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. W. Articles by Siccama, J. G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Power Transitions and Critical Points as Predictors of Great Power War

Toward a Synthesis

University of Amsterdam

Jan G. Siccama

Netherlands Institute of International Relations `Clingendael,' The Hague

Recently two putative causes of great power war - power transitions (as identified by Houweling and Siccama 1988) and critical points (as identified by Doran 1989) - have confronted each other. In subsequent publications Doran changed the dating of several of his critical points. The authors will demonstrate that these changes have the effect of increasing the positive association between nations passing through a critical point interval on their relative capability trajectory and their involvement in war. Doran correctly observes that power transitions in dyads do not increase the probability of fighting in these dyads when none of their members is simultaneously passing through a critical point interval. However, the authors show that the association between a major power passing through a critical point interval and its war involvement is much stronger in transition dyads than in nontransition dyads. A power transition in a dyad, in which at least one of its members is also passing through a critical point is a sufficient condition of war in that dyad. On the other hand, the mere occurrence of a critical point is but a necessary condition of war involvement.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 35, No. 4, 642-658 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002791035004004


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				K. E. Spiezio Power Cycle Theory and State Involvement in Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1976 Conflict Management and Peace Science, January 1, 1993; 13(1): 87 - 100. [Abstract] [PDF]