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 Kim, W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Power, Alliance, and Major Wars, 1816-1975

Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University

For years, students of international politics have attempted to explain seemingly contradictory perspectives about the relationship between power distribution and the onset of war, and between alliance formation and the incidence of war. Power transition theorists claim that war is most likely when power is equally distributed among nations and that alliances have little or no impact on the likelihood of major wars, whereas balance-of-power theorists suggest that war is less likely when power is equally distributed and that alliances play a critical role in the incidence of war. In this research, several propositions suggested by the power transition theory are tested for major war cases from 1816 to 1975. The main findings show that alliances play a significant role in the incidence of major wars and that the probability of war increases when the two alliance coalitions, not the two nations in a dyad, have approximately equal power. These findings confirm neither the balance-of-power perspective nor the view of the power transition model. In addition, the power transition and the rate of growth hypotheses claimed by the power transition theory are not empirically supported.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 33, No. 2, 255-273 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002789033002004


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. L. Kimball Alliance Formation and Conflict Initiation: The Missing Link Journal of Peace Research, July 1, 2006; 43(4): 371 - 389. [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]

				W. Moul Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989 Journal of Conflict Resolution, August 1, 2003; 47(4): 468 - 489. [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]

				D. Lemke The Continuation of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the Cold War Journal of Peace Research, February 1, 1997; 34(1): 23 - 36. [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]

				C. W. Kegley Jr. and G. A. Raymond Must We Fear a Post-Cold War Multipolar System? Journal of Conflict Resolution, September 1, 1992; 36(3): 573 - 585. [Abstract]