Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:01:46.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Development, Parity, and International Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

DOUGLAS M. GIBLER
DOUGLAS M. GIBLER*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
*
Doug Gibler is Professor of Political Science in the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (dmgibler@ua.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explains the empirical connection between dyadic capability differences and international conflict as a consequence of how, when, and where states enter the international system. State capabilities are largely static, and, since states enter the system in geographic clusters, the processes of state maturation affect contiguous and regionally proximate states similarly. This makes dyadic capability differences static as well. The lack of change in capability differences over time suggests that the parity-conflict relationship is largely a product of the factors associated with state system entry. Indeed, as I demonstrate, several different proxies for the conditions of state system entry separately eliminate any statistical relationship between parity and militarized dispute onset, 1816–2001. I also find no relationship between parity and the wars that have occurred during that same time period. These results have a number of implications for the role of power and capabilities in explaining international conflict.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 21 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Mark Nieman and John Vasquez for comments on an earlier draft, and thanks to Andrew Enterline for answering several questions related to the CINC score measure. Special appreciation goes to Marc Hutchison who first pointed out to me that most wars are actually fought between unequal states and coalitions. Finally, the National Science Foundation (Awards No. 0923406 and No. 1260492) generously supported research that contributed greatly to this project.

References

Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blainey, Geoffrey. 1988. Causes of War. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1962. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Bremer, Stuart A. 1992. “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (2): 309–41.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1983. The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Angel. 2003. Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Efird, Brian, Kugler, Jacek, and Genna, Gaspare. 2003. “From War to Integration: Generalizing Power Transition Theory.” International Interactions 29 (4): 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (3): 379–414.Google Scholar
Geller, Daniel S. 2000. “Power and International Conflict.” In What Do We Know About War?, eds Vasquez, John A.. Plymouth, UK: Rowan and Littlefield, 259–77.Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. 2009. International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. and Little, Erin K.. 2016. “Heterogeneity in the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs), 1816–2001: What Fatal MIDs Cannot Fix”, Political Science Research and Methods, 1–11. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2016.11.Google Scholar
Herbst, Jeffrey. 2000. States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kadera, Kelly M. 2001. The Power-Conflict Story: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Rivalry. Ann Arbour, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kadera, Kelly M., and Sorokin, Gerald. 2004. “Measuring National Power.” International Interactions 30 (3): 211–30.Google Scholar
Krugman, Paul R. and Obstfeld, Maurice. 2009. International Economics: Theory and Policy. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Kugler, Jacek, and Lemke, Douglas. 2000. The Power Transition Research Program: Assessing Theoretical and Empirical Advances. In Handbook of War Studies II, ed. Midlarsky, Manus. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 129–163.Google Scholar
Lee, Ronald. 2011. “The Outlook for Population Growth.” Science 333 (6042): 569–73.Google Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 1995. “The Tyranny of Distance: Redefining Relevant Dyads.” International Interactions 21 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace, Vol. 80. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., Gurr, Ted R., Davenport, Christian, and Jaggers, Keith. 2002. “Polity IV Project: 1800–1999.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (1): 40–45.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1960. Politics Among Nations: the struggle for power and peace, 3rd ed. New York: Knopf. Originally published in 1948.Google Scholar
Organski, Abramo FK. 1958. World Politics. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
Organski, Abramo, and Kugler, J.. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. “War as a Commitment Problem.” International Organization 60 (01): 169–203.Google Scholar
Reed, William. 2003. “Information, Power, and War.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 633–41.Google Scholar
Sarkees, Meredith Reid, and Wayman, Frank. 2010. Resort to War: 1816–2007. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S., and Ritter, Jeffrey M.. 1999. “Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions.” International Studies Quarterly 43 (1): 115–44.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart A., and Stuckey, John. 1972. Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965. In Peace, War and Numbers, ed. Russett, Bruce. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
Starr, Harvey. 1978. “Opportunity and Willingness as Ordering Concepts in the Study of War.” International Interactions 4 (4): 363–87.Google Scholar
Stinnett, Douglas M., Tir, Jaroslav, Schafer, Philip, Diehl, Paul F., and Gochman, Charles. 2002. “The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 19 (2): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, Cameron G. 2005. “War, Rivalry and State Building in Latin America.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 451–65.Google Scholar
Thies, Cameron, Chyzh, Olga, and Nieman, Mark. 2016. “The Spatial Dimensions of State Fiscal Capacity: The Mechanisms of International Influence on Domestic Extractive Efforts.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (1): 5–26.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R. 2001. “Identifying Rivals and Rivalries in World Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 45 (4): 557–86.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1985. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” In Bringing the State Back In, eds. Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda. New York: Cambridge University Press, 169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1990. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990. New York: Blackwell Publishing Inc. Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wayman, Frank Whelon. 1996. “Power shifts and the onset of War.” In Parity and War, eds. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 145–62.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gibler supplementary material

Appendix

Download Gibler supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.4 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.