Are you counting cases where there are intra-elite battles for power [...] Not sure how broad “strategic alliances” are referring to.
What I have in mind is: cases when elite group A included group B, because group A thought that group B would use its new influence in ways beneficial for group A. I wouldn’t count the example you mention, because then the benefit seems to come from the exploiters being weakened (not being able to charge such low prices), rather than from the new influence of the formerly excluded.
(I’m trying to distinguish between inclusion that comes from the influence of the excluded, and inclusion that doesn’t, because only the latter could help groups like future generations.)
The dynamic you bring up does seem important. I’d currently put it in the miscellaneous bucket of “costs of inclusion” (as a negative cost—a benefit for elites). I wonder if there’s some better way to think about it?
Thanks for your comment!
Nah :)
What I have in mind is: cases when elite group A included group B, because group A thought that group B would use its new influence in ways beneficial for group A. I wouldn’t count the example you mention, because then the benefit seems to come from the exploiters being weakened (not being able to charge such low prices), rather than from the new influence of the formerly excluded.
(I’m trying to distinguish between inclusion that comes from the influence of the excluded, and inclusion that doesn’t, because only the latter could help groups like future generations.)
The dynamic you bring up does seem important. I’d currently put it in the miscellaneous bucket of “costs of inclusion” (as a negative cost—a benefit for elites). I wonder if there’s some better way to think about it?