughly 17 of 30 member states, highlighting their role in multiparty democracies despite potential for internal veto points that can delay decisions. In presidential systems, formal governmental coalitions occur less often, as executive authority derives from rather than parliamentary , though legislative alliances may still emerge for passage. Coalition durability hinges on enforceable bargains, such as junior ministers for oversight or side-payments like policy vetoes, mitigating agency problems where parties pursue divergent agendas post-formation. Germany illustrates recurrent coalition governance, with only one single-party since 1949; the SPD-Greens-FDP " held power from December 8, , to November 2024, collapsing amid fiscal disputes, succeeded by a CDU/CSU-SPD formed in 2025. The mandates coalitions in every postwar cabinet due to proportional elections yielding no majorities, as evidenced by protracted negotiations spanning 299 days to assemble a four-party . Israel's fragmented similarly demands broad pacts, with 36 governments since 1949 averaging 1.2 years each, including the ideologically diverse Netanyahu-led coalition seated December 29, 2022, incorporating right-wing, ultra-Orthodox, and select Arab Islamist parties to secure 64 seats. These cases underscore coalitions' capacity for inclusive rule but also vulnerability to , as in Italy's 61 governments since 1945, predominantly coalitions prone to early dissolution over irreconcilable demands.

Electoral and Pre-Electoral Alliances

Electoral alliances refer to temporary associations formed by political parties to contest elections jointly, typically by fielding combined candidate lists or coordinating nominations to consolidate voter support and avoid fragmentation. Pre-electoral alliances extend this cooperation by including public pledges to pursue joint governance if electoral success is achieved, distinguishing them from post-electoral arrangements negotiated after vote counts. These pacts are prevalent in proportional representation systems with high party fragmentation or electoral thresholds, where they enable smaller parties to secure representation and larger ones to amplify majorities. The primary incentives for electoral and pre-electoral alliances include maximizing seat shares under Duvergerian dynamics, surmounting barriers like minimum vote thresholds (e.g., 5% in ), and reducing uncertainty in subsequent coalition bargaining by signaling commitment to voters. Empirical analyses across 22 advanced democracies from 1946 to 1998 indicate that such alliances form more frequently when electoral disproportionality is high and the effective number of legislative parties exceeds certain thresholds, as parties weigh the trade-offs of ideological against exclusion risks. In presidential systems, pre-electoral pacts similarly facilitate policy alignment and legislative majorities, as seen in Brazil's 2002 Workers' Party alliance with centrist groups despite ideological distances. A prominent example is Germany's alliance, established in 1949 as a sister-party pact where the Christian Social Union (CSU) contests solely in while aligning with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) nationally, effectively functioning as a single electoral bloc. This arrangement has sustained dominance, contributing to victories like the 2025 federal election where they secured 208 of 630 seats, enabling coalition negotiations for governance. In , the center-right coalition—comprising , Lega, and Forza Italia—entered the 2022 general election as a pre-electoral pact, capturing a parliamentary majority with alone garnering 26% of votes, leading to Giorgia Meloni's government formation on October 22, 2022. Pre-electoral alliances enhance government durability compared to purely post-electoral ones, as prior commitments foster familiarity and lower risks; studies of Western European cabinets show those replicating pre-electoral pacts are significantly less prone to early dissolution, with 18.1% of governments from 1946 onward incorporating such coalitions and exhibiting prolonged survival. However, they can distort policy toward extremes if partners diverge from voter preferences, potentially undermining broader electoral mandates, though suggests net stability gains in fragmented systems. In Indonesia's subnational elections, analyzed across 5,048 coalitions, incentives drove formations that bolstered executive control but highlighted risks of policy misalignment.

Applications in Other Domains

International and Diplomatic Coalitions

International and diplomatic coalitions consist of states that temporarily or semi-permanently align to coordinate positions, amplify leverage in multilateral negotiations, and advance shared interests in areas such as , development, and , distinct from alliances by lacking binding defense commitments. These groupings often form around specific issues, enabling smaller or like-minded nations to counterbalance dominant powers in forums like the , where consensus-building and joint advocacy enhance influence without formal institutionalization. The (G77), established in 1964, exemplifies such a coalition, uniting 134 developing countries—representing over 80% of the global population—to promote economic interests through unified stances in UN negotiations on trade, finance, and . Operating alongside , the G77 functions as a negotiating bloc, advocating for reforms in and South-South cooperation, with holding the 2025 chairmanship in New York. Its endurance stems from ideological alignment on reducing North-South disparities, though internal diversity occasionally challenges consensus. BRICS, formed in 2009 by , , , , and , serves as a diplomatic platform for emerging economies to challenge Western-dominated institutions, fostering cooperation on multilateral reforms, development finance, and alternative payment systems amid geopolitical tensions. Expanded in 2024 to include , , , and the —bringing membership to nine nations— emphasizes de-dollarization efforts and joint infrastructure projects, though differing member priorities limit binding outcomes. The , founded in 1960 with 12 member states controlling about 40% of global oil supply, coordinates production policies to stabilize prices and markets, exerting diplomatic influence on and economic agendas through output quotas and extended OPEC+ frameworks involving non-members like . Its decisions have shaped , as seen in the 1973 oil embargo, but coordination challenges arise from internal rivalries and external pressures.

Military and Security Coalitions

and coalitions form when states align to deter aggression, conduct joint operations, or counter common threats, often through formal treaties committing mutual defense or resource pooling. These differ from unilateral actions by distributing costs and risks, enhancing deterrence via credibility, as seen in balance-of-power dynamics where weaker states band together against dominant powers. Empirical evidence from post-World War II alliances shows they stabilize regions when aligned with material interests but falter amid diverging priorities or hegemonic overreach. The , established on April 4, 1949, exemplifies a durable defensive pact among 12 founding members, including the , , and Western states, aimed at preventing Soviet expansion into . Its core mechanism, Article 5 of the , stipulates that an armed attack against one member constitutes an attack against all, invoking collective response; this provision has been activated only once, following the , 2001, attacks on the , leading to NATO operations in . NATO's expansion to 32 members by 2024 reflects adaptive responses to evolving threats, such as Russia's 2022 invasion of , though internal debates over burden-sharing— with U.S. contributions exceeding 70% of defense spending in recent years—highlight tensions in sustaining cohesion. In opposition during the , the united the with seven Eastern European states on May 14, 1955, explicitly as a counterweight to West Germany's integration, enabling coordinated military exercises and interventions like the 1968 suppression of Czechoslovakia's reforms. Dominated by , it lacked genuine mutual defense reciprocity, serving primarily as a tool for internal control rather than external deterrence, and dissolved in 1991 amid the USSR's collapse, underscoring how ideologically imposed coalitions erode without shared sovereignty or economic incentives. Ad hoc coalitions emerge for specific conflicts, as in the 1991 , where a U.S.-led force of 34 nations, including and the , expelled Iraqi forces from following Saddam Hussein's August 2, 1990, invasion. Operation Desert Storm, launched January 17, 1991, involved over 500,000 coalition troops and concluded February 28, 1991, with Iraq's retreat, demonstrating rapid assembly around clear aggression but revealing limits in post-war enforcement, as unresolved sanctions and no-fly zones failed to prevent subsequent regional instability. Contemporary arrangements reflect multipolar competition, with the (Quad)—comprising the , , , and —revived in 2017 to promote a free and open region through joint maritime exercises, vaccine initiatives, and infrastructure aid, without formal treaty obligations. Similarly, the pact, announced September 15, 2021, between , the , and the , focuses on sharing technology for Australian by the 2030s, enhancing deterrence against maritime coercion while navigating non-proliferation norms. In , the Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded June 15, 2001, by , , and Central Asian states, coordinates anti-terrorism drills involving thousands of troops, such as Peace Mission 2021, but emphasizes non-alignment and avoids explicit mutual defense to accommodate members' divergent ties with Western powers. These coalitions' efficacy hinges on verifiable commitments and aligned threats; data from alliance datasets indicate higher success in defensive postures against revisionist states, yet risks of or abandonment persist, as evidenced by varying participation in NATO's out-of-area missions.

Economic and Corporate Coalitions

Economic coalitions typically involve sovereign states or international entities collaborating to influence markets, stabilize prices, or promote among members. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (), established on September 14, 1960, in by founding members , , , , and , exemplifies such a coalition by coordinating petroleum production and export policies among its 12 member nations to maintain oil market stability and secure fair prices for producers and consumers. 's actions, including output quotas and pricing strategies, have historically impacted global energy prices; for instance, the 1973 oil embargo led to a quadrupling of crude oil prices, contributing to in Western economies. As of 2023, +—an expanded coalition including non-OPEC producers like —controls approximately 40% of global oil supply, enabling it to counteract price volatility from geopolitical events or demand shifts. Another prominent economic coalition is the group, originally comprising , , , , and , which formalized cooperation through annual summits starting in to foster multipolar economic governance and reduce reliance on dollar-dominated systems. Coined in a 2001 report highlighting potential, expanded in January 2024 to include , , , and the , now representing over 45% of the world's population and about 28% of global GDP at . While initiatives like the , launched in 2014 with $100 billion in capital, aim to fund in developing nations without Western conditionalities, the group's remains limited by internal divergences—such as India's tensions with —and has yet to significantly challenge institutions like the IMF. Empirical assessments indicate trade among members grew from $68 billion in to over $500 billion by 2023, but intra-group coordination often prioritizes bilateral deals over unified policy. Corporate coalitions, distinct from sovereign ones, often manifest as strategic alliances or consortia among firms to share resources, mitigate risks, or lobby for favorable regulations, though they risk antitrust scrutiny if they suppress . Legal examples include industry consortia like the , formed in 2000 by and others to steward , which by 2023 had over 1,000 member companies contributing to projects valued at trillions in ecosystem impact. In contrast, illegal s—agreements to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets—persist despite prohibitions; the vitamin of the 1990s, involving firms like and , inflated global prices by up to 1,000% before fines exceeding $1 billion were imposed by U.S. and EU authorities in 1999–2001. Recent regulatory adaptations, such as the European Commission's 2023 horizontal guidelines, permit limited coalitions for sustainability goals, like joint R&D for green technologies, provided they do not harm or consumers. These arrangements enhance —evidenced by alliances like TSMC's partnerships yielding advanced nodes by 2025—but causal analysis reveals they often endure only when aligned incentives outweigh defection gains, as per game-theoretic models of repeated interactions.

Civil Society and Advocacy Coalitions

Civil society coalitions form when non-governmental organizations (NGOs), activist groups, faith-based entities, and other non-state actors align to pursue common objectives, such as reform, norm shifts, or from institutions. These alliances leverage collective resources, expertise, and networks to amplify influence in arenas like , , and , often operating through campaigns, litigation, or public mobilization rather than electoral politics. Unlike governmental coalitions, they lack formal authority but gain leverage via external shocks, windows, or sustained pressure on decision-makers, as outlined in frameworks analyzing subsystems where stable belief-based groups compete over time. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), developed in the , posits that such coalitions endure for years or decades, coalescing around shared "deep core" s—enduring ontological and normative principles—while adapting secondary aspects through learning or events like crises. Empirical applications of ACF in and demonstrate that coalition success correlates with , access to elite venues, and coordination among diverse actors, though outcomes vary: for instance, competing coalitions in U.S. policy shifted regulations via evidence dissemination and shocks like health scandals, reducing rates from 42% in 1965 to 12.5% by 2020. However, depends on managing internal hierarchies and external perturbations, with dissolution risks from divergence or . Notable historical examples include the U.S. of the 1950s and 1960s, where coalitions of organizations like the , , and collaborated on litigation, boycotts, and marches, culminating in the and , which dismantled legal segregation and expanded enfranchisement for over 20 million . In international contexts, transnational coalitions have pressured multilateral bodies; for example, alliances of NGOs and indigenous groups influenced World Bank policies on environmental and social safeguards through sustained campaigns from the 1980s onward, embedding requirements for impact assessments in lending practices by the 1990s. More recently, the Global NPO Coalition on FATF, formed in 2011, engaged civil society in anti-money laundering standards, contributing to the Financial Action Task Force's 2020 updates on non-profit risk assessments while safeguarding legitimate advocacy from overregulation. Effectiveness metrics from case studies highlight mixed results: African education coalitions supported by the Civil Society Education Fund achieved policy wins like increased budget allocations in countries such as , where advocacy from 2015 to 2019 raised education spending by 10-15% in coalition-targeted districts, but sustained impact required ongoing monitoring amid fiscal constraints. Similarly, the Global Coalition on , , and Security, active since 2015, influenced UN Resolution 2250 adoption in 2015, integrating youth into peace processes across 20+ countries, though implementation gaps persist due to state resistance. Critiques note that while coalitions excel at agenda-setting—evident in 70% of ACF-tested cases where dominant groups shaped learning—minor coalitions often fail without elite allies or shocks, and some exhibit echo-chamber dynamics amplifying unverified claims over empirical rigor.

Mathematical and Game-Theoretic Coalitions

In cooperative game theory, a coalition is formally defined as a subset S⊆NS \subseteq N of players from a finite set NN, where the game is represented by a characteristic function v:2N→Rv: 2^N \to \mathbb{R} that assigns a real-valued payoff to each possible coalition, reflecting the maximum joint utility achievable by its members assuming they cooperate internally but act adversarially toward outsiders. The grand coalition NN typically maximizes total value under superadditivity, a property requiring v(S∪T)≥v(S)+v(T)v(S \cup T) \geq v(S) + v(T) for disjoint coalitions S,T⊆NS, T \subseteq N, incentivizing larger formations. These models abstract strategic interactions where binding agreements enable value creation beyond non-cooperative Nash equilibria, as analyzed in von Neumann and Morgenstern's foundational 1944 framework extended to n-person settings. Solution concepts evaluate coalition stability and fair imputation. The core consists of payoff vectors x∈RNx \in \mathbb{R}^N satisfying efficiency (∑i∈Nxi=v(N)\sum_{i \in N} x_i = v(N)), individual rationality (xi≥v({i})x_i \geq v(\{i\}) for all i∈Ni \in N), and coalition rationality (∑i∈Sxi≥v(S)\sum_{i \in S} x_i \geq v(S) for all S⊆NS \subseteq N), ensuring no subgroup can deviate profitably with unanimous consent. Non-emptiness of the core holds in convex games but fails in general, as demonstrated by counterexamples like the glove market game where pairwise trades undermine the grand coalition. The Shapley value, introduced by Lloyd Shapley in 1953, allocates to each player ii the average marginal contribution ϕi(v)=1n!∑π∈Π[v(Pπi∪{i})−v(Pπi)]\phi_i(v) = \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{\pi \in \Pi} [v(P_\pi^i \cup \{i\}) - v(P_\pi^i)], where Π\Pi permutes NN and PπiP_\pi^i precedes ii in permutation π\pi; it satisfies efficiency, symmetry, dummy player zero payoff, and additivity over games. Uniqueness follows from these axioms, though it may lie outside the core in non-convex settings, prioritizing fairness over stability. In voting theory, coalitions model simple games where v(S)=1v(S) = 1 if SS is winning (controls a qualified ) and 0 otherwise, often in weighted systems [q:w1,…,wn][q: w_1, \dots, w_n] with quota q>∑wi/2q > \sum w_i / 2. Minimal winning coalitions, those losing any member, minimize size while securing victory; their structure influences power distribution, as pivotal players in such sets exert disproportionate influence per the Banzhaf index (count of swing votes across coalitions) or Shapley-Shubik index (permutation-based pivots). For instance, in unanimous quota games, is empty except trivially, reflecting instability, whereas balanced games exhibit non-empty cores. Empirical power asymmetries arise: in the U.S. (modeled as 51 jurisdictions with weights), small states gain outsized Banzhaf power relative to , computed via enumeration of 2^{50} coalitions yielding indices like 0.013 for versus 0.0004 for in 2000 data. These metrics quantify how coalition incentives deviate from naive vote shares, with superadditivity absent due to zero-sum outcomes.

Stability and Risks

Factors Enhancing Durability

Ideological proximity among coalition partners significantly enhances durability by minimizing conflicts and facilitating . Empirical analysis of 299 coalitions across 24 European countries from 1946 to 2013 demonstrates that greater ideological disagreement shortens coalition duration, as parties face higher bargaining costs over divergent priorities, whereas closer alignment allows for sustained without frequent renegotiations. This effect holds even when moderated by issue diversity in party platforms, underscoring that homogeneous positions provide a causal foundation for through reduced incentives. Pre-electoral coalition formation strengthens commitment and survival rates compared to post-electoral bargains, as parties signal to voters beforehand, aligning expectations and reducing opportunistic exits. Studies of advanced and emerging democracies indicate that such alliances endure longer due to electoral incentives that partnerships, with data showing higher stability in systems favoring pre-agreed pacts. Formal coalition agreements, including detailed policy compromises and portfolio allocations, further bolster durability by institutionalizing enforcement mechanisms like ministerial vetoes, which from multiparty governments links to fewer breakdowns. Effective leadership and interpersonal trust mitigate , enabling polarized or ideologically distant coalitions to persist where leaders persuade members against . Simulations incorporating risk attitudes reveal that about future payoffs heightens reliance on credible commitments, prolonging coalition life when managed through communication and shared resources. In non-political domains, such as social movements or diplomatic alliances, pre-existing social ties and resource abundance similarly sustain coalitions by fostering emergent trust and division of labor, as seen in cases where bridge-building prevent dissolution amid . Institutional features, including longer inter-election periods and mechanisms like constructive votes of no confidence, enhance stability by raising the costs of dissolution and incentivizing minimal winning coalitions over oversized ones. Cross-national confirm that parliamentary systems with these safeguards experience fewer government collapses, as they promote disciplined and deter minority vetoes. External pressures, such as unified threats in or international coalitions, also reinforce durability by aligning causal incentives toward collective defense, though this requires verifiable mutual dependencies to avoid free-riding.

Mechanisms of Instability and Collapse

Coalitions, particularly in parliamentary systems, face inherent arising from the need to reconcile disparate ideological commitments and voter expectations among partner parties, often leading to breakdowns when compromises prove untenable. Empirical analyses of European coalition governments from 1945 to 2011 indicate that greater ideological disagreement between partners elevates the hazard of termination, with the effect intensifying under high issue diversity, as parties struggle to maintain unified fronts across multiple dimensions. This dynamic stems from the principal-agent challenges in multiparty cabinets, where ministers prioritize their party's agendas, fostering intra-coalition vetoes and gridlock. Policy disputes frequently precipitate collapse, as evidenced by the November 2024 dissolution of Germany's " (SPD, Greens, FDP), where Finance Minister Christian Lindner's ouster followed irreconcilable fiscal demands amid a 2025 shortfall exceeding €30 billion. Similarly, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party-Komeito , enduring since 1999, fractured in October 2025 over ideological clashes on defense reforms and funding scandals, culminating in Komeito's withdrawal after failing to align on constitutional revisions. In , right-wing parties like and exited the 1992 Likud-led coalition due to divergences on Palestinian concessions, shortening its tenure to under two years. These cases illustrate how exogenous pressures, such as economic downturns or security threats, amplify latent incompatibilities, forcing parties to prioritize core principles over coalition survival. Internal power asymmetries and opportunistic defections further erode coalitions, as junior partners leverage threats of exit to extract concessions, but repeated erodes trust and invites free-riding. Studies of Western European governments reveal that oversized coalitions (exceeding minimal winning size) experience 20-30% higher breakdown rates due to diluted and heightened monitoring costs. Scandals exacerbate this, as seen in Italy's fragmented coalitions, where average cabinet duration since 1946 hovers around 13-18 months, often collapsing amid exposures that disproportionately burden smaller allies. Electoral incentives compound the , with parties defecting to reposition for upcoming votes; for instance, opposition from within can signal to voters a party's ideological purity, as in the 2021 Swedish coalition strains over migration . External shocks, including economic crises or geopolitical events, act as catalysts by demanding rapid decisions that expose fault lines. Cross-national data from 20th-century parliamentary democracies show that recessions double the probability of coalition failure within a year, as blame-shifting undermines collective responsibility. In minority coalitions reliant on ad hoc support, this vulnerability intensifies, with failure rates exceeding 40% in highly fragmented systems like the pre-2000s. Ultimately, these mechanisms reflect the transaction costs of coalition governance: while initial bargaining secures entry, sustained enforcement against proves fragile absent strong institutional safeguards.

Empirical Assessments

Documented Successes and Achievements

The Allied coalition during achieved decisive victory over the , culminating in Germany's on May 8, 1945, after coordinated operations including the D-Day invasion of on June 6, 1944, and subsequent advances across . This success stemmed from pooled resources, with the providing vast industrial output—over 300,000 aircraft and 100,000 tanks—while the bore the brunt of ground combat, inflicting approximately 80% of German casualties on the Eastern Front. Japan's surrender followed in August 1945 after atomic bombings and Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, ending the global conflict and enabling post-war reconstruction under frameworks like the . The alliance, formed in 1949, has maintained relative peace across for over seven decades, deterring Soviet aggression during the without direct superpower conflict and facilitating the continent's economic recovery. Post-1991, NATO conducted successful stabilization missions, including the 1999 intervention that halted and led to UN administration, as well as in Bosnia from 1995 onward, reducing violence and enabling democratic transitions. Article 5 was invoked once after the , 2001, attacks, enabling collective operations in that dismantled al-Qaeda's core structure by 2002, though long-term outcomes varied. In economic coalitions, the European Union's single market, established progressively from 1993, has driven intra-bloc trade to exceed 60% of members' total commerce, fostering GDP growth averaging 2% annually in the from 1999 to 2019 and lifting living standards through free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Enlargement waves, such as the 2004 addition of ten countries including , correlated with those nations' GDP per capita rising over 50% by 2014, attributed to access to EU funds totaling €1.2 trillion for cohesion and . 's economy, for instance, grew at nearly 3% in 2024, outpacing the average, via integration into supply chains and foreign investment. The 1991 Gulf War coalition, comprising 35 nations led by the , liberated from Iraqi occupation within 100 hours of ground operations starting February 24, 1991, with minimal allied casualties (under 400) due to superior air campaigns that destroyed 80% of Iraq's armored forces. This demonstrated effective burden-sharing, with Arab states contributing troops and finance exceeding $50 billion, preventing regional escalation and establishing a for multilateral enforcement of international norms. In political spheres, Germany's post-1949 coalition governments, such as the Christian Democratic Union-Social Democratic Party "grand coalition" from 2005 to 2009, sustained economic expansion with falling from 11% to 7.5% amid the global financial crisis, through fiscal reforms and export-led growth. Similarly, stable multi-party coalitions in , like Sweden's from 1976 to 1982, implemented welfare expansions while maintaining surpluses, contributing to high human development indices sustained over decades. These cases highlight how ideological compromises in coalitions can yield policy continuity and crisis resilience, though success depends on shared incentives over divergent agendas.

Criticisms, Failures, and Systemic Drawbacks

Coalitions in parliamentary systems frequently exhibit instability, with empirical analyses indicating shorter average durations compared to single-party governments. For instance, a study of European coalitions found that inclusion of populist parties increases the of premature collapse, as ideological incompatibilities and internal conflicts erode cohesion. This pattern manifests in countries like , where post-World War II governments have averaged less than two years in duration due to repeated coalition breakdowns over policy disputes. Such fragility stems from the need for constant among diverse parties, often leading to governmental or early elections when compromises fail. Policy outcomes in coalitions suffer from systemic compromises that dilute decisive action, fostering and reduced voter responsiveness. Research shows that coalition bargaining frustrates preferences, enabling minority vetoes that block reforms even when a parliamentary exists. Critics argue this structure incentivizes smaller parties to extract concessions disproportionate to their electoral weight, resulting in suboptimal policies that prioritize short-term survival over long-term efficacy. In divided governments, analogous dynamics exacerbate legislative inaction, as partisan rivals withhold to deny opponents , perpetuating stalemates on fiscal and social issues. International and military coalitions face inherent free-rider problems, where members under-contribute to collective while benefiting from others' efforts, undermining alliance sustainability. In , persistent uneven burden-sharing—evident in defense spending shortfalls by several European allies—has strained cohesion, with the U.S. shouldering a disproportionate load since the alliance's . Empirical tests confirm that public goods provision in alliances incentivizes , as individual states calculate minimal contributions suffice given the non-excludable benefits of security. Historical failures, such as the rapid dissolution of anti-ISIS coalitions post-2014 due to mismatched commitments and withdrawal incentives, illustrate how divergent national interests precipitate abandonment during prolonged conflicts. Economic coalitions, particularly s, prove unstable owing to pervasive cheating incentives that prioritize individual gains over collective restraint. Game-theoretic models demonstrate that agreements collapse when members secretly increase output or undercut prices, capturing at the expense of joint profits; historical data from antitrust cases reveal most cartels endure less than a decade before detection or implosion. The oil , for example, has repeatedly fractured since 1973 due to overproduction by members like responding to price signals, eroding output controls and leading to boom-bust cycles. This systemic drawback arises from the structure, where mutual cooperation yields monopoly rents but defection promises immediate windfalls, rendering enforcement mechanisms like quotas vulnerable to erosion.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coalition
  2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/coalition
  3. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/coalition-government/
  4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/information/coalition-politics-and-government-formation
  5. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/44403/chapter/373578312
  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2023.2249316
  7. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coalition
  8. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/coalition
  9. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/coalition_n1
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/coalition
  11. http://www.coalitiontheory.net/research-areas/coalition-formation-theory
  12. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28345/chapter/215185114
  13. https://ia600708.us.archive.org/23/items/TheTheoryOfPoliticalCoalitions/TheTheoryOfPoliticalCoalitions.pdf
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30023159
  15. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/on-the-size-of-winning-coalitions/428F3C947BB5324F2DF59B890A3CD6D1
  16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/evaluating-conflict-of-interest-theory-western-european-cabinet-coalitions-194580/D744D7E7ABCC856C38662F986CA05DBA
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/193866
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899825622000161
  19. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25664/w25664.pdf
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2023.2200328
  21. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25664/revisions/w25664.rev1.pdf
  22. https://d-nb.info/1192448715/34
  23. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/085128ff
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/nonunitary-parties-government-formation-and-gamsons-law/F1141F85A250739AB75F63E0773B94E5
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825604001976
  26. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/165085/1/613833.pdf
  27. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402382.2013.742758
  28. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02207-7
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8801643/
  30. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12651
  31. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/36/3/331/121534/New-Insights-into-Coalition-Negotiations-The-Case
  32. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2019/preliminary/paper/N3ydi4yT
  33. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/49736/9780199207954.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  34. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA800/RRA859-1/RAND_RRA859-1.pdf
  35. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/Coalitions_A%2520Guide%2520for%2520Political%2520Parties%2520%25281%2529.pdf
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2090664
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/politics-of-military-coalitions/why-coalitions/0C8E1BA5601F159B3F0292072CAC4D55
  38. https://www.marinahenke.com/uploads/1/0/8/3/108325959/published_article_isq_2017.pdf
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3563297/
  40. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-23392-001
  41. https://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp478.pdf
  42. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2022.2161794
  43. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lgoodhart/files/goodhart_qjps_2013.pdf
  44. http://jcie.org/researchpdfs/Power/7_Nonaka.pdf
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4695960/
  46. https://www.britannica.com/topic/coalition-government
  47. https://hobolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/voters-and-coalition-govts.pdf
  48. https://sites.duke.edu/georgvanberg/files/2018/07/Policing-the-Bargain-Coalition-Government-and-Parliamentary-Scrutiny.pdf
  49. https://www.dw.com/en/a-history-of-germanys-coalition-governments/g-41818483
  50. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/coalition-government-precedents-from-around-the-world-1.876563
  51. https://aceproject.org/main/english/lf/lfd05b.htm
  52. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/pc/pcc/pcc09/mobile_browsing/onePag
  53. http://sonagolder.com/pec/GolderLogic.pdf
  54. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629820963182
  55. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/470fb66b-fb38-4313-8cbc-55c9e831e417/download
  56. https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-results-explained-in-graphics/a-71724186
  57. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2022/sep/25/italian-election-2022-live-official-results
  58. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63168/1/democraticaudit.com-Coalition%2520governments%2520which%2520are%2520formed%2520in%2520advance%2520of%2520elections%2520have%2520better%2520survival%2520prospects.pdf
  59. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:532c7dbb-964c-4b31-a32d-fc16fd3c426d/files/ma2fdce5340b5419931d9d90a5679de09
  60. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-023-01109-1
  61. https://www.gmfus.org/news/coalition-building-post-western-world-three-challenges
  62. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/group-77-fifty
  63. https://www.g77.org/
  64. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/09/g77-intergovernmental-developing-countries/
  65. https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/5/1/ksaf027/8100845
  66. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-brics-group-and-why-it-expanding
  67. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/03/brics-expansion-and-the-future-of-world-order-perspectives-from-member-states-partners-and-aspirants?lang=en
  68. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/opec-changing-world
  69. https://www.opec.org/brief-history.html
  70. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_139339.htm
  71. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/warsaw-treaty
  72. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
  73. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_138294.htm
  74. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/gulf-war
  75. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/art/exhibits/conflicts-and-operations/the-gulf-war-1990-1991--operation-desert-shield--desert-storm-.html
  76. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/quad-indo-pacific-what-know
  77. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr589k5yleo
  78. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2024/Shanghai/
  79. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA345508.pdf
  80. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/brics-summit-geopolitics-bloc-international/
  81. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10220461.2024.2380676
  82. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cartel.asp
  83. https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/eu-allows-companies-to-team-up-in-cartel-like-coalitions-on-green-initiatives/
  84. https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/chapter-10-acf-upp-2nd-ed-9.3.19.pdf
  85. https://sites.ucmerced.edu/files/nvandyke/files/van_dyke_and_amos_-_social_movement_coalitions.pdf
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10010954/
  87. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-85554-2_5
  88. https://onlinemasters.jou.ufl.edu/public-interest-advocacy-building-coalitions/
  89. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2023-09/workingpaper_3.pdf
  90. https://fatfplatform.org/news/gctf-2/
  91. https://campaignforeducation.org/images/downloads/f1/1474/csef-case-study-leaflet-africa-june20-en.pdf
  92. https://www.undp.org/our-partners/civil-society-organizations/undp-civil-society-case-studies
  93. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-126-game-theory-spring-2016/25c82e8213fd23daa72c9382e921a2b0_MIT14_126S16_cooperative.pdf
  94. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15859-s05/www/ferguson/coal.pdf
  95. https://economics.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/2007-11_paper.pdf
  96. https://yung-web.github.io/home/courses/game_files/13.SV-4.pdf
  97. https://gtl.csa.iisc.ac.in/gametheory/ln/web-cp5-shapley.pdf
  98. https://jlmartin.ku.edu/courses/math105-F11/Lectures/chapter2-part2.pdf
  99. https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/published/STS027.pdf
  100. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00182851
  101. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/working-through-the-issues-how-issue-diversity-and-ideological-disagreement-influence-coalition-duration/70B0F5FF6AB9521A6F5F7A3382D1ACCB
  102. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/risk-and-uncertainty-as-factors-in-the-durability-of-political-coalitions/564E75CF892B407C165AB187E89A349A
  103. https://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/events/papers/091217_t.pdf
  104. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40888-020-00210-8
  105. https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-coalition-government-falls-apart-how-it-happened/a-70717066
  106. https://www.csis.org/analysis/japans-26-year-old-ruling-coalition-collapses
  107. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/54394
  108. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1796997/FULLTEXT02.pdf
  109. https://polsci.institute/comparative-politics/multi-party-systems-coalition-governance/
  110. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274285405_The_use_of_control_mechanisms_in_coalition_governments_The_role_of_preference_tangentiality_and_repeated_interactions
  111. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/allies-world-war-ii
  112. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml
  113. https://ge.usembassy.gov/nato-has-brought-74-years-of-stability-to-europe/
  114. https://en.majalla.com/node/320506/politics/nato-turns-75-past-achievements-and-future-challenges
  115. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/75-years-of-nato-the-most-powerful-and-successful-alliance-in-history/
  116. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/achievements_en
  117. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-enlargement/20-years-together/20-years-together-facts-and-figures-about-benefits-enlargement-eu_en
  118. https://www.dw.com/en/poland-economy-growth-consumption-germany-eu-integration-graphics/a-74375281
  119. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ_French/journals_E/Volume-02_Issue-3/weitsman_e.pdf
  120. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/11/coalition.governments/index.html
  121. https://www.theneweconomy.com/home/europe-shows-coalitions-can-work
  122. https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Increased-risk-why-coalitions-with-populists-fail-sooner.html
  123. https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03456037v1/document
  124. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13540688241248008
  125. https://fairvote.org/archives/common-criticisms-of-pr-and-responses-to-them/
  126. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gridlock.asp
  127. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/1167e3bc-002d-4155-be2b-e4fd153413be/content
  128. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62634/1/Free_riding_.pdf
  129. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/more-things-change-more-they-stay-same-failure-regime-change-operations
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/105353579190003C
  131. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/why-do-many-price-fixing-cartels-eventually-collapse
  132. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/ap-microeconomics/imperfect-competition/oligopoly-and-game-theory/v/why-parties-to-cartels-cheat
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.