Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:57:22.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dangerous Liaisons: Dyadic Power Transitions and the Risk of Militarized Disputes and Wars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2013

David Sobek  and
Jeremy Wells
David Sobek*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Jeremy Wells*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
*
David Sobek, Department of Political Science, 240 Stubbs Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5433, dsobek@lsu.edu
Jeremy Wells, Department of Political Science, 240 Stubbs Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5433, jwell33@tigers.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Power transition theory has been both theoretically and empirically developed in the context of a hierarchy (both global and regional). Yet the logic of the theory describes the interactions of a hegemon in relation to a rising challenger, which is essentially a dyadic interaction. As a result, we argue that power transition theory is a dyadic theory that can be examined across all dyads. We test power transition in a data set of all non-directed dyads from 1816 to 2001. Our results find robust evidence that dyadic power transitions increase the risk of militarized disputes. In addition, this result is not actually contingent on the dyad containing either powerful states or those with dissimilar preferences.

Résumé. La théorie de la transition du pouvoir a été à la fois théorique et empirique développée dans le cadre d'une hiérarchie (à la fois mondial et régional). Pourtant, la logique de la théorie décrit les interactions d'une puissance hégémonique par rapport à un challenger en hausse, qui est essentiellement une interaction dyadique. En conséquence, nous soutenons que la théorie de la transition du pouvoir est une théorie dyadique qui peut être examiné à travers toutes les dyades. Nous testons transition de puissance dans un ensemble de toutes les dyades non-directifs 1816–2001 données. Nos résultats trouvent des preuves solides que les transitions de pouvoir dyadique augmentent le risque de conflits militarisés. En outre, ce résultat n'est pas réellement subordonnée à la dyade contenant soit des Etats puissants ou ceux qui ont des préférences différentes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 69 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

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.)

References

Anderson, Paul A. and McKeown, Timothy J.. 1987. “Changing Aspirations, Limited Attention, and War.” World Politics 40 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan M., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Beyond Ordinary Logit: Taking Time Seriously in Binary Time-Series Cross-Section Models.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott and Stam, Allan C.. 2004. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Blainey, Geoffrey. 1988. The Causes of War. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, Stuart A. 1992. “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816–1965.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (2): 309–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1990. “Pride of Place: The Origins of German Hegemony.” World Politics 43 (1): 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David. 1992. Reason and War. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussman, Margit and Oneal, John R.. 2007. “Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods? A Test of Power Transition Theory.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51 (1): 88–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danilovic, Vesna and Clare, Joe. 2007. “Global Power Transitions and Regional Interests.” International Interactions 33 (3): 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Soysa, Indra, Oneal, John R. and Park, Yong-Hee. 1997. “Testing Power Transition Theory Using Alternative Measures of National Capabilities.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (4): 509–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCicco, Jonathan M. and Levy, Jack S.. 1999. “Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 43 (6): 675–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49 (3): 379–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnham, David. 1976. “Power Parity and Lethal Violence, 1969–1973.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 20 (3): 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartzke, Erik. 1998. “Kant We All Just get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins of the Democratic Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartzke, Erik. 2000. “Preferences and the Democratic Peace.” International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Daniel S. 1992. “Power Transition and Conflict Initiation.” Conflict Management and Peace Studies 12 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Daniel S. 1993. “Power Differentials and War in Rival Dyads.” International Studies Quarterly 37 (2): 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Daniel S. 1998. “The Stability of the Military Balance and War among Great Power Rivals.” In The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries, ed. Diehl, Paul F.. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 165–90.Google Scholar
Geller, Daniel S. 2000. “Status Quo Orientation, Capabilities, and Patterns of War Initiation in Dyadic Rivalries.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 18 (1): 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosn, Faten, Palmer, Glenn and Bremer, Stuart. 2004. “The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 21: 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas and Sarkees, Meredith. 2004. “Measuring Alliances: The Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance Dataset, 1816–2000.” Journal of Peace Research 41 (2): 211–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gochman, Charles S. 1990. “Capability-Driven Disputes.” In Prisoners of War? Nation-States in the Modern Era, ed. Gochman, Charles S. and Sabrosky, Alan Ned. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Hegre, Havard. 2008. “Gravitating toward War: Preponderance May Pacify, but Power Kills.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (4): 566–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houweling, Henk and Siccama, Jan G.. 1988. “Power Transitions as a Cause of War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32 (1): 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul, Bennett, D. Scott, and Gelpi, Christopher. 1992. “System Uncertainty, Risk Propensity, and International Conflict among the Great Powers.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (3): 478–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Woosang. 1989. “Power, Alliance, and Major Wars, 1816–1975.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (2): 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Woosang. 1992. “Power Transition and Great Power War from Westphalia to Waterloo.” World Politics 45 (1): 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Woosang. 1996. “Power Parity, Alliance, and War from 1648 to 1975.” In Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Woosang and Morrow, James D.. 1992. “When Do Power Shifts Lead to War?” American Journal of Political Science 36 (4): 896–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 1996. “Small States and War: An Expansion of Power Transition Theory.” In Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of The War Ledger, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor MI: UMP.Google Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Douglas and Reed, William. 1998. “Power Is Not Satisfaction: A Comment on de Soysa, Oneal, and Park.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (4): 511–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Douglas and Werner, Suzanne. 1996. “Power Parity, Commitment to Change, and War.” International Studies Quarterly 40 (2): 235–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1987. “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War.” World Politics 40 (1): 82–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., de Soysa, Indra and Park, Yong-Hee. 1998. “But Power and Wealth Are Satisfying: A Reply to Lemke and Reed.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (4): 517–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organski, A. F. K. 1968. World Politics. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K. and Kugler, Jacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1996. “Stability and the Distribution of Power.” World Politics 48 (2): 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. “War as a Commitment Problem.” International Organization 60 (1): 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, William. 2003. “Information, Power, and War.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 633–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce and Oneal, John. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W. W. Norton.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart 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.Google Scholar
Siverson, Randolph M. and Miller, Ross A.. 1996. “The Power Transition: Problems and Prospects.” In Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of The War Ledger, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sweeney, Kevin J. 2003. “The Severity of Interstate Disputes: Are Dyadic Capability Preponderances Really More Pacific?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (6): 728–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tammen, Ronald L., Kugler, Jacek, Lemke, Douglas, Stam, Alan C. III, Alsharabati, Carole, Abdollohian, Mark Andrew, Efrid, Brian, and Organski, A.F.K.. 2000. Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1996. “When Are Power Transitions Dangerous? An Appraisal and Reformulation of Power Transition Theory.” In Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of The War Ledger, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 2000. “Bargaining and War.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 469–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wayman, Frank W. 1996. “Power Shifts and the Onset of War.” In Parity and War: Extensions of The War Ledger, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Weede, Erich. 1976. “Overwhelming Preponderance as a Pacifying Condition among Contiguous Asian Dyads, 1950–1969.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 20 (3): 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar