<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01605nam a22001337a 4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">533060</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">533060</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">260421b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">slan, Afiq bin  </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">60129</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">How to smuggle contraband and influence border policy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Political Research Quarterly </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">78(4), Dec, 2025: p.1445-1458</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Border fortifications have proliferated in recent decades. One prominent rationale given for fortifying the border is to limit illegal incursions, but how successful are fortifications at this task? Current theories fail to account for the fact that illicit actors may be strategic in their choices in order to influence state policies. I accommodate this strategic behaviour in a formal model to demonstrate that this capacity for strategy means that border fortifications are rarely optimal. In the model, states can learn the capacities of illicit actors through the latter&#x2019;s past transgressions to inform border security policy. Anticipating this, illicit actors may moderate their actions to discourage fortifications. States therefore only secure their borders when illicit actors are powerful enough such that the threat of fortifications does not deter them into moderation. This reveals an inefficiency in border security that gives new insight into the dynamics of border politics.-Reproduced 


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10659129251366948?_gl=1*usvxg9*_up*MQ..*_ga*MjMzNjk2NTEzLjE3NzY
3NTE3ODE.*_ga_60R758KFDG*czE3NzY3NTE3ODAkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzY3NTE4MDQkajM2JGwwJGgyNTQ0NDIwNjg.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Political Research Quarterly </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">408231</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2026-04-21</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">78(4), Dec, 2025: p.1445-1458</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR138572</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2026-04-21</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
