TRANSRESEARCH CONSORTIUM WORK PAPER #1

Power Transition Theory

Ronald L. Tammen, Jacek Kugler, Douglas Lemke

December 2011

Introduction

Power Transition Theory is an active ongoing research program spanning over 50 years and four generations of scholars.1 While generally being classified as part of the realist school because of its focus on power relationships, it differs substantially from that school in terms of methodology and specific conceptual content.2 Judged by external reviewers, it is a living theory with a pattern of growth, spin offs, and refinements over time.3

Power Transition deals with the pattern of changing power relationships in world politics. It provides a probabilistic tool by which to measure these changes and it allows forecasting of likely events in future rounds of change. While based on empirically tested propositions backed by large data sets, the theory

1 See Tammen (2008), and Levy and Thompson (2010), for a discussion of the origins of Power Transition theory and the contributions of A.F.K. Organski. Also, see the introduction in Tammen et al. (2000), for details about generations of Power Transition scholars. All three authors of this article are part of the Power Transition generational research program. 2 Power Transition scholars prefer the theory to be called “rationalist” rather than “realist.” Tammen et al. (2000). 3 DiCicco and Levy (2003).

1 has an intuitive feel that maximizes its utility for interpreting current events, including the rise of China and India and the related effects on world politics.

Power Transition has both a structural and dynamic form. Structurally, it envisions global politics as composed of a hierarchy of nations with varying degrees of cooperation and competition. It specifies the relative roles of nations within this hierarchy, the system of governing rules, and then outlines how powerful countries attempt to manage global politics. This static picture of structure and rules is complemented by dynamic factors which demonstrate how and why change occurs in the international system. The concept of power links the structural picture with dynamic change. Hierarchy, power and satisfaction are the key components of Power Transition theory.

Structurally, Power Transition’s central core of concepts provides a foundation to understand the basic relationships of world politics. Along with realist concepts, it uses power to explain how global and regional structures are organized. But beyond that, comparisons with the realist school are misleading. Rather than differentiating between domestic and international politics, Power Transition paints a picture of world politics that is integrated horizontally and vertically. Dynamically, the theory stipulates that political interactions among nations are based on the varying commitment of national elites to the existing status quo –the broad acceptance of international rules and norms. This determines whether a country is satisfied or dissatisfied with its position in the hierarchy. The most powerful nations hold a position at the top of the global or regional hierarchy. The term of art for the leader of the global hierarchy is the “dominant” nation. But unlike other theories, the dominant nation is not considered a hegemon in Power Transition theory. The dominant or preeminent nation attempts to manage the global system with a coalition of stable, satisfied supporters. But this is not always possible because the dynamics of growth generates potential challengers.

To understand international dynamics, Power Transition focuses on differential growth rates across nations. On any given day, some countries are gaining power, some are losing power and others are standing still. It is this phenomenon, the relative change in power, that results in new relationships among nations and the formation of new political and economic entities. One byproduct of differential growth rates is the potential for conflict when a challenger and dominant nation reach the stage of relative equivalence of power, and particularly when the challenger is dissatisfied with the status quo.

Power Transition contains the following major concepts which distinguish it from other theories4:

Power

4 The authors wish to thank the next generation of Power Transition scholars who helped in the preparation of this document including Kyungkook Kang and Fahrettin Fisunoglu at Claremont Graduate University, Ayesha Umar and Peter Noordijk at Portland State University and the wise counsel of established faculty members associated with the TransResearch Consortium including Yi Feng, John Thomas, Birol Yesilada, Kristin Johnson, Marina Arbetman-Rabinowitz, Tadeusz Kugler, Hal Nelson, Masami Nishishiba, Gaspare Genna, Siddharth Swaminathan, Mark Abdollahian, and Craig Shinn.

2

This is the ability of one nation to advance policy goals by altering the policy of another. While the concept is transparent, its measurement is not simple. The Power Transition perspective contributes to this ongoing debate by stressing the economic, demographic, and political capabilities of units analyzed. In the original conception of Organski (1958, 1968), power was reflected by the intersection between politics and economics. The first measurement approximation at the national level was total GDP.5 Power Transition proposed that wealth reflected power potential6 and is fungible in that it could be allocated to security, growth or other priorities as needed depending on the level of threat perceived by the ruling elite.7 This indicator remains the most useful tool when rough forecasts of future performance are attempted and has been generally adopted by the applied security community (Organski and Kugler 1980; Tammen et.al. 2000, National Intelligence Council, 2000, 2004).

Over time, wealth as a static measure of power was found wanting because all aggregate indicators, including GDP, fail to account accurately for political performance. Error in power comparisons is maximized in interactions between the most developed and the less or least developed nations. Recognizing this deficiency, Organski and Kugler (1978, 1980) added political performance variables to the power equation that could not only incorporate the anticipated effects of an efficient government advancing its goals, but would also add the frequent impact of foreign aid in a conflict. These measures have been refined and extended by Arbetman and Kugler (1997) and most recently Kugler and Tammen (2011) as extensive tests revealed that without assessments of politics, power forecasts are not consistent across levels of economic development.

The revised version of power was specified to include population, productivity and political performance. Tests show that incorporating the political aspects of power was essential to understanding the outcomes of significant conflicts like World Wars I and II, and to anticipating the outcomes of asymmetric conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan where the United States and the USSR unsuccessfully intervened despite overwhelming power preponderance (Organski and Kugler 1980; Kugler and Domke 1986; Kugler and Arbetman 1989b). A final adjustment flowing from Boulding’s (1962) insight led to the addition of a power gradient that discounts the influence of a nation based on the distance to target (Lemke 1995; Lemke and Reed 2001b). This adjustment is essential to understand why Japan overcame Russia in 1905, and why contiguous countries behave differently when physical barriers - such as the Andes mountain range – separate two potential contenders such as Argentina and Chile (Lemke 1993).

Extending the search for an effective power measure with which to forecast outcomes lead to the development of political performance indicators that could be used as an independent component to

5 GDP was used to reflect demographic size and productivity. Power = GDP/Capita * Population. 6 Using Knorr’s (1956, 1970) terminology, the attempt here was to reflect “power potential” rather than “actual power”. 7 The relationship between GDP and the Composite Indicator of National Capabilities (CINC) that aggregates six indicators (military expenditures, military personnel, energy consumption, iron and steel production, urban population and total population) is high among developed societies (Organski and Kugler, 1980; Kugler and Arbetman, 1989b). But an advantage of using GDP as a measure of power is that it can be disaggregated to provincial, local or even individual level providing the opportunity to analyze relations within as well as across nations.

3 explain economic growth, population changes, even allocations of FDI (Arbetman and Kugler 1997; Organski et al. 1984; Kugler and Tammen 2011; Kugler and Coan, 2008).

Kugler and Tammen (2011) summarize a large body of work that fully conceptualizes the political performance of nations by measuring the government’s material extractive capacity and the reach within populations. Effective governments require resources to advance their goals. The final component of political penetration is allocation, which deals with the optimal use of public resources to advance national growth. This new measure closes an intellectual gap by assessing the allocation capacity of governments to advance economic growth. These political performance measures can be disaggregated consistently from the national to the provincial and local levels. Political performance measures of extraction, reach and allocation are the latest augmentation to Power Transition theory. What started as an effort to approximate power evolved into a related research on political performance and has achieved gross measures of political performance that are very similar to what GDP or GDP per capita had achieved for economists: an objective assessment of political performance of nations and sub-units within nations.8

The concept of power rests at the heart of Power Transition theory but, by including political performance, it is far different from the power concepts traditionally associated with realist theories.

Status Quo: Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

Power Transition fundamentally departs from theories of world politics that assume anarchy is the distinguishing characteristic of relations among nations. Power Transition views this as a major misspecification in theory and practice. Relations within and across nations are not governed by the two way street of anarchy; instead they vary substantially based on satisfaction or its absence.

Satisfied nations enjoy each other’s trust because they consistently support the main components of the status quo. This does not mean that nations are always fully satisfied with each other, but it does mean that nations interact differently based on the degree of shared preferences. The relations between Britain and the United States differ fundamentally from the relations between the USSR and the USA prior to 1989, or between the US and Iran today. Actions flow from these satisfaction differentials.

Following World War II, the United States transferred nuclear weapons to Britain with the confidence that they would not be used to destroy the grantor. These capabilities were also offered to, but rejected by, Canada. Similar offers were not made to France or any other allied nations.9 The interactions between Britain and the U.S, were based upon a common agreement about the status quo. In short, they both were satisfied, trusted each other, and were willing to take risks to insure their joint security.

8 This research effort is lead by the TransResearch Consortium, founded by Claremont Graduate University, La Sierra University, and Portland State University. 9 There has been speculation about the U.S. covertly providing nuclear technology or materials to France, recently confirmed by declassified documents from the Nixon Administration. Agence France Presse, in Defence Talk, May 26, 2011.

4

As the Cold War developed between the USA and the USSR, both nations invested heavily in nuclear arsenals. Each hoping to deter the other’s attack. The interaction between the USSR and the US was based on mutual fear because they could not agree on common policy to advance the status quo. Such extremes are not typical. When Reagan met Gorbachev to negotiate an arms reduction he famously stated “Trust, but Verify,” implying that the US no longer saw Russia as an enemy but could not yet consider them a friend. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are two ends of a complex continuum along which are arrayed not only nations but also domestic factions. The larger the areas of agreement the more satisfied are the parties with each other. In the domestic context, Fiorina (1978) tells us that “retrospective voting” determines electoral outcomes because in democracies voters choose candidates not on what they promise, but on what they accomplished in the past. Likewise in international politics, leaders gain or lose confidence and trust in allies in part based on similar ways of organizing domestic society and in part on how partners perform.

Through satisfaction, Power Transition provides a linkage between the concepts of anarchy and cooperation by assessing trust. There is growing evidence that the assumption that individuals as well as nations are selfish, greedy maximizes, so useful to obtain game theoretical solutions, is not totally consistent with human activities. Experimental work started by Vernon Smith (1998) and recently summarized in Zak and Kugler (2011) shows that trust varies across individuals. Cooperation emerges far more frequently than expected and consequently agent actions do not conform to anticipated game theoretical outcomes.

The Power Transition research program does not challenge the notion that nations will act as if in anarchy when directly threatened or while waging war. But the same does not hold for peacetime. Particularly when nations share the same evaluations of the status quo they willingly coordinate efforts and cooperate. The level of cooperation among nations does vary in direct proportion to the proximity to the status quo among competing parties. The actions of EU members after World War II differ fundamentally from their choices prior to that war. The key reason is increased satisfaction and the mutual trust they developed over ensuing years.

For this reason, models based on formal game theoretical assumptions capture only a portion of international reality. Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman (1988, 1992) and Bennett and Stam (2000) provide a very plausible accounting of the escalation of war following a crisis. Following the assumption that costs impose constraints on actions, their work effectively accounts for escalation. Yet as Maoz (1985) shows, such analysis grossly over-predicts the absence of conflict among many dyads. Power Transition proposes that the reason for this error is that commitment to the status quo and the trust that emerges from such relations is not incorporated in to standard rationalist calculations. When models incorporate information about satisfaction and trust, predictions of both initiation and escalation of conflict improve considerably.

The development of measures of satisfaction has become a cottage industry which is yet to reach a commonly accepted single measure. The first systematic attempt emerged from measuring the associations among alliances. The initial alliance similarity measure Tau B (Altfeld and Bueno de

5

Mesquita 1979; Organski and Kugler 1980; Kim 1989) has been complemented with the newer S measures (Signorino and Ritter 1999).10 After determining the level of alliance among countries, these measures distinguished between friend and foe by reflecting similarities across each pair of states entire portfolio of alliances. Pairs of states that have direct association only with each other are most satisfied; groups with mixed associations receive intermediate scores. Neutrals are those without explicit associations, and dissatisfied nations belong to competing, non-overlapping alliances (Bueno de Mesquita 1975; Organski and Kugler 1980).

Power Transition scholars measuring satisfaction with alliance similarity do so by calculating how similar a given state’s alliance portfolio is to that of the dominant nation. The more similar a state’s alliance portfolio to that of the dominant nation, the more satisfied the state. The logic is that states form alliances with states with whom they share common interests and they avoid alliances with states with whom they have profound disagreements. Thus, if a state’s alliance portfolio is the same as the dominant nation’s, the state values the same allies the dominant nation values, and has disagreements with the same states as the dominant nation. The state thus has the same foreign policy priorities as the dominant nation.

Viewing its foreign affairs the same as the dominant nation does, it is easy to agree that it is in sync with the dominant nation, and is satisfied with the status quo that dominant nation defends. Thus, Power Transition scholars can use the similarity of states’ alliance portfolios to gauge which states are satisfied with the dominant nation and the status quo. Needless to say, if two states are each satisfied with the dominant nation and the status quo, they are very likely satisfied with each other, because they share similar foreign policy priorities with each other. Thus, the Tau-B and S measures can be used in evaluations of states vis a vis the dominant nation as well as vis a vis each other.

There are some validity concerns that arise when measuring status quo evaluations via alliance portfolios. Many alliances are very long-standing arrangements, and forming a new alliance often takes a considerable amount of diplomatic time and effort. Thus, such measures as described here might be slow to incorporate changing evaluations of the status quo – they have to wait until the rigid, institutionalized alliance portfolios catch up with changing circumstances. Also, not all alliances are sincere statements of regard nor are all absences of alliances indications that states are at odds with each other. The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty was an alliance, after all, and it masked the considerable enmity between the USSR and Nazi Germany. At the same time, the fact that there is no current (or historical) alliance between Nepal and Paraguay does not mean they are opposed in their foreign relations. Rather, their foreign policy orbits are narrowly circumscribed to their home regions, which do not coincide. In sum, one might fairly question whether alliances consistently satisfy the assumptions about them implicit in this measure.

A second approach to gauging the satisfaction of states measures the buildup of arms among nations. A buildup by one such actor implies they are preparing for war, and the assumption is made that it is

10 A new, improved version of the S measure has been developed by a task force of the TransResearch Consortium.

6 preparing for war because of growing ‘dissatisfaction’ with the potential rival. This approximation is useful but may very well measure general rather than specific dissatisfaction, or be the result of internal rather than external pressures (Werner and Kugler 1996; Lemke 2002:Chapter 4).

A third approach to this problem is to measure transfer of arms from suppliers – mainly the United States, USSR/Russia, Europe and increasingly from Brazil and China. The presumption is that major powers would transfer resources to satisfied nations rather than to those who might threaten them with their use (Kinsella 2008; Childs 2011). These measures are very responsive to policy changes – such as the shift in relations between the U.S. and Iran concurrent with the fall of the Shah of Iran. While arms transfers fail to identify satisfaction for nations that produce their own military hardware, this is clearly a step in the right direction.

Another popular approach is to combine aggregate indicators. Benson (1999, 2003, 2004) proposes a measure that weights military alliances and economic transfers to identify satisfaction. She concludes that the security component of alliances is the primary measure of satisfaction. A further effort that places emphasis on monetary elements including interest rates and the movement of money has also been used to approach satisfaction. Above average interest could rates reflect dissatisfaction with the society, while low rates suggest satisfaction (Bueno de Mesquita 1990). A concern here is that security is overlooked, that the interest rates are based on structural characteristics of a state’s economy, rather than on its agreement with the status quo. Greece, Ireland, and Portugal today are high interest rate countries, yet it is not clear that other EU nations or the US considers them less valuable security allies – or considers them to be dissatisfied with the global status quo.

The search for a perfect satisfaction-dissatisfaction measure is a continuing objective of the on-going Power Transition research agenda.

Hierarchy

This term defines the regional and global power structure. Global and regional international hierarchies vary over time, but the most stable power distribution is one where a dominant power has support from a winning coalition of satisfied major allies. The classic representation of such a hierarchical power distribution is as follows:

7

Dominant

Great Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Middle The size of each block represents the nation's power

Small

Figure 1 Global Power Hierarchy

Satisfied nations coordinate their efforts through alliances and international organizations. In these ways they peacefully manage competition over scarce resources. This asymmetric distribution is stable because the dominant nation gains support from a wining coalition by drafting acceptable rules that guarantee international security and trade. Unlike realism, peace is preserved by the establishment of a preponderant satisfied coalition.11 This is not to say that satisfied states are the richest or the most secure states in the international system. Rather, satisfied states believe that they are better off with the current status quo than they would be if a different dominant nation established alternate rules and norms to govern the international system.

This point is important, and since it is often mis-understood by critics of the Power Transition perspective (Powell 1999; Bussmann and Oneal 2007), we develop it further. Consider the post-WWII international status quo, created and maintained by the US-led western coalition. It featured an international economic order characterized by the Bretton Woods international financial institutions, the GATT, World Bank, and IMF. These IFIs provided tremendous stability to the capitalist international economic order put in place after WWII. The IMF and World Bank made funds available to states in economic distress, but those funds were available with strings – namely states had to privilege markets as distributors of value within their territories in order to secure resources from these IFIs. States already favoring market distributions within their domains are thus at a natural advantage

11 A stylized graphical representation of Power Transition vs. Balance of Power can be found in Tammen (2008, pp. 316- 17).

8 in an international economic order of this type. States preferring instead to distribute resources by administrative command, such as communist states, would be intensely dissatisfied with the IFIs created by the US and its allies and collaborators.

Some states prospered in the post-WWII world despite not being favored by the IFIs. The Soviet Union was the fastest growing economy in the world in the 1950s, and its recovery from WWII owed nothing to reconstruction loans from the World Bank. In contrast, the UK experienced some decades of slow, even stagnant growth in the post-WWII era. If we were to assume naively that satisfied states are satisfied because the existing status quo makes them better off objectively, we would come to nonsensical conclusions like that the USSR was satisfied with the US-led status quo but the British were dissatisfied.

In fact, the British were satisfied not due to their vast increase in wealth during the period of American leadership, but because they correctly anticipated that had a different status quo been in place, for instance, a communist-oriented Soviet status quo, the UK would have done even worse. Similarly, rapid growth in the 1950s did not make the Soviets happy with the US-led status quo, because Stalin and his successors could easily believe that if they could re-write the rules of international engagement, the Soviet Union would have prospered even more (for more discussion see Lemke and Reed 1998; Lemke 2004).

A number of related schools of thought now recognize Power Transition’s insight about hierarchy, but there is disagreement between Power Transition and such schools on the concept of hegemony. Interdependence advocates, for example, argue that a hegemonic actor is required for peace because it can unilaterally impose rules that secure stability (Gilpin 1981; Keohane1984; Keohane and Nye 1990). Under this condition, at the global level, hegemony is defined as existing when one state produces more than 50% of the global total output. But this asymmetry arose in reality only once during the last 400 years for the short period following World War II when America was disproportionately powerful due to war devastation in Europe and Asia.

Regional hegemony can be detected in only a few regions like North and South America where the United States, and more recently Brazil, achieved regional hegemony (Lemke 2010). When speculating about future demographic and economic trends, it is possible to argue that China and India or an integrated Asian community will have the potential to achieve global hegemony. Consistent with Power Transition, there is little dispute that the United States inherited its global dominant status from the United Kingdom and both built satisfied winning coalitions whose preferences are reflected in the architecture of the international economy and international diplomacy today. But hegemony is far too rare a phenomenon in global politics.

Power Transition shares a number of concepts with the Interdependence school but hegemony is not one of them. In Power Transition, a dominant power leads by creating satisfaction rather than fear; cooperation rather than conflict; the sharing of resources rather than fights over resource allocation. The leader is dominant, but no hegemon.

9

Power Transition theory contents that China and India will continue to grow in power, and one or both of them will become the dominant power in world politics later in the 21st Century.12 In asymmetric hierarchies the Dominant nation and its allies can imposes the set of rules that are consistent with their preferences. Pax Romana is the most lasting and well documented example of a stable asymmetric hierarchy. In less hierarchical environments, a dominant actor preserves stability not by the imposition of rules, but by gaining support for such rules from allied great powers. In such hierarchies conflict is limited because the dominant nation and its allies jointly possess enough power to push back dissatisfied major powers. However, when an overtaking takes place, war is possible and is waged in approximately 50 percent of the cases. At the global level, this is the story of the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and II (Organski 1958; Organski and Kugler 1980; Werner and Kugler 1996; Tammen et al. 2000).

Power Transition is not simply a theory about the conditions for war. More importantly in many ways, it also addresses the more numerous and longer intervals of world history represented by peace. For example, the peaceful overtaking by the United States of Britain that led to a lasting special relationship. We can also see Power Transition dynamics at work in the absence of war between Germany, France, and England after World War II. During the post-1945 period there have been several overtakings among these one-time foes. However, following World War II they were united in the satisfied coalition, and instead of fighting, they cooperated and created the European Union.

Regional Hierarchies

Lemke (2002) made a major breakthrough moving Power Transition toward a general theory of world politics by demonstrating the applicability of this perspective to regional hierarchies. His careful empirical analysis shows that the same principles that hold at the global level define interactions within regional hierarchies.

12 Power Transition has recorded a number of specific predictions regarding the rise of China and India. Organski and Kugler (1980) anticipated that China, not Russia would challenge the US for dominance. In Tammen et al (2000), there is a calculation, based on World Bank data (PPP) that China will match the GDP of the US around 2015 (p 210 footnote 7). This is a preliminary but important signpost along the road to applied power.

10

India

Dissatisfied

Pakistan Satisfied

China

Bangladesh The size of each block represents the nation's power

Figure 2. Interactions Within and Between Global and Regional Hierarchies

Regional and global hierarchies interact. To pick one example, the South American hierarchy has not faced war for nearly a century because Brazil is preponderant over Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and the other states within the regional hierarchy (not shown in Figure 2). Peace is maintained in the South American hierarchy because all the major states are relatively satisfied with this arrangement as indicated by their participation in Mercosur (Lemke 1993; Lemke and Werner 1996). Understanding regional hierarchies adds complexity and generality to the Power Transition perspective. Global powers like the US, EU, Russia and soon China can directly intervene to alter outcomes in a region. But regional powers cannot effectively intervene in the global hierarchy. They are able to interact, of course, but on matters of strategic importance it is a one-way street.

Lemke’s contribution generalizes Power Transition’s logic. In a relatively isolated region like South America, the principles of Power Transition operate in direct parallel to their operation in the global hierarchy. In other regions the picture is more complex. Unlike South American, several global powers have direct interests in the Middle East and Asia. There is more reason and opportunity for global powers to intervene in those other regions (Efird et al, 2005; Yesilada et al, 2006). This interferes with the ability of regional powers to operate under the normal rules. Lemke informs us that the rules within regional hierarchies normally match those at the global level but the ability of global powers to intervene does not make this an exact parallel (Lemke 1996, 2002).

11

These regional observations have specific conflict outcomes. Conflicts at regional levels tend to stay regionalized. They do not escalate to the global level. The South Asia hierarchy that includes India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, for example, was once an area of protracted nation state conflict. That region now has been stabilized by the relative preponderance of India. There are various global influences flowing into the region including the Russian and now US-NATO interventions but there is no overwhelming fear that this sea of localized conflict will escalate upward to global war.

Dominant powers in asymmetric hierarchies allow supporters of the status quo to challenge core propositions, but reject dramatic changes in rules demanded by the dissatisfied. This is a general pattern. For example, religious societies are more hierarchical and more rigid than secular societies, and authoritarian regimes are more rigid and hierarchical than democratic electoral regimes. We argue that in world politics, like electoral systems, rules can be altered following agreed upon election rules. Contenders rely on persuasion, rather than imposition to settle disputes. In world politics, nations satisfied with rules – as within the EU – can use persuasion more effectively than coercion to achieve change; while nations that do not share common perspectives – such as Palestine and Israel –attempt to impose their own view on opponents based on relative capabilities. In the last three centuries, the global hierarchy had these characteristics with a short period of hegemonic dominance following World War II (Tammen et al. 2000, Chapter 2).

The hierarchical relations anticipated by power transitions are based on micro-foundations. Black (1958) established a foundation for the power transition logic though using an American politics argument (Hinich and Munger, 1997). In his elegant demonstration of the parity principle, the median voter theorem, Black identified a universal application to any competitive environment. He pointed out that political elections are contests where voters choose among alternatives, with a majority winning the prize. When distributions of voters are approximately equal, contests are strenuously contested since either side can win. As each attempts to maximize their expected gains, they seek victory to generate policies consistent with their own preferences. Conflicts are more likely and serious when norms are weak, and more restrained when norms are clear.

Contrasting elections from the United States and Serbia confirm his insight. In the United States where electoral norms are well institutionalized, the Gore-Bush 2000 contest was ended by a decision of the US Supreme Court instead of internal conflict. Both parties accepted the rule of law and prepared to compete another day. When norms are unclear – as was the case in Serbian elections in 2000 – electoral contests escalate to war. Recall that following the electoral decision in favor of Milosevic, no Supreme Court could make a binding decision, thus precipitating a crisis that led to the downfall of that regime. The severity of a crisis rises in direct proportion to the differences between the parties. With strong legal structures they are resolved but without such rules contested outcomes lead to conflict (for empirical exploration of the relationship between parity and escalation, see Lemke and Reed 2001a; Braithwaite and Lemke 2011).

12

Black’s median voter theorem provides a convincing explanation of why parity in all international contexts (global or regional) produces severe conflicts. Figure 3 shows two extreme conditions that can emerge among two approximately equivalent groups that support alternate views about how to organize the international system.

Figure 3. Hierarchies, Preferences, Resources and Conflict Resolutions

The median in the upper condition reflects sharp difference in norms among competing sides. This condition can lead to severe conflict. This hierarchical distribution preceded both World War I and II in Europe. The English- and German-led coalitions held quite different views about desirable international norms. The classic confrontation between Nazi-Fascism and Democratic principles was the most extreme example of divergent views about how to structure the international system. Such events are not limited to the global arena and are now present in the Middle East region, and were the precursors to the Iran-Iraq war as well (Kugler and Arbetman 1989).

13

The lower condition reflects competition among parties that all fall at the median. They do not differ fundamentally in their preferences about international norms. While a contest can still be intense if parties are relatively equal in power, they can negotiate acceptable solutions. Under these conditions, soft power is a very useful means of resolving disputes (Nye 1990). Both sides aim for equivalent outcomes. Neither wishes to alter the rules of the game fundamentally for future contests. Legal means can be invoked to settle such disputes.

Dynamics and Power Transition

The dynamic aspect of Power Transition links major changes in world politics to the uneven rates of economic growth and political development across states. The source of conflict and cooperation is lodged within domestic politics that influence whether, and how much, states develop and grow. To a large degree, the economic growth of nations is independent of the actions of their elites and third parties. But the levels of national satisfaction with global norms and rules that create the status quo flow directly from decisions made by elites or decision makers in different societies. For this reason, Power Transition not only emphasizes relative power but satisfaction as key influences on international conflict and cooperation.

Power

Highest Probability of War Challenger’s Power Trajectory

Defender’s Power Trajectory

Overtaking Region Power Difference: +/- 20%

Time

Figure 4. Power Transition between a Satisfied Defender and a Dissatisfied Challenger

Every country is growing, declining or stagnating at different rates. Over time, fast growers with large populations find themselves with enhanced power. If a fast growing nation finds itself within striking range of a regional or global dominant power, whether or not there will be conflict will be predicted by the level of satisfaction of the challenger. Is it satisfied with the current rules of the road; with the

14 international system orchestrated by the dominant power? If so, the probability of war will be low. On the other hand, if it views the world as hostile to its interests, then the probability of war increases dramatically.

Using the term of art of the theory, when a dissatisfied challenger overtakes a dominant power the region of overtaking generates the necessary but not sufficient conditions for severe war. This rare event is generated by the differential rates of growth among competing powers who vie over the rules and norms that govern the international system. Conflict takes place after the overtaking because the dominant nation generally controls the larger winning coalition prior to the test by fire (Organski and Kugler 1980; Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman 1992; Kim 1991; Kim and Morrow 1992).

In the original conception, Organski (1958) did not include the effects of alliances and believed that the dominant power would pre-empt in anticipation of an overtaking. However, this condition did not test out empirically and is not consistent formally because if there is to be any pre-emption, it logically should come very early when the dominant nation is in control, not late when the challenger can wage a long and brutal conflict (Alsharabati 1997; Alsharabati and Kugler 2008). This point is not settled, however. Some scholars argued that a declining nation has incentives to initiate a preventive war (Thompson and Rasler 1994; Levy 1987; Doran and Parsons 1980; Doran 1991; Levy and Thompson 2010) but such action requires differential behavior prior to parity and after the transition is completed.

There are very few empirical investigations of preventive war. Some scholars see preventive motives as frequently or even primarily causing wars (Taylor 1954; Levy 1987). Indeed, the logic of prevention is persuasive enough that it emerges as one of Fearon’s (1995) three rationalist explanations for war.

For Power Transition theory, the question is particularly acute, because it is not difficult for the dominant nation and a rising challenger to anticipate a power transition in the future. Therefore declining dominant nations must be foolish for not destroying rising, dissatisfied challengers. Power Transition scholars have dealt with this question at some length (Tammen et al. 2000; Lemke 2002: Chapter 2;), and a number of plausible explanations has emerged for the restraint observed among dominant nations under threat.

First, the related Power Transition literature about the Phoenix Factor (summarized below: Kugler 1993; Organski and Kugler 1977; Arbetman and Kugler 1989) demonstrates that it is quite common for a state defeated in war to recover to its pre-war growth potential within 20 years of losing a war. This is a well-established empirical regularity. It suggests that preventive war (again, war waged now in hopes of avoiding a future war fought under worse conditions) might be quite difficult to wage successfully. If the declining dominant nation struck a rising challenger early and defeated it, within 20 years the rising challenger would likely recover from its war losses. Having been punished while weaker, the now stronger challenger is sure to be dissatisfied with the dominant nation, making the power transition war more likely. Only if the dominant nation completely destroys the rising challenger (perhaps requiring nuclear warfare), is there any reason to believe the rising challenger will not recover.

15

Second, while overtakings are reasonably straight-forward to predict, the extent of any rising challenger’s dissatisfaction with the status quo might be quite hard to gauge with complete accuracy. Faced with uncertainty about dissatisfaction but (thanks to the Phoenix Factor) near certainty that a preventive war will not prevent the challenger’s rise, it makes more sense for the dominant nation to work on improving the challenger’s evaluation of the status quo than attempting to destroy it.

These theoretical issues are consistent with the only empirical evaluation of the frequency with which states give way to “the preventive motive.” Lemke (2003) constructed a dataset of pairs of states indicating both whether they fought wars and whether the power differential in the dyad was changing such that one dyad member was declining in power relative to the other. He then estimated the statistical influence of this preventive motive on the probability of war, and found it was completely unrelated to the probability of war. In that same dataset, both parity and status quo dissatisfaction were found to be associated with a higher probability of war. Thus, simple decline relative to another state does not make war more likely. States do not fall prey to the preventive motive. It is no surprise then, that Power Transition’s dominant nations do not wage preventive war against their rising challengers either.

Turning to other dynamics, Kim (1989) incorporates alliance conditions into Power Transition and drops the purely dyadic assessments prominent in most power transition analyses. He applied expected utility calculations to estimate the best times for war between states but measured their power as being augmented by the likely contributions of their allies. Thus, for Kim “parity” does not refer strictly to the calculations of relative power between states A and B. Rather, for Kim “parity” exists when the capabilities of state A plus those of its allies, are roughly equal to the capabilities of state B plus those of its allies. Importantly, just as traditional dyadic power transition analyses support the main hypothesis of parity and dissatisfaction being leading causes of war, Kim’s alliance work shows that parity makes war more likely even when taking into account the likely contributions of allies. Parity and dissatisfaction are thus robustly shown to correspond with war.

Extensive statistical tests spanning the last two centuries and the last six centuries in somewhat sketchier detail, support the various expectations Power Transition expectations outlined above (Kugler and Organski 1980; Werner and Kugler 1996; Kim, 1996). These show that global patterns re-emerge within regions (Lemke 2002). The process of integration is also consistent with expectations (Genna 2002; Genna and Taeko 2002; Feng and Genna 2003; Yesilada et al. 2006).

An additional extension by Efird, Kugler and Genna (2003) demonstrates that outcomes which lead to conflict and cooperation are part of the same process. Instead of accounting only for severe conflicts– as realist theories do, and separately for integration, as neo-liberals do, this Power Transition specification accounts for cooperation and conflict across both global and regional hierarchies.

16

War

y l l a g u n t i c s i l a f e n

Potential Conflict r o c C n I n - o

i t t c a i r l f e n p o o C o C

y e l

Parity Condition Peace v i g t n i a r s e a p e r o c o n I C Dissatisfied

Status Quo Integration Satisfied Asymmetric Asymmetric Parity Hierarchical Power Distribution

Figure 5. Power Transition: Conflict-Cooperation and Hierarchical Power and Status Quo

The conflict-integration interaction processes can be integrated because Power Transition assumes that while sometimes anarchy exists, it can evolve into cooperation as rules and norms of the status quo shift across dyads. The conditions for cooperation emerge when a dominant nation is present. Consistent with Kindelberger’s (1973) and Keohane’s (1984) hegemonic stability argument that a large power is needed to cover the costs of cooperation, the empirical work on Power Transition shows that satisfaction is key. Satisfaction leads to cooperation which in some circumstances encourages integration. This makes the role of the satisfied dominant state critical in this process of creating the conditions for peace. The dominant power has many management responsibilities but at the top of its list is the spread and deepening of satisfaction.

The complex dynamics linking power, policies and conflict have been investigated with an agent base approach utilized by Abdollahian and Kang (2008). Their demonstration focuses on the relationship between the US and USSR during the Cold War:

17

25

y e s t ’ i r r r a e e h g v S e n

r e S l

e l t a w c i h l o f C P n o C 0 t as Di P t ssa as tisfi P ed e D S im iss ta T atis e tus fied m Q e i uo ur St T ut atu Sat F s re isfie Qu utu d o F Sat isfie d

Figure 6. Challenger’s Power and Conflict Severity Trajectory Given Status Quo and Time

Simulated Challenger-Defender dyad results for system dynamics equations

Abdollahian and Kang (2008) show in Figure 6 that as the challenger’s power share changes, conflict severity varies depending on the policy adopted. This simultaneous interaction provides a comprehensive understanding of options and outcomes. Given the simulation results in both time and phase space, the hyper-surfaces anticipate various available paths for the dominant nation to select in response to the challenger’s behavior. War is not predetermined by structures, but structures set the necessary conditions for war.

Consider the scenario in which a challenger adopts a highly hostile foreign policy stance. If the Dominant nation’s foreign policy response is also hostile the competition moves from accommodation to hostility as both sides approach parity and then declines even under hostility when the challenger is weaker. The solution for crisis is, of course, accommodation where systemic power shifts do not have a detrimental impact on challenger and defender relations. As the defender begins to question the rise of the challenger, small increases towards hostile policy stance produce sharp increases in dyadic conflict. Hence, the structural stage is set for prompting an early conflict initiation and war escalation. At the other extreme, an accommodating foreign policy stance by challenger towards defender leads to cooperation (Kang 2011).

18

Parity and Civil War

Thus far we have summarized work showing Power Transition theory to be useful in predicting war and peace among major and minor powers as well as among minor power contesting each other for control of regional hierarchies. Another strand of research shows that Power Transition theory promises to predict when wars will occur within states as well. Benson and Kugler (1998) were the first to apply Power Transition theory to the study of civil war. In their study, they demonstrate that when there is rough balance of capabilities between the government and the rebels, civil wars are more violent and death totals are higher. The exact same phenomenon is observed in wars fought between states. Similarly, Toft (2007) shows that ethnic groups at power parity face increased likelihood of civil war.

In more recent research, Lemke (2008) has used Power Transition theory to predict the onset of wars within states. He finds strong support for the Power Transition hypotheses about parity and differing evaluations of the status quo. In Lemke’s study, attitudes about the status quo are defined as opinions about how to unify a territory into a single state – whether to unify at all, to unify with a centralized single government, or to unify under a federal structure. In order to predict civil war onset, Lemke employs data about groups before they become rebels and about groups that chose not to become rebels at all. This is the first study of its kind using Power Transition Theory to predict civil war onset, and the results are very encouraging.

Most recently, Cederman and various coauthors have approached the question of predicting civil war onset by constructing a dataset about parity among ethnic groups (Cederman et al. 2009a, 2009b, 2010). They then study ethnic group-government pairs (or dyads). This approach is able to predict when civil wars will occur among ethnic factions within a state (provided that one ethnic group controls the government), but it does have a much larger empirical domain than is used in Lemke’s study. Although Cederman and his colleagues do not explicitly test Power Transition theory they do consistently find across all their studies that power parity within ethnic group/government dyads makes civil war more likely. A test of escalation, by Koubi et al. (2011), shows that there is a direct relation between conflict escalation and power transition elements and so does the work of Cunningham et al. (2011) relating parity and duration of civil war. Thus, there is now increasing evidence that the factors central to Power Transition Theory’s ability to predict interstate war also help predict intra-state, or civil, wars.

19

Applications

While Power Transition is a general statement of relations in the international system, in a number of instances it has been applied to forecast or explain specific cases. Here we select a few that provided new and tantalizing general insights supported by empirical reality.

The Emergence of Asia

Despite enormous tensions, proxy wars, the threat of nuclear war, and claims of Soviet military advantages, Power Transition anticipated that the period of American preponderance following World War II would insure that there would be no global war. While Balance of Power advocates campaigned for insuring equivalence of power, for catching up with the Russians and Warsaw Pact, Power Transition advocates recognized that the United States and Western Europe, in concert, held overwhelming power preponderance. This provided a base condition of stability insured by preponderance (Organski and Kugler 1980).

When the USSR imploded with barely a whimper in 1990, the world recognized what Power Transition had realized for two decades. First, the US and its allies enjoyed preponderance of power at the global level and second, it was that fact, and not some calculated nuclear balance of power, which had preserved the peace throughout the Cold War and permitted it to end non-violently.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and a ten year interregnum, patterns of growth in Asia forced scholars and policy makers to contemplate a “new” dimension in international politics—the rise of China and India. Unlike other scholars, this was not a new development for Power Transition. A.F.K. Organski had foretold of the importance of the rise of Asia as early as 1958:

“The question is not whether China will become the most powerful nation on earth, but rather how long it will take her to achieve this status…” (Organski, 1958, p.446)

Today it is clear to everyone, just as Soviet power was the unambiguous galvanizing fact in 1958, that China is fast approaching the US in terms of GDP. Lagging badly in per capita income, the complete ascendancy up the power ladder will not occur until later in the century. But there will be a worldwide shock, despite forewarning, when China edges out the US in GDP by 2025 or earlier. India is expected to follow China’s rise with a one or two decade lag. As these Asian giants develop, two concurrent transitions will take place (Lemke and Tammen 2003; Kugler and Tammen 2004. Feng 2006; Raghavan 2006; Tammen 2006).

20

Power (GDP Percent)

US Size of Circle: Productivity of Society (GDP per capita)

China

India

EU US

China EU India

Time

Figure 7. Dynamics of Major Powers in Transition: 1950-2050

At the global level the key overtaking will be between China and the United States. This is a critical transition because for the first time a far less productive society will match and eventually overtake the leading developed society.13 The issue of war versus peace will turn on satisfaction. And satisfaction may turn on the perception of average Chinese workers.14

The number of potential disagreements about how to organize the international system is substantial but not complicated at present by ideology or territory.15 Currently there are US-PRC disagreements over trade, fiscal and monetary policies, patents, the legal system, human rights, and certain foreign policy issues. Reconciliation of these issues will be critical during a period when China gains power and the United States loses in relative terms. Previous Power Transition work suggested that the creation of a large super bloc, to include EU, the US and India and perhaps even key regional leaders (Tammen et al. 2000, chapter 8) would help offset the risk of war associated with China’s rise. Other management techniques have been explored using the theory including solutions to the Taiwan problem, and creation of an alliance composed of the US, India, Russia and the EU if the world was faced with a

13 The height of the circles indicates each state’s relative power, the diameters of the circles indicate GDP/capita, hence productivity. 14 Will Chinese workers be satisfied with their country’s movement to the top of the GDP global hierarchy and be proud of this progress or will they be disillusioned that equivalent workers in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, the US, Japan, and Europe will be far better off on a per capita basis? The outcome of that question may determine nothing less than the prospect of war if China becomes a dissatisfied nation as a result of internal pressures. This is an issue for the Chinese to manage, as an emerging global power, and for the US, to influence, indirectly by not inflaming passions. 15 Taiwan is a territorial issue from the Chinese perspective but not from that of the US.

21 dissatisfied, hostile China that wished to change the international system (Tammen et al, 2000, chapter 7).

Long range forecasting represents an important value of the Power Transition approach. The theory provides a decades-long perspective which allows policy makers to develop and deploy strategies designed to head off impending points of crisis. The interval of the pre-transition is critically important to both sides as this is the only period when satisfaction can be managed and potential disputes resolved prior to war. That means both the US and China must use the next two decades very wisely to avoid creating irresolvable future points of contention. The alternative, masked in the failure to address these issues today and tomorrow, is the prospect of a devastating conflict by mid century.

Regional Applications

Regional transitions seldom have a direct impact on global stability but the India and China (see previous Figure 7 ) dyad promises to be an exception. These two major Asian powers will reach parity roughly by 2075, raising the very rare possibility of a major regional and global conflict that may well diffuse like World War II from that region to engulfing the global hierarchy.

A second region that may face serious conflict is the Middle East, where Turkey, Russia and Iran are all expected to reach parity by mid century (as shown in Figure 8).

Power (GDP Percent)

Russia Size of Circle: Productivity of Society (GDP per capita)

Russia

Iran Iran

Turkey Turkey

Time

Figure 8. Dynamics of Regional Powers in Transition: 2000-2050

If these countries find means to adjust to each other’s demands, then regional stability can be achieved. If they fail to find mutually agreeable solutions, then a major war could come out of this region.

22

Readers may be surprised to see Russia included as a Middle Eastern state, rather than as a global power. Such, however, is the future for Russia given persistent decline since the 1980s. We include Russia in this figure and forecast to admit the possibility that with a limited power base, Russian foreign policy focus might shift to the Middle East from the traditional Russian focus on great power politics. Why the Middle East for Russia? Given conflicts with Muslims within Russia and across former Soviet central Asia, and given Russia’s role in the supply of oil to world markets, the Middle East might be the most likely re-direction for Russian foreign policy interests.

Note, though, that even if Russia is not included in forecasts about the Middle East, Iran and Turkey are still at parity for a prolonged period of the 21st century. And if Turkey’s aspirations for EU membership continue to be foiled, it is quite reasonable to speculate about Turkey playing a larger and larger role in the Middle East. That would necessarily bring it into contention with Iran.

What might they fight over? There are many potential triggers that could incite conflict. Competition over areas held by the Kurds, religious differences, oil, water, and general competition for regional dominance offer sufficient grounds for disputes. The main concern is that the twin conditions for war, parity and dissatisfaction, likely will be present. Under these scenarios, the Middle East rivals East Asia and South Asia in its potential for intense conflict. But not for the reasons commonly associated with the Middle East—the Arab-Israel conflict or Israel-Iran. Instead, Power Transition forecasts that the Turkey-Iran relationship represents the greatest threat to peace (Kugler and Tammen 2006; Yesilada et al. 2006).

Generalizing more broadly, Power Transition anticipates that the most developed societies will be directly challenged by the less developed societies in the next half century. Figure 9 displays this coming challenge by aggregating the power of the traditional developed countries against that of the rapidly growing less developed societies:

23

BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India & China Power G7: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, (GDP Percent) United Kingdom & United States

G7 Size of Circle: Productivity of Society (GDP per capita)

BRIC

G7

BRIC

Time

Figure 9. Dynamics of Most and Less Developed Powers in Transition: 2000-2050

Just as in the case of the United States and China, the less developed BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are expected to overtake the G7 (US, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada) in power between 2035 and 2050. Combined with the anticipated competition between China and the United States, there will be no lack of opportunities for conflict.

Of course, just as opportunities for conflict rise, so too do opportunities for cooperation. Power Transition research is consistent with theories and arguments advocating that periods of peace should not be squandered but rather used to build cooperative global structures like the World Bank, the IMF, or the WTO that provide means to limit conflict. These and other similar global organizations represent the status quo constructed by the U.S. and its allies since the Second World War. These organizations provide value to other members of the international system, and thus increase other states’ acceptance of the status quo. Common status quo evaluations are, according to Power Transition Theory, the most effective way to prevent interstate conflict. Likewise, regional structures, such as the European Union or Mercosur, diminish the likelihood of conflict among members because they create a formal mechanism to negotiate solutions to disputes.

Deterrence and Proliferation

Power Transition Theory challenges classical deterrence theory but supports commonly accepted propositions about nuclear proliferation, although with a Power Transition twist.

24

Classical deterrence theory is built upon the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction. This is a condition created by a balance of nuclear weapons among contenders that insures peace because the costs of war are too high to contemplate (Brodie, 1946, 1959; Intriligator and Brito, 1984). Power Transition challenges this hypothesis by arguing that stability is based on the asymmetric possession of nuclear capabilities by a satisfied dominant power. Stability was maintained during the Cold War because the United States and Europe held a combined nuclear, conventional and economic superiority over the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

Figure 10 summarizes the most advanced arguments regarding symmetric and asymmetric deterrence. Because this is such a vast field we have used Intriligator and Brito’s (1984) representation of classic balanced deterrence and built upon that framework the Power Transition perspective. The balanced perspective, as represented in many forms, proposes that Massive Retaliation (MR) and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) are both ultra stable (Fearon, 1997).

In sharp contrast, the Power Transition asymmetric perspective infers that MAD is tenuous while MR is unstable when held by a dissatisfied challenger and ultra stable when held by the satisfied defender. These results are presented in a number of formats (Organski 1968; Kugler, 1984, 1996; George and Smoke, 1974; Kugler and Zagare, 1987, 1990; Zagare and Kilgour, 1993, 2000; Kang 2011)

High High Very Unstable Cone of War

Unstable Balance of Terror

Unstable Massive Tenuous MAD Probability Retaliation of War

Stable Transition with Proliferation

Stable Massive Retaliation Unstable Transition with Cone of Proliferation War Low Low Balance of MR MR Terror 0 0 T t on otal inflic caus can alitie MAD nder s ch defe alle ies er de nger salit leng fend can l cau chal er inflic 100 Tota t on

Figure 10. Power Transition: Casualties, Proliferation and the Probability of Nuclear War

Classical deterrence derived from a balance of power perspective implies that stability requires increasing nuclear arsenals to assure mutual assured destruction levels. Facing credible retaliatory destruction, no nation would initiate a conflict against another nuclear power. This argument, of course, was called into question by China’s actions in Korea and by Soviet interventions in Hungary. In the

25 former case, the Chinese risked nuclear annihilation in opposing American arms. In the latter, the Hungarians courted certain death by resisting the nuclear-preponderant Soviets. In both cases we see instances where nuclear weapons did not influence state policies as classical deterrence theory expects.

Over time, it became clear that attaining MAD did not inhibit nuclear nations from hostile engagements against other nuclear states, nor did it inhibit smaller nations from using their conventional capabilities to advance desired goals. The actions by North Vietnam against the United States or Afghanistan against Russia and then the United States are not consistent with Classical Deterrence.

A central implication of Classical Deterrence is that nuclear proliferation increases security. Intriligator and Brito (1981), Waltz (1981, 2003), Bueno de Mesquita and Riker (1982) or Berkowitz (1985) argue, as nations acquire balanced nuclear capabilities the stability of the international system increases. If we accept MAD logic that high costs deter wars, then the more states that possess nuclear arsenals, the more states there are that can inflict high costs, the fewer wars that should occur. This is an argument for unrestricted nuclear proliferation. Today it is an unpopular argument, and many deterrence theorists ignore the logical connection between what they say about deterrence and what they deny about proliferation.

Power Transition contends (see Figure 10) that both MR and MAD deterrence statements are incorrect and that in most cases proliferation is dangerous rather than beneficial. In the Power Transition world, deterrence is conditional. A satisfied nuclear nation will not initiate nuclear war for it prefers the status quo to conflict. In contrast, a dissatisfied nuclear nation will avoid conflict when it anticipates a conventional defeat followed by a nuclear retaliation. However, a dissatisfied nuclear nation at parity may wage war anticipating the defender will not take the risk of escalating to nuclear war. A most recent addition is Kang’s (2011) and Kang and Kugler’s (2011) deduction showing the specific conditions under which nuclear deterrence fails if such weapons fall into the hands of terrorists. From this perspective, the solution is not the proliferation of nuclear weapons but rather efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals to thereby reduce the risk of nuclear war.

The value or threat generated by nuclear proliferation hinges on satisfaction with the status quo. Nuclear proliferation to satisfied states (for example, to France and the UK), does not increase the probability of nuclear war. But, proliferation to states which either are dissatisfied or could move in that direction (for example, North Korea, Iran or Pakistan), is a global threat. At some point, parity combined with dissatisfaction can trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Most distressing, consistent with Zagare and Kilgour’s (2000) “perfect deterrence” theory, Kang and Kugler’s (2011) elaboration of conditional nuclear deterrence logic indicates that terrorists are likely to use nuclear weapons if they acquire them. For terrorists, there is no credible threat of retaliation because there is no geographic home base to target. Nuclear weapons fit the terrorist’s predisposition to utilize force multipliers given their lack of standing armies and conventional power.

26

The Costs of War—the Phoenix Factor

Power Transition is concerned with the costs of war for two reasons. First, there is the empirical question represented by the fact that sometimes states fight all-out wars separated by only a few years, as in the case of World War II rapidly following upon World War I. This suggests a recovery or rebound effect at work. Second, the duration of waging war is generally shorter than the recovery period from such conflicts. While war is studied in great detail, the recovery period is less often explored, even though the aftermath of war has far more important impact on the future of a society.

Kugler (1973) and Organski and Kugler (1977; 1980) show that the most developed nations recover, like a “Phoenix” rising from its own ashes, following major wars. They regain their overall population, productivity, and power within one generation of waging even the most severe wars. Populations are severely depleted by war in the short term, but post-war baby booms manage to replace the lost generation. Yet, the composition of the population is dramatically altered generating lasting variability in cohorts that subsequently affect education, employment, and retirement patterns (Frumkin, 1951; Kugler T. and Kugler 2010; Kugler T. et al, 2011).

From the Power Transition perspective, World Wars generate the following patterns:

27

Figure 11. The Phoenix Factor Based on Outcomes of Belligerents in World War I and II

The economic performance of active belligerents does not differ much from that of non belligerents. In the short term, there is a clear difference between winning and losing but within one generation that difference disappears and patterns of pre-war performance reappear. Consistent with Solow’s (1960) neo-classic model of growth, nations devastated by war recover because war resets the conditions for a more effective utilization of cheap labor given existing technology even with minimal investment. This optimistic view of conflict suggests that such disasters only affect one age cohort. This surprisingly rapid recovery from even the worst wars (the trajectories graphed in Figure 11 are based on the empirical experience of belligerents in World War II – the most destructive war in human memory) explains why wars among great powers for control of the international system can follow each other even in close temporal proximity.

28

This optimistic view of recovery has been challenged by analysis of war consequences in less and least developed societies where the costs of war persist and in many cases lead to a poverty trap that devastates societies long after the end of a conflict. This restatement of war costs is based on the overlapping generations (OLG) perspective advanced by Samuelson (1958), developed by Lucas (1975) and extended into the political arena by Feng, Kugler and Zak (2001). The new argument here is straightforward and incorporates in part the early Solow (1960) results:

) h d k t

t +1 e ! w

p Cost of War o 45 r o l l a G e

t k(postwar)>k*

i v d p e Recovery e a D c

C t

n (Phoenix Factor) s s a ’ l o d a M o B i ( r e P

t x e N h ) t d w e o p r o l G

l e v a e n o D

i Cost of War

t i s s

s k(postwar)

r No Recovery & (

T Cost of War Decline (Angell) k(postwar)=k* No Recovery (Kuznetz) k * ) d e p p a o r l T e

v y t e r D e

t v s o a P e L (

* Current Capital 0 k k t

Figure 12. War Cost & Recovery: The Phoenix Factor Revisited Consistent with the Solow perspective, the OLG approach shows that relatively affluent nations will recover rapidly from the ravishes of war (or natural disasters such as earthquakes, Tsunamis, or floods) because capital losses will accelerate the rate of growth of such societies. The elements that contribute here include technological level, human capital, foreign and domestic investment and the political capacity of the government. A key point is that foreign aid is not the key to recovery – rather, the pre war performance and structures of a society determine to a large extent the path of recovery. Japan, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union recovered following each of the World Wars (Organski and

29

Kugler, 1977; Organski and Kugler 1980; Kugler and Arbetman, 1987; Arbetman 1996). So did South Korea and Vietnam following severe regional wars.

This pattern is not universal. The negative side of (non)recovery takes place when a less or least developed society is so devastated by war that if falls into the poverty trap. Instead of recovering after the conflict these societies continue their descent into poverty as population growth exceeds the growth rate of productivity. Each successive generation in this environment is poorer than the previous one. Extreme examples are found in Afghanistan, Angola Cambodia, Liberia, or Rwanda (Kugler T. et al 2011). Note that these changes are not driven by culture. Starting from a very similar base, North and South Korea show very different patterns of recovery following their conflict in 1950. Both nations recovered population losses quickly, but only South Korea recovered pre- war productivity and joined the developed societies; while North Korea still lingers in dire poverty.

Monetary Implications

Power transition arguments provide insights beyond conflict and cooperation. One of the key elements that allow a dominant nation to affect international interactions is control over the global currency. Britain was powerful not only because its navy ruled the sea lanes but because the British Pound remained “the” preferred international currency until the end of World War II. The Bretton Woods System, created in 1944, ushered in a system of monetary management that established new rules for commercial and financial relations among the world's major industrial states.

That negotiated new order was intended to govern monetary relations among all nations. Not surprisingly, however, the dollar emerged as the global currency used in most international transactions among non communist states. The Dollar replaced the Pound because America’s economy was strong enough that it could exercise the discipline necessary to retain the dollar as the global anchor currency (with an ounce of gold set at a value of $35) providing a firm foundation for the fixed exchange rate regime central to Bretton Woods.

The US was the least damaged global economy, and thus it was the initial primary contributor to the World Bank tasked with reconstructing devastated European economies. The Dollar’s overtaking of the Pound in international importance coincided with American ascension to the summit of the international power pyramid. Now the emergence of the Euro within the European Union provides a potential competitor, along with limited scope for the British Pound that still remains in use particularly among commonwealth countries.

30

Power Transition posits that the dominant nation will seek to control the international norms securing monetary and trade transactions internationally. Therefore, we anticipate that with the rise of China, the dollar will have to share preeminence with other currencies. This is precisely what Mundell (1961) argues after tracing the evolution of international currency after Bretton Woods. He concludes that there will be a movement away from the Dollar as the most commonly used form of international currency beyond 2020, just prior to the anticipated power transition. The Dollar will have to share its place of dominance with two other currencies:

India Russia Dollar $ Latin America

Yen Pound ¥ Arab £ Bloc RMB 元 Euro € Africa

Figure 13 Anticipated Relative Importance of International Currencies in Global Trade 2020 Adapted from Robert Mundell, Presentation, Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, September 2007

In this new world, the Dollar remains a major currency along with the Euro and China’s RMB. This representation has a very close connection to the anticipated power transitions in the global system. As China rises, both the Dollar and Euro areas are likely to shrink, and a mixed currency based on these three main currencies could replace the single Dollar system now in place (Mundell 2009). A challenge

31 for monetary control of the international system is coming – the remaining question is whether it will be competitive (Dollar replaces Pound), cooperative (EURO emergence) or confrontational.

Power Transition and Democratic Peace

Power Transition can help us understand other areas of IR theory and in particular the most widely accepted empirical finding in all of IR: the democratic peace. The democratic peace refers to the observation that no two democracies have ever waged a war with each other. Less extreme presentations of the democratic peace contend only that militarized conflict among democracies is very rare. Regardless of which version of the democratic peace we accept, Power Transition Theory can help us understand why democracies live at peace with each other.

The empirical evidence in support of all democratic peace claims cover the years from 1816 to the present (the limits within which extensive, systematic data about international relations are available). During that time period the international system’s dominant power was first Britain (until 1945) and then the United States. Both of these dominant powers have been liberal democracies. Power Transition contends that the dominant power creates the set of rules and norms to govern the international system reflected by the status quo. Thus, for the past two centuries the rules of the international system have been written by democratic dominant powers.

Dominant powers select rules and create and enforce norms which they prefer. They externalize governance characteristics that have been useful to them domestically. Thus democratic dominant powers have created international political organizations based on voting and consensus. They have built alliance networks that are explicitly defensive in nature. And when it comes to international economic interactions, they have favored solutions that leave a lot of power over outcomes in the hands of lightly regulated markets. The UK and US have institutionalized a status quo with these characteristics because voting, defensive military postures, and market exchanges “work” for them. They have prospered under these rules and so externalize them.

But just as the UK and US benefit from such interactions, so too have other liberal democracies. Thus, democracies other than the US and UK benefit from the international status quo and want to see it maintained. Like the US and UK, they are satisfied with the international status quo. Satisfied states do not fight with each other, and thus Power Transition Theory explains the democratic peace by identifying it as a subset of the peace shared among satisfied states.

An empirical test of this claim was reported by Lemke and William Reed (1996). They analyzed statistically the competing explanatory power of joint democracy and joint status quo satisfaction on the

32 probability of wars and militarized disputes among pairs of states across the entire international system over the past two centuries. They found that “joint satisfaction” is an empirically more potent predictor of peace than is “joint democracy.” That is, a dyad (pair of states) composed of satisfied states (as indicated by the alliance similarity measure described above) is less likely to experience militarized conflict than is a dyad composed of two democracies. This study supports the observation that the democratic peace is a subset of the satisfied peace.

Foreign Policy Implications--Socialization

Many of the foreign policy prescriptions flowing from Power Transition Theory rest on one operational imperative: the socialization of dissatisfied potential challengers. The objective of socialization is to persuade them to adopt principles embedded in the status quo before the conditions for war are ripe. The term socialization has a distinct meaning in recent Power Transition literature. Being a late addition to the theory’s discourse, it is not found in the earliest works. Not to be confused with accommodation, concession, or appeasement, socialization refers to the efforts a dominant power can make, over time, to buy in a potential challenger. And by so doing to establish increments of satisfaction that blossom over time into acceptance of the established rules and norms of the existing international system.16

Socialization was not possible during the Cold War. Given the lack of trade and other reciprocal ties that bind plus fundamental ideological differences, neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could seduce the other toward its system. But that is not true today when there is a potential challenger, China, which has modified its ideology, adopted a form of the enterprise system, and is now actively engaged in a vast array of multi-dimensional international organizations. The process of socialization is well along with China. But it is subject to manipulation.

For the successful application of socialization, China must socialize itself. If the effort appears to be coming from the United States, it will backfire and raise concerns about foreign manipulation. If the effort for engaging the world on existing terms comes from China, the socialization process will be successful and the benefits will be felt by the world community. Yet there is a distinct and productive role for the dominant power, the US, in this process.

First, the US should be careful about meddling, preaching, advocating for domestic change in the potential challenger. That role should be left to others, particularly the neighbors in its region and its partners in the various international fora on which it sits. Pressure from neighbors and associates is far more effective than pressure from the dominant power.

16 The first reference to the concept of socialization, without using the term itself, is in Organski and Tammen’s “The New Open Door Policy” 1996.

33

Second, the US, in this example, should take care not to deliberately ignite a wave of dissatisfaction in China. Taiwan and Tibet both represent sensitive trip wires which could, if not handled properly, reorient China away from its socialization path. And the same time responsibility rests with the Chinese government. The government has vast capabilities to inflame public opinion as seen in various anti- Japanese demonstrations over the years. A misstep by Chinese officials could lead down the path to internal dissatisfaction with its region and global role. For example, Chinese officials must pay close attention to their huge floating worker population. If this mass of 100-150 million mainly males in central cities finds itself without meaningful work, this could create instability not only hard to control domestically but more importantly it could alter China’s view of the world.17

Trade and the reciprocal roles of the business communities in China and the US are the key components of the socialization process. Already there are signs that the business communities on both sides of the Pacific are influencing and even managing the emerging US-PRC relationship. As China further engages the world, first through its economic interests followed by diplomatic and even military support systems, multiple layers of relationships will be needed by China and the Western alliance.18 Military to military engagement, economic coordination, person to person relationships at all levels of society from academic to cultural exchanges—all these webs could cocoon a challenger if managed with subtlety and sophistication.

Summary: Power Transition Highlights

Power Transition Theory is a useful predictor of interstate wars among the great powers and among minor powers. It also helps understand when civil wars will occur, and the duration and level of violence. Power Transition Theory offers important arguments about international cooperation, specifically integration. Power Transition Theory inverts conventional wisdom about nuclear deterrence concluding that it only provides conditional stability that decreases with proliferation. Power Transition incorporates the main findings of the democratic peace and extends that scope to incorporate domestic interactions. This is a rich theory with regard to specific foreign policy challenges, particularly the rise of China and India and the emerging less and least developed societies in the 21st Century.

• Power Transition’s conceptualization of power as an interaction between population, economic output and political performance led to the forecast that China (rather than the USSR) would overtake the United States, and that Asia will supplant the West as the center of global politics in the next century.

17 Unstable populations are subject to mass manipulation and redirection (displacement) of hostility for domestic political purposes. 18 China’s quiet but deep penetration into the Middle East and Africa is the first sign of the economic-diplomatic-security cascade.

34

• Power Transition argues that parity (balance of power) leads to war while preponderance leads to peace.

• Power Transition introduces the concept of satisfaction as a key element in world politics while rejecting anarchy.

• Power Transition argues that differences in domestic growth are the key to understanding international conflict, rather than alliance formation or other factors.

• Power Transition demonstrates formally that Mutual Assured Destruction sets the preconditions for war at parity and dissatisfaction, while also arguing that proliferation, in the long run, leads to nuclear war.

• Power Transition created the Phoenix Factor as an empirical construct to explain that some nations recover from massive losses during World Wars and return rapidly to global challenger status.

• Power Transition postulates that domestic and international politics are played on the same field, differentiated only by levels of satisfaction.

• Power Transition provides a common theory that accounts for the initiation and severity of conflict on the one hand, and the emergence and deepening of integration on the other.

• Power Transition shows that interrelated regional and global hierarchies account for the evolution of global politics.

• Power Transition incorporates the main insights of the Democratic Peace Theory.

• Power Transition argues that the United Nations Security Council is most effective when members include the most powerful global powers satisfied with the status quo. Because of the dynamics of growth, the composition of that Council must be changed as power shifts take place.

• Power Transition shows that a satisfied dominant hierarchy is required to maintain peace, particularly during periods of transition.

35

• Power Transition connects political and monetary structures and indicates when one currency overtakes another.

36

Bibliography

Abdollahian, Mark (1996). In Search of Structure: The Nonlinear Dynamics of International. Ph.D. Dissertation: Claremont Graduate School.

Abdollahian, Mark and Alsharabati, Carole (2003). Modeling the Strategic Effects of Risk and Perceptions in Linkage Politics. Rationality and Society, 15(1), 113-135.

Abdollahian, Mark; Arbetman-Rabinowitz, Marina and Kang, Kyungkook (2009). Exploring Optimal Public Expenditure Frontier: Stochastic Social Production Frontier Approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 50th Annual Convention. New York City, NY, USA.

Abdollahian, Mark; Baranick, Michael; Efird, Brian and Kugler, Jacek (2006). Senturion: A Predictive Political Simulation Model. Retrieved from Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense University: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi- bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA454175&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Abdollahian, Mark and Kang, Kyungkook (2008). In Search of Structure: The Nonlinear Dynamics of Power Transitions. International Interactions, 34(4), 333-357.

Alcock, Norman Z. and Newcombe, Alan G. (1970). The Perception of National Power. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14(3), 335-343.

Altfeld M and Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce (1979) Choosing sides in War, International studies Quarterly ,23:2, 87-12

Alsharabati, Carole (1997). Dynamics of War Initiation. Ph.D. Dissertation: Claremont Graduate University.

Alsharabati, Carole and Kugler, Jacek (2008). War Initiation in a Changing World. International Interactions, 34(4), 358-381.

Arbetman, Marina (1996). The Consequences of the American Civil War. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 211-230). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Arbetman, Marina and Kugler, Jacek (1997). Political Capacity and Economic Behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Arbetman-Rabinowitz, Marina and Johnson, Kristin (2008). Relative Political Capacity: Theory, Model, Data & Updates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, USA.

Bapat, Navin A. and Morgan, Clifton (2009). Multilateral Versus Unilateral Sanctions Reconsidered: A

37

Test Using New Data. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1075-1094.

Bennett, D. Scott and Stam, Allan C. (2000). A Universal Test of an Expected Utility Theory of War. International Studies Quarterly, 44(3), 451-480.

Benson, Michelle (1999). The Ties That Bind: Status Quo Preferences, Democracy, and Conflict. Ph.D. Dissertation: Claremont Graduate University.

Benson, Michelle (2003). Unraveling the Ties That Bind: The Impact of Intra- and Extra-Dyadic Ties on Dyadic Disputes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Benson, Michelle (2004). Dyadic Hostility and the Ties That Bind: State-to-State Versus State-to- System Security and Economic Relationships. Journal of Peace Research, 41(6), 659-676.

Benson, Michelle (2005). IGO Participation in Dyadic Disputes: Follow the Leader or Follow the Rules?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, USA.

Benson, Michelle (2006). Trade Expectations: The Trend in Trade and Dyadic Disputes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Benson, Michelle (2007). Extending the Bounds of Power Transition Theory. International Interactions, 33(3), 211-215.

Benson, Michelle (2007). Status Quo Preferences and Disputes Short of War. International Interactions, 33(3), 271-288.

Benson, Michelle and Kugler, Jacek (1998). Power Parity, Democracy, and the Severity of Internal Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(2), 169-209.

Benson, Michelle and Rochon, Thomas R. (2004). Interpersonal Trust and the Magnitude of Protest. Comparative Political Studies, 37(4), 435-457.

Berkowitz, Bruce D. (1985). Proliferation, Deterrence, and the Likelihood of Nuclear War. Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 (1), 112-136.

Berman, Sheri (2001). Modernization in Historical Perspective: The Case of Imperial Germany. World Politics, 53(3), 431-462.

38

Black, Duncan (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Boswell, Terry and Sweat, Mike (1991). Hegemony, Long Waves, and Major Wars: A Time Series Analysis of Systemic Dynamics, 1496-1967. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 123-149.

Braithwaite, Alex and Lemke, Douglas (2011). Unpacking Escalation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(2), 111-123.

Bremer, Stuart A. (1992). Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309-341.

Brodie, Bernard (ed.) (1946). The Absolute Weapon. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Brodie, Bernard (1959). Strategy in the Missile Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brown, Michael E. et al (2000). America's Strategic Choices. Boston: MIT Press.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce (1975). Measuring Systemic Polarity. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 19(2). 187-216.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. (1981). Risk, Power Distributions, and the Likelihood of War. International Studies Quarterly, 25, 541-568.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce (1990). Pride of Place: The Origins of German Hegemony. World Politics, 43, 28-52.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce (1996). Beliefs about Power and the Risks of War: A Power Transition Game. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 271-286). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Downs, George (2005). Development and Democracy. Foreign Affairs, 84(5), 77-86.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David (1988). Empirical Support for Systemic and Dyadic Explanations of International Conflict. World Politics, 41, 1-20.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David (1992). War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.

39

Bueno de Mesquita and Riker, William (1982). An Assesment of the Merits of Selective Nuclear Proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(2), 283-306.

Bussmann, 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.

Carlsnaes, Walter; Risse, Thomas and Simmons, Beth A. (2002). Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Cederman, Lars-Erik; Buhaug, Halvard and Rød, Jan Ketil (2009a). Ethno-Nationalist Dyads and Civil War: A GIS-Based Analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(4), 496-525.

Cederman, Lars-Erik, Girardin, Luc and Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede (2009b). Ethnonationalist Triads: Assessing the Influence of Kin Groups on Civil Wars. World Politics, 61(3), 403-437.

Cederman, Lars-Erik, Wimmer, Andreas and Min, Brian (2010). Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? World Politics, 62(1), 87-119.

Childs, Steven (2011) Security as Satisfaction: Conventional Arms Transfers and the International Order, Ph.D. Dissertation: Claremont Graduate University.

Chan, Steve (2008). China, the U.S, and the Power-Transition Theory: A Critique. New York: Routledge.

Cunningham, David, Kristian Gleditsch and Idean Salehyan (2010) “Dyadic Interactions and Civil War Duration” mimeo.

Danilovic, Vesna (1996). Modeling Power Transition: An Extended Version. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 117-126). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Danilovic, Vesna (2001). Conceptual and Selection Bias Issues in Deterrence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(1), 97-125.

Danilovic, Vesna (2002). When the Stakes Are High: Deterrence and Conflict among Major Powers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Danilovic, Vesna and Clare, Joe (2007). Global Power Transitions and Regional Interests. International Interactions, 33(3), 289-304. de Soysa, Indra; John R. Oneal and Park, Yono-Hee (1997). Testing Power-Transition Theory Using

40

Alternative Measures of National Capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(4), 509-528.

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. Diehl, Paul F. and Goertz, Gary (2001). War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Doran, Charles (1991). Systems in Crisis: New Imperatives of High Politics at Century’s End. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doran, Charles and Parsons, Wes (1980). War and the Cycle of Relative Power. American Political Science Review, 74, 947-965.

Efird, Brian and Genna, Gaspare (2002). Structural Conditions and Propensity for Regional Integration. European Union Politics, 3(3), 267-295.

Efird, Brian; Kugler, Jacek and Genna, Gaspare. (2003). From War to Integration: Generalizing the Dynamic of Power Transitions. International Interactions, 29(4), 293-313.

Efird, Brian; Kugler, Jacek and Tammen, Ronald L. (2004). The War Presidency: Structural and Strategic Consequences of Us Foreign Policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Efird, Brian; Yesilada, Birol and Noordijk, Peter (2005). Power Transition Analysis of the Caucasus Region, 2010 - 2050. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, HI, USA.

Fearon, James (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49(3), 379-414.

Fearon, James (1997). Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68-90.

Feng, Yi (2006). Challenges to China's Growth to Dominance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, USA.

Feng, Yi and Zak, Paul (1999). Determinants of Democratic Transitions. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 43, 162-177.

Feng, Yi; Kugler, Jacek and Zak, Paul (2000). The Politics of Fertility and Economic Development. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 667-693.

41

Feng, Yi and Genna Gaspare (2003). Regional Integration and Domestic Institutional Homogeneity: A Comparative Analysis of Regional Integration in the Americas, Pacific Asia, and Western Europe. Review of International Political Economy, 10(2), 278-309.

Feng, Yi; Kugler, Jacek; Swaminathan, Siddharth and Zak, Paul (2008). Path to Prosperity: The Dynamics of Freedom and Economic Development. International Interactions , 34(4), 423-441.

Filson, Darren and Werner, Suzanne (2002). A Bargaining Model of War and Peace: Anticipating the Onset, Duration, and Outcome of War. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 819-837.

Fiorina, Morris P. (1978). Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A Micro- Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 426-443.

Fravel, M. Taylor (2007). Power Shifts and Escalation: Explaining China's Use of Force in Territorial Disputes. International Security, 32(3), 44-83.

Friedberg, Aaron L. (1988). The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895- 1905. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Frumkin, Gregory (1951). Population Changes in Europe since 1939. London: Allen & Unwin.

Garnham, David (1976). Power Parity and Lethal International Violence, 1969-1973. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(3), 379-394.

Garnham, David (1976). Dyadic War 1816-1965: The Role of Power Parity and Geographic Proximity. The Western Political Quarterly, 29, 231-242.

Geller, Daniel (1990). Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Crisis Escalation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(2), 291-310.

Geller, Daniel (1992). Power Transition and Conflict Initiation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 12, 1-16.

Geller, Daniel (1992). Capability Concentration, Power Transition, and War. International Interactions, 17, 269-284

Geller, Daniel (1993) Power Differentials and War in Rival Dyads. International Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 173-193.

Geller, Daniel (2000) Status Quo Orientation, Capabilities, and Patterns of War Initiation in Dyadic Rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18(1), 73-96.

42

Geller, Daniel (2003). Nuclear Weapons and the Indo-Pakistani Conflict: Global Implications of a Regional Power Cycle. International Political Science Review, 24(1), 137-150.

Genna, Gaspare (2002). Changing Power, Sovereignty and Loyalty in European Union. Ph.D. Dissertation: Claremont Graduate University.

Genna, Gaspare and Taeko, Hiroi (2002). Power Preponderance and Domestic Politics: Explaining Regional Economic Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1960-1997. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series 7(12).

George, A.L. and Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in the American Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gilpin, Robert (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gochman, Charles (1990). Capability Driven Disputes. In Gochman, Charels and Sobrosky, Alan, Prisoners of War?: Nations States in the Modern Era (pp. 141-159). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Goldstein, Avery (2003). Responding to Unipolarity: Power Balancing, Power Transitions, Security Dilemmas, and a Rising China. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Goldstein, Avery (2007). Power Transitions, Institutions, and China's Rise in East Asia: Theoretical Expectations and Evidence. Journal of Strategic Studies, 30(4-5), 639-682.

Goldstein, Avery (2008). Rising to the Challenge: China's Grand Strategy and International Security. Singapore: NUS Press.

Hebron, Lui; James, Patrick and Rudy, Michael (2007). Testing Dynamic Theories of Conflict: Power Cycles, Power Transitions, Foreign Policy Crises and Militarized Interstate Disputes. International Interactions, 33(1), 1-29.

Heckman, Garrett (2010). Power Capabilities and Similarity of Interests: A Test of the Power Transition Theory. Lap Lambert Academic Publishing..

Hegre, Havard (2008). Gravitating Toward War: Preponderance May Pacify, but Power Kills. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(4), 566-589.

Heo, Uk; Christensen, Eben J. and Karaman, Tatyana (2003). Power Parity, Alliance, Differential Growth, and Great Power Wars: An Empirical Research Note. Armed Forces and Society,

43

29(3), 449-459.

Hinich, Melvin and Munger, Michael (1997). Analytical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Houweling, Henk and Siccama, Jan (1988). Studies of War. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Houweling, Henk and Siccama, Jan (1988). Power Transitions as a Cause of War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 87-102.

Houweling, Henk and Siccama Jan (1991). Power Transitions and Critical Points as Predictors of Great Power War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(4), 642-658.

Houweling, Henk and Siccama, Jan (1996). A Two-Level Explanation of World War. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 107-116). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Hunter, Lance, and McMichael, Taylor (2008). Trade, Power Transitions and Conflict: A Multiple Hierarchical Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MPSA Annual National Conference, Hilton, Chicago, IL, USA.

Huth, Paul, and Bruce Russett (1993). General Deterrence between Enduring Rivals: Testing Three Competing Models. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 61-73.

Hwang, Young-Bae and Kugler, Jacek (1998). The Likelihood of Major Conflict in East Asia and the Korean Peninsula. World Affairs, 161(2), 99-111.

Intriligator, Michael and Brito, Dagobert (1981). Nuclear Proliferation and the Probability of Nuclear War. Public Choice 37, 247-260.

Intriligator, Michael and Brito, Dagobert (1984). Can Arms Races Lead to the Outbreak of War? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(1), 63-84.

Johnson, Kristin and Arbetman-Rabinowitz, Marina (2009). Oil... Path to Prosperity or Poverty? Political Reach and Capacity in Africa. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 50th Annual Convention, New York City, NY, USA.

Kadera, Kelly (1996). The Conditions and Consequences of Dyadic Power Transitions: Deductions from a Dynamic Model. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp.287-312). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

44

Kaldera, Kelly (2001). The Power-Conflict Story: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kadera, Kelly and Sorokin, Gerald (2004). Measuring National Power. International Interactions, 30(3), 211-230.

Kadera, Kelly and Morey, Daniel S. (2005). Power Transitions & Nonlinear Conflict Dynamics in Major Power Dyads. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, USA.

Kang, Kyungkook and Kugler, Jacek (2007). Conditional Deterrence: Why Do Actors Engage in Extreme Wars? Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030657.

Kang, Kyungkook (2011). Conditional Deterrence: Microeconomic Analysis of War Initiation Mechanism. Ph.D. Dissertation: Claremont Graduate University.

Kang, Kyungkook and Kugler, Jacek (2009). Confronting Nuclear Challenges: Deterrence, Proliferation and Terrorism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 50th Annual Convention. New York City, NY, USA.

Kang, Kyungkook, and Kugler, Jacek (2010). Deterring Nuclear Challenges: A Formal Analysis of Extreme War Mechanisms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Kang, Kyungkook and Kugler, Jacek (2011). Nuclear Weapons: Stability of Terror. In Clark, Sean and Hoque, Sabrina, Debating a Post-American World: What Lies Ahead?. New York: Routledge.

Kapur, S. Paul (2009). Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia. Singapore: NUS Press.

Kennedy, Paul (1988). The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. New York: Random House.

Keohane, Robert (1980). Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Change in International Economic Regimes. In Holsti, Ole; Siverson, Randolph and George, Alexander. Change in the International System. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Keohane, Robert (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kim, Woosang (1989). Power, Alliance, and Major Wars, 1816-1975. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(2), 255-273.

45

Kim, Woosang (1991). Alliance Transitions and Great Power War. American Journal of Political Science , 35(4), 833-850.

Kim, Woosang (1992). "Power Transitions and Great Power War from Westphalia to Waterloo." World Politics, 45(1), 153-172.

Kim, Woosang (1996). Power Parity, Alliance, and War from 1648 to 1975. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 93- 106). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Kim, Woosang (2002). Power Parity, Alliance, Dissatisfaction and Wars in East Asia 1860-1993. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 46(5), 654-671.

Kim, Woosang and Morrow, James (1992). When Do Power Shifts Lead to War? American Journal of Political Science , 36(5), 896-922.

Kindleberger, Charles P. (1973). The World in Depression. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kinsella, David (2008). The Illicit Arms Trade: A Social Network Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association’s 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, USA.

Klare, Michael T. (2003). The Empire's New Frontiers. Current History, 102(667), 383-387.

Klare, Michael T. (2005). Revving up the China Threat. Nation, 281(13).

Knorr, Klaus (1956) The War Potential of Nations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Knorr, Klaus (1970) Military Power and Potential, Cambrige: D.H. Heath.

Koubi, Vally (2005). War and Economic Performance. Journal of Peace Research, 42(1), 67-82.

Koubi, Vally; Kugler, Tadeusz; Kugler, Jacek, Tobias, Bohmelt and Zagorowski, Piotr (2011). Power Transition, Environmental Degradation, and Civil Conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Political Science Association’s 1st Annual Convention, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.

Kugler, Jacek (1973). The Consequences of War: Fluctiations in National Capabilities Following Major Wars, 1880-1970. Ph.D. diss: University of Michigan.

Kugler, Jacek (1984). Terror without Deterrence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(3), 470-506.

46

Kugler, Jacek (1996). Beyond Deterrence: Structural Conditions for a Lasting Peace. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 231-248). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Kugler, Jacek (2006). The Asian Ascent: Opportunity for Peace or Precondition for War? International Studies Perspectives, 7, 36-42.

Kugler, Jacek and Arbetman, Marina (1987). The Phoenix Factor Revisited. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington DC, USA.

Kugler, Jacek, and Arbetman, Marina (1989a). Exploring the Phoenix Factor with the Collective Goods Perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(1), 84-112.

Kugler, Jacek and Arbetman, Marina (1989b). Choosing Among Measures of Power. In Stoll, Richard and Ward, Michael, Power in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Kugler, Jacek and Domke, William (1986). Comparing the Strength of Nations. Comparative Political Studies, 19, 39-69.

Kugler, Jacek, and Feng, Yi (1999). Explaining and Modeling Democratic Transitions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(2), 139-146.

Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (1996). Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (2000). The Power Transition Program: Assessing Theoretical and Empirical Advances. In Midlarsky, Manus I., Handbook of War Studies II (pp. 129-165). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kugler, Jacek and Organski, A.F.K. (1989). The Power Transition: A Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation. In Midlarsky, Manus I., Handbook of War Studies (pp. 171-194). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Kugler, Jacek and Organski, A.F.K. (1989). The End of Hegemony? International Interactions, 15, 113-128.

Kugler, Jacek, and Tammen, Ronald (2003). Exploring the Causes of an Asian Challenge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Kugler, Jacek and Tammen, Ronald (2004). Regional Challenge: China's Rise to Power. In The Asia- Pacific: A Region in Transition, edited by Jim Rolfe. Waikiki, Hawaii: Asia-Pacific Center for

47

Security Studies.

Kugler, Jacek; Tammen, Ronald and Efird, Brian (2004). Global and Regional Implications of the War on Terror. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association Chicago, IL, USA.

Kugler, Jacek; Tammen, Ronald and Efird, Brian (2004). Integrating Theory and Policy: Global Implications of the War in Iraq. In The Construction and Cumulation of Knowledge in International Relations, edited by Geller, Daniel and Vasquez, John.

Kugler, Jacek and Tammen, Ronald (2005). China: Satisfied or Dissatisfied the Strategic Equation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, HI, USA.

Kugler, Jacek and Tammen, Ronald (2006). Middle East Regional Stability after the Iraq War. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, USA.

Kugler, Jacek and Tammen, Ronald (2008). Implications of Asia's Rise to Global Status. In Systemic Transitions: Past, Present, and Future, edited by William R. Thompson. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kugler, Jacek; Tammen, Ronald and Swaminathan, Siddharth (2008). The New Century: U.S. Dominance, European Integration and the Asian Challenge. Transformancje / Transformations, 39-40, (87-102).

Kugler, Jacek; Tammen, Ronald and Thomas, John (2011). Global Transitions. In Debating a Post- American World: What Lies Ahead?, edited by Sean and Sabrina Hoque Clark. London: Routledge.

Kugler, Jacek and Young-Bae Hwang (1998). The Likelihood of Major Conflict in East Asia and the Korean Peninsula: A Power Parity Perspective. World Affairs,161(2), 99-111.

Kugler, Jacek and Zagare, Frank (1987). Exploring the Stability of Deterrence. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Kugler, Jacek and Zagare, Frank (1990). The Long-Term Stability of Deterrence. International Interactions, 15, 255-278.

Kugler, Tadeusz and Siddharth Swaminathan (2006). The Politics of Population. International Studies Review, 8(4), 581-596.

48

Kugler, Tadeusz and Coan, Travis (2008). The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment: An Interactive Framework. International Interactions, 34, 402-422.

Kugler, Tadeusz, and Kugler, Jacek (2010). Political Demography: Status of the Field, International Studies Compendium. Wily-Blackwell Publishing.

Kugler, Tadeusz; Kang, Kyungkook; Arbetman-Rabinowitz, Marina and Thomas, John (2011). Demographic and Economic Consequences of Conflict. Mimeo.

Kumar, Shivaji (2009). Peaceful Revision of International Politics: An Exploratory Study of Identity and Power Transitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago, IL, USA.

Laich, John (2009). Power Transitions and International Trade Institutions: How Do Power Shift Challenges Influence Institutional Alignments? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago, IL, USA.

Lake, David A. (2007). Escape from the State of Nature. International Security. 32(1), 47-79.

Lebow, Richard N. (1994). The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism. International Organization, 48(2), 249-277.

Lebow, Richard N. and Valentino, Benjamin (2009). Lost in Transition: A Critical Analysis of Power Transition Theory. International Relations, 23(3), 389-410.

Lemke, Douglas (1993). Multiple Hierarchies in the World Politics. Ph.D. Dissertation: Vanderbilt University.

Lemke, Douglas (1995). Toward a General Understanding of Parity and War. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 14(2), 143-162

Lemke, Douglas (1996). Small States and War: An Expansion of Power Transition Theory. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 77-92). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

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

Lemke, Douglas (2002). Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge: University Press.

49

Lemke, Douglas (2003). Investigating the Preventive Motive for War. International Interactions, 29(4), 273-292.

Lemke, Douglas (2004). Great Powers in the Post-Cold War World: A Power Transition Theory Perspective. In T.V. Paul, James Wirtz, and Michel Fortmann, eds. Balance of Power (pp.52- 75). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lemke, Douglas (2008). Power Politics and Wars without States. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 774-786.

Lemke, Douglas (2010). Dimensions of Hard Power: Regional Leadership and Material Capabilities. In Daniel Flemes (ed), Regional Leadership in the Global System (pp. 31-50). Franham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate.

Lemke, Douglas and Kugler, Jacek (1996). The Evolution of the Power Transition Perspective. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 3-34). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Lemke, Douglas and Reed, William (1996). Regime Type and Status Quo Evaluations: Power Transitions and the Democratic Peace Proposition. International Interactions, 22(2), 143-164.

Lemke, Douglas and Reed, William (1997). Power is Not Satisfaction. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), 511-516.

Lemke, Douglas and Reed, William (2001a). War and Rivalry among Great Powers. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 457-469.

Lemke, Douglas and Reed, William (2001b). The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(1), 126-144.

Lemke, Douglas and Tammen, Ronald (2003a). Power Transition Theory and the Rise of China. International Interactions, 29(4), 269-271.

Lemke, Douglas and Tammen, Ronald (2003b). The Impact of the Second Iraqi War on the Cross Straits Discussions. In 2003 Tamkang University International Forum Book. Taiwan, China: Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University.

Lemke, Douglas and Werner, Suzanne (1996). Power Parity, Commitment to Change, and War. International Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 235-260.

Levy, Jack (1987). Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War. World Politics, 40(1), 273-

50

292.

Levy, Jack and Thompson, William (2010). Causes of War. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lucas, George (1975). An Equilibrium Model of the Business Cycle. Journal of Political Economy, 83(6), 1113-1144.

Mandel, Robert (1980). Roots of the Modern Interstate Border Dispute. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(3), 27-454.

Maoz, Zeev (1985). Decision Theortic and Game Theoretic Models of International Conflict. In Luterbacher, Urs and Ward, Michael D (eds.), Dynamic Models of International Conflict (pp. 77-112). Boulder: Lynne Riener Publishers.

Maoz, Zeev (1993). The Onset and Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes in the Modern Era. International Interactions, 19, 117-141.

Miller, Gregory (2006). Balances, Bandwagons, and Power Transitions: A Dynamic View of Alliance Formation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association,San Diego, California, USA.

Morgan, Clifton and Palmer, Glenn (2003). To Protect and to Serve: Alliances and Foreign Policy Portfolios. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(2), 180-203.

Morrow, James (1991). Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliances. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 904-933.

Morrow, James (1996). The Logic of Overtaking. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp.313-330). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Mott IV, William H (1997). The Economic Basis of Peace: Linkages between Economic Growth and International Conflict. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Moul, William (1988). Balances of Power and the Escalation to War of Serious Disputes among the European Great Powers, 1815-1939: Some Evidence. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 241-275.

Moul, William (2003). Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4), 468-489.

51

Mundell, Robert (1961). A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas. The American Economic Review, 51(4), 657-665.

Mundell, Robert (2009). Mexico: Perspectives on Economic Development. In Torres, David Ledezma and Mungaray, Barbara (eds.). Mexico and the World. Comparative Perspective for the Study of Development. Mexicali, Baja California: Universidad Autonoma de Baja California.

Mueller, Harald and Carsten, Rauch (2011). Managing Power Transition with a Concert of Powers? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

National Intelligence Council (2000). Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Nongovernment Experts. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

National Intelligence Council (2004). Mapping the Global Future: Report to National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Nolte, Detlef (2006). Power and Power Hierarchies in International Relations: Towards an Analytical Concept for the Study of Regional Powers. GIGA, working paper.

Nye, Joseph (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.

Oneal, John R. and Russett, Bruce (2004). Seeking Peace in the Post-Cold War World of Hegemony and Terrorism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Organski, A.F.K (1958). World Politics. New York: Knopf.

Organski, A.F.K. (1965). Stages of Political Development. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Organski, A.F.K (1968). World Politics, Second Edition. New York: Knopf.

Organski, A.F.K. and Arbetman, Marina (1993). The Second American Century. In Zimmerman, W. and Jacobson, H. K., Behavior, Culture and Conflict in World Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Organski, A.F.K.; Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lamborn, Alan (1972). The Effective Population in International Politics. In K. Nash, Governance and Population: The Governmental Implications of Population Change (pp. 235-250). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office

52

Organski, A.F.K. and Kugler, Jacek (1977). The Costs of Major Wars: The Phoenix Factor. American Political Science Review , 71, 1347-1366.

Organski, A.F.K. and Kugler, Jacek (1978). Davids and Goliaths: Predicting the Outcomes of International Wars. Comparative Political Studies, 11(1), 141-180.

Organski, A.F.K. and Kugler, Jacek (1980). The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Organski, A.F.K.; Kugler, Jacek; Johnson, Timothy and Cohen, Youssef (1984). Births, Deaths, and Taxes: The Demographic and Political Transitions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Organski, A.F.K., and Tammen, Ronald (1996). The New Open Door Policy. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 331-346). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Organski, Katherine Fox and Organski, A.F.K. (1961). Population and World Power. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Park, Yong-Hee (2008). The Effects of Power and Satisfaction on Violent Interstate Conflict: A Test of Power Transition Theory, 1816-2002. Ph.D. Dissertation: Texas Tech University.

Palmer, Glenn and Morgan, T. Clifton (2006). A Theory of Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Palmer, Glenn and Morgan, T. Clifton (2007). Power Transition, the Two-Good Theory, and Neorealism: A Comparison with Comments on Recent U.S. Foreign Policy. International Interactions, 33(3), 329-346.

Powell, Roger (1996). Stability and the Distribution of Power. World Politics, 48(2), 239-267.

Powell, Roger (1999). In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Quackenbush, Stephen L. (2006). Not Only Whether but Whom: Three-Party Extended Deterrence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(4), 562-583.

Raghavan, V.R. (2006). The Us and the Rising Powers: India and China. In Seminar on The US and the Rising Powers. Chennai: Centre for Security Analysis.

Rarkin, David and Thompson, William R. (2003). Power Transition, Challenge and the (Re)Emergence of China. International Interactions, 29(4), 315-342.

53

Rasler, Karen A. and Thompson, William R. (1994). The Great Powers and Global Struggle: 1490- 1990. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Reed, William (2000). A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 84-93.

Ritter, Jeffrey (2008). Reconciling "Restraint" and "Coercion" in Alliance Politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association’s 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, USA.

Ritter, Jeffrey (2009). A Rationale for Alliances of Restraint. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago, IL, USA.

Ross, Robert S. and Feng, Zhu (2008). China's Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics. New York: Cornell University Press.

Russett, Bruce (1996). Ten Balances for Weighing UN Reform Proposals. Political Science Quarterly, 111(2), 259-269.

Russett, Bruce (2010). Peace in the Twenty-First Century?. Current History, 109(723), 11-16.

Russett, Bruce, and Stam, Allan C. (1998). Courting Disaster: An Expanded NATO vs. Russia and China. Political Science Quarterly, 113(2), 361-382.

Sample, Susan G. (1998). Military Buildups, War, and Realpolitik: A Multivariate Model. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(2), 156-175.

Samuelson, Paul (1958). An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money. Journal of Political Economy, 66, 467-482.

Sanjian, Gregory S. (2003). Arms Transfers, Military Balances and Interstate Relations: Modeling Power Balance Versus Power Transition Linkages. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 711- 727.

Shankar, Mahesh, and Paul,T.V. (2007). The NPT and Power Transitions in the International System: The Indian Case. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention. Chicago, IL, USA.

Signorino, Curtis S. and Ritter, Jeffrey M. (1999). Tau-B and Not Tau-B: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 115-144.

54

Simon, Marc V. and Starr, Harvey (1996). Extraction, Allocation, and the Rise and Decline of States: A Simulation Analysis of Two-Level Security Management. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(2), 272-297.

Singer, David J.; Bremer, Stuart; Stuckey, John and Russett, Bruce (1972). Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-196. In Russett, Bruce, Peace, War, and Numbers. Beverely Hills: Sage.

Siverson, Randolph M. and Miller, Ross A. (1993). The Escalation of Disputes to War. International Interactions, 19(1), 77-97.

Siverson, Randolph and Miller, Ross (1996). The Power Transition: Problems and Prospects. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 57-76). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Siverson, Randolph and Sullivan, Michael P. (1983). The Distribution of Power and the Onset of War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(3), 473-494.

Sjoberg, Laura (2008). Gender, Power Transitions, and the Rise of China. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association’s 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, USA.

Smith, Vernon (1998). The Two Faces of Adam Smith. Southern Economic Journal, 65, 1-19.

Sobek, David and Payne, Caroline L. (2010). A Tale of Two Types: Rebel Goals and the Onset of Civil Wars. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 213-240.

Solow, Robert (1960). Investment and Technical Progress. In Arrow, Kenneth; Korbin, Samuel and Suppes Patrick (eds.), Mathematical Methods in Social Sciences 1959 (pp. 89-104). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Southwood, Kenneth E. (1978). Substantive Theory and Statistical Interaction: Five Models. American Journal of Sociology, 83(5), 1154-1203.

Souva, Mark (2004). Institutional Similarity and Interstate Conflict. International Interactions, 30(3), 263-280. Stein, Arthur A. (1982). Structural Perspectives, Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World. International Organization, 36(2), 299-324.

Swaine, Michael D. and Tellis, Ashley J. (2000) Interpreting China's Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and

55

Future. RAND.

Sweeney, Kevin J. (2003). The Severity of Interstate Disputes: Are Dyadic Capability Preponderances Really More Pacific? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 728-750.

Tammen, Ronald et al. (2000). Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century. New York: Chatham House. Subsequent revisions and translations into Chinese and Arabic.

Tammen, Ronald; Kugler, Jacek and Swaminathan, Siddharth (2001). Power Transitions and Alliances in the Twenty-First Century. Asian Perspectives, 25, 5-29.

Tammen, Ronald and Kugler, Jacek (2005). The Chinese Dilemma: Satisfied or Dissatisfied. In Science in International Politics and Research. China: Tsinghua University.

Tammen, Ronald and Kugler, Jacek (2006). Power Transition and China-Us Conflicts." Chinese Journal of International Politics, 1(1), 35-55. In Chinese

Tammen, Ronald (2006). The Impact of Asia on World Politics: China and India Options for the United States. International Studies Review, 8(4) 8, 563-580.

Tammen, Ronald (2008). The Organski Legacy: A Fifty-Year Research Program. International Interactions, 34(4), 314-332.

Tammen, Ronald and Kugler, Jacek (2009). National Strategy for the 21st Century. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 50th Annual Convention. New York City, NY, USA.

Tammen, Ronald and Umar, Ayesha (2010). Challenging the Argument That China Will Become the Next Dominant Power. In Hsiang, Antonio C., Power Transitions: Theory and Applications. China: Book-Wind Publishers. In Chinese.

Taylor, A.J.P. (1954) The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848-1918. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, William (1983). Contending Approaches to World System Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Thompson, William (1996). Balances of Power, Transitions, and Long Cycles. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp.163-186). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Toft, Monica Duffy (2007). Population Shifts and Civil War: A Test of Power Transition Theory. International Interactions, 33(3), 243-269.

56

Vasquez, John (1996). When are the Power Transitions Dangerous? An Appraisal and Reformulation of Power Transition Theory. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 35-56). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Waltz, Kenneth (1981). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better. Adelphi Papers, No 171. Waltz, Kenneth (2003). More May Be Better. In Sagan, Scott and Waltz, Kenneth (eds.). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debated Renewed. New York: W.W. Norton.

Wang, Vincent and Stamper, Gwendolyn (2002). Asymmetric War? Implications for China's Information Warfare Strategies. American Asian Review, 20(4), 167-207.

Wayman, Frank Whelon (1996). Power Shifts and the Onset of War. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 145-162). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Weede, Erich (1976). Overwhelming Preponderance as a Pacifying Condition among Contiguous Asian Dyads, 1950-1969. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(3), 395-411.

Werner, Suzanne and Kugler, Jacek (1996). Power Transitions and Military Buildups: Resolving the Relationship between Arms Buildups and War. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp. 187-210). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Werner, Suzanne (1999). Choosing Demands Strategically: The Distribution of Power, the Distribution of Benefits, and the Risk of Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(6), 705-726.

Werner, Suzanne, and Lemke, Douglas (1997). Opposites Do Not Attract: The Impact of Domestic Institutions, Power, and Prior. International Studies Quarterly, 41(3), 529-546.

Wittman, Donald (1979). How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(4), 743-763.

Wheeler, Tarah (2007). Power Transitions as an Agent Based Model: The Formation of Microfoundations through Simulation." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention. Chicago, IL, USA.

Wohlforth, William C. (2009). Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War. World Politics, 61(1), 28-57.

57

Wright, Thomas (2010). Do International Institutions Make Power Transitions More Peaceful? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Yesilada, Birol (2007). Unexpected Implications of an Expanding European Union. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Chicago, IL, USA.

Yesilada, Birol; Efird, Brian and Noordijk, Peter (2006). Competition among Giants: A Look at How Future Enlargement of the European Union Could Affect Global Power Transition. International Studies Review, 8(4), 607-622.

Yesilada, Birol; Noordijk, Peter and Efird, Brian (2008). Regional Transitions and Stability in the Greater Middle East. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association’s 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, USA.

Yoder, Brandon (2010). Power Transitions and Preference Signaling: The Case of British Retrenchment, 1895-1905. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Zagare, Frank (1987). Dynamics of Deterrence. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Zagare, Frank (1990). Rationality and Deterrence. World Politics, 42, 238-260.

Zagare, Frank (1996). The Rites of Passage: Parity, Nuclear Deterrence, and Power Transitions. In Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas (eds.), Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (pp.249-270). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Zagare, Frank and Kilgour, Marc (1993). Asymmetric Deterrence. International Studies Quarterly, 37, 1-27.

Zagare, Frank and Kilgour, Marc (2000). Perfect Deterrence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zak, Paul and Kugler, Jacek (2011). Neuroeconomics and International Studies: A New Understanding of Trust. International Studies Perspectives, 12(2), 136-152.

Zak, Paul; Feng, Yi and Kugler, Jacek (2002). Immigration, Fertility, and Growth. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26(4), 547-576.

Zhao, Quansheng (2005). America's Response to the Rise of China and Sino-Us Relations. Asian Journal of Political Science, 13(2), 1-27.

58

Zhu, Zhiqun (2006). Us-China Relations in the 21st Century: Power Transition and Peace. New York: Routledge.

59