This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Houweling, H. Articles by Siccama, J. G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Power Transitions as a Cause of War

University of Amsterdam

Jan G. Siccama

Netherlands Institute of International Relations, The Hague

In contradiction to balance-of-power thinking, in their book The War Ledger, Organski and Kugler claim to have proven that major war is caused by the overtaking of the dominant nation through the challenging major power(s). This regularity would still be valid in the nuclear era: According to Organski, nuclear weapons have no effect on deterring war. However, very serious objections may be raised against Organski and Kugler's test procedure. For this reason, we have replicated Organski and Kugler's analysis with a different data-set (collected by Doran and Parsons) and a more appropriate test procedure. The results show that the power transition hypothesis cannot be rejected (significance level, 5%). This result is obtained not only for the "top dogs" (the three or four strongest nations), but also for the complete subset of major powers. This latter result is different from Organski and Kugler's finding that power overtaking is significantly related to war outbreaks between contenders, but not in dyads encompassing the complete class of major powers.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 32, No. 1, 87-102 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002788032001004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Forsberg Polarization and Ethnic Conflict in a Widened Strategic Setting Journal of Peace Research, March 1, 2008; 45(2): 283 - 300. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. A. Benson Dyadic Hostility and the Ties That Bind: State-to-State versus State-to-System Security and Economic Relationships Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 2004; 41(6): 659 - 676. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. F. Doran Economics, Philosophy of History, and the "Single Dynamic" of Power Cycle Theory: Expectations, Competition, and Statecraft International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science pol, January 1, 2003; 24(1): 13 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Kohout Cyclical, Hegemonic, and Pluralistic Theories of International Relations: Some Comparative Reflections on War Causation International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science pol, January 1, 2003; 24(1): 51 - 66. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. KIM Power Parity, Alliance, Dissatisfaction, and Wars in East Asia, 1860-1993 Journal of Conflict Resolution, October 1, 2002; 46(5): 654 - 671. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. S. Geller Status Quo Orientation, Capabilities, and Patterns of War Initiation in Dyadic Rivalries Conflict Management and Peace Science, January 1, 2000; 18(1): 73 - 96. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. DiCicco and J. S. Levy Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program Journal of Conflict Resolution, December 1, 1999; 43(6): 675 - 704. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. M. Kadera The Power-Conflict Story: a Synopsis Conflict Management and Peace Science, January 1, 1999; 17(2): 149 - 174. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Lemke and W. Reed Power is not Satisfaction: A Comment on de Soysa, Oneal, and Park Journal of Conflict Resolution, August 1, 1998; 42(4): 511 - 516.

				M. Benson and J. Kugler Power Parity, Democracy, and the Severity of Internal Violence Journal of Conflict Resolution, April 1, 1998; 42(2): 196 - 209. [Abstract]

				I. de Soysa, J. R. Oneal, and Y.-H. Park Testing Power-Transition Theory Using Alternative Measures of National Capabilities Journal of Conflict Resolution, August 1, 1997; 41(4): 509 - 528. [Abstract]

				D. Lemke Toward A General Understanding of Parity and War Conflict Management and Peace Science, January 1, 1995; 14(2): 143 - 162. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Huth, D. S. Bennett, and C. Gelpi System Uncertainty, Risk Propensity, and International Conflict among the Great Powers Journal of Conflict Resolution, September 1, 1992; 36(3): 478 - 517. [Abstract]

				M. Wolfson, A. Puri, and M. Martelli The Nonlinear Dynamics of International Conflict Journal of Conflict Resolution, March 1, 1992; 36(1): 119 - 149. [Abstract]

				D. S. Geller Power Transition and Conflict Initiation Conflict Management and Peace Science, January 1, 1992; 12(1): 1 - 16. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. W. Houweling and J. G. Siccama Power Transitions and Critical Points as Predictors of Great Power War: Toward a Synthesis Journal of Conflict Resolution, December 1, 1991; 35(4): 642 - 658. [Abstract]

				J. Faber On Bounded Rationality and the Framing of Decisions in International Relations: Towards a Dynamic Network Model of World Politics Journal of Peace Research, August 1, 1990; 27(3): 307 - 319. [Abstract]