Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Conflict Resolution
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DiCicco, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Levy, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Power Shifts and Problem Shifts

The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program

Jonathan M. DiCicco

Jack S. Levy

Department of Political Science, Rutgers University

This article analyzes the evolution of power transition theory from the perspective of Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programs. The authors reconstruct the development of the power transition research program by analyzing its hard core of irrefutable assumptions, its negative and positive heuristics, and exemplary works contributing to its protective belt of testable auxiliary hypotheses. It is argued that some developments (e.g., Lemke's multiple hierarchy model) constitute progressive problemshifts, but other areas of the research program exhibit signs of degeneration. These include the treatment of the timing and initiation of wars associated with power transitions and causal mechanisms driving such wars. Findings show that the evolution of the power transition research program has generally been progressive in Lakatosian terms, but its future vitality will require continued efforts to explain the above-mentioned theoretical and empirical anomalies in a way that is consistent with the hard core of the research program and that generates new testable propositions.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 43, No. 6, 675-704 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002799043006001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
M. Bussmann and J. R. Oneal
Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods?: A Test of Power-Transition Theory
Journal of Conflict Resolution, February 1, 2007; 51(1): 88 - 111.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 European Journal of International RelationsHome page
B. E. Goldsmith
A Universal Proposition? Region, Conflict, War and the Robustness of the Kantian Peace
European Journal of International Relations, December 1, 2006; 12(4): 533 - 563.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
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]

Home page
 Conflict Management and Peace ScienceHome page
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]