Société québécoise de science politique Externalization of Conflict: Testing a Crisis-Based Model Author(s): Patrick James Reviewed work(s): Source: Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1987), pp. 573-598 Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de science politique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3228858 . Accessed: 08/10/2012 14:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Canadian Political Science Association and Société québécoise de science politique are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique. http://www.jstor.org Externalizationof Conflict: Testing a Crisis-Based Model PATRICK JAMES McGill University Austro-Hungarianpolicy is generallycriticized but this criticismis misleading. Berchtold is almost universallystigmatized for seeking to preserve a doomed empire at the risk of a European war. Although espoused by pacifists and apologists for the other powers, this criticism could have little relevance for Austro-Hungarianstatesmen. It was their duty to preserve Austria-Hungary, not peace. Since they perceivedthat Austria-Hungarywas doomed unless war was risked [in 1914],it was their responsibilityto risk war.' Externalization is one of the most enduring theories in the literature devoted to international conflict; Austria-Hungary going to war in 1914 in a desperate effort to restore internal order and prolong its existence is but one commonly cited example. Also known as "conflict and cohesion" or "projection," the rationale of externalization is straightforward and persuasive. When national leaders are faced with internal disruption, a logical response is to divert the public eye toward an external "scapegoat."'2 A foreign menace-perceived or real-has the potential to reunite a disaffected population. Since the ostensible threat concerns the state as whole, it should result in at least a temporary suspension of internal conflict. Furthermore, if the foreign menace is met successfully-once again leaving aside whether it is real or contrived-support for the regime may be revitalized. Thus for 1 L. L. Farrar, Jr., "The Limits of Choice: July 1914Reconsidered," in Melvin Small and J. David Singer (eds.), International War: An Anthology and Study Guide (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1985), 251-52. 2 The classic expositions from sociology and social psychology may be found in Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1956); Anthony de Reuck and Julie Knight, Conflict in Society (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966); Clyde Kluckhohn, Mirrorfor Man (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Books, 1960); Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955); and Mustafa Sherif and C. W. Sherif, Groups in Harmony and Tension (New York: Harper, 1955). Patrick James, Department of Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7 Canadian Journal of Pblitical Science I Revue canadienne de science politique, XX:3 (September/ septembre 1987). Printed in Canada / Imprime au Canada 574 PATRICK JAMES Austria-Hungary in 1914, a successful war against Serbia might have counteracted the internal tensions that threatened to dissolve the empire in short order. Despite its plausibility, and the existence of some prominent historicalinstances, the projectionmodel has not found confirmationin systematic research by a generation of scholars; a straightforward relationshipbetween internaland external conflict has not emerged.The task of this article is to investigate this mysterious discrepancy between theory and testing. A reassessment of behavioural research on externalization, resulting in the identification of validity-related problems, is the first stage. The second task involves the formulation of a crisis-based model of projection that is intended to meet the essential criticisms. Operationalization of the model is the third stage and testing is fourth.The final stage concerns the implicationsof the findingsfor the further study of conflict and cohesion. The Behavioural Research Programme According to the conventional wisdom of political scientists writing in decades past, elites frequently engaged in interstate conflicts in order to promote national unity and social stability.3 However, testing over the last 20 years by behavioural scientists has produced very little support for the time-honoured theory of conflict linkage. Rummel's 1963 study signalled the beginning of systematic research on externalization. His factor analysis of cross-sectional data produced no connection between various dimensions of internal and external conflict.4 In general, replication studies have supported Rummel's findings. Most researchers have found no connection, and the linkages that have emerged are highly restricted in character and do not lend support to the theory. In 1980, Stohl concluded his extensive analysis of the literature in the following manner: The two most importantgeneral conclusions we can drawfrom this review are, unfortunately, negative ones. First, there appears to be no single clear relationshipbetween internaland external conflict that holds across time and space. Second, most of the conventionalwisdom and theoretical speculation concerning the conflict nexus remains either unsupportedby, or in direct opposition to, the systematic empiricalwork that has been accomplishedthus far.5 3 Amongthe most prominentassertions are those of Quincy Wright,A Study of War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 1016;Ernst B. Haas and Allen S. Whiting, Dynamics of International Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), 62; and Richard N. Rosecrance, Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963),304, 306. 4 R. J. Rummel, "Dimensions of Conflict Behavior Withinand Between Nations," General Systems Yearbook 8 (1963), 1-50. 5 MichaelStohl, "The Nexus of Civil and InternationalConflict," in Ted RobertGurr Abstract. This study will investigate the problematic character of externalization theory, which posits that national leaders sometimes engage in foreign conflict in order to restore domestic cohesion. The first stage is a reassessment of the behavioural literature that, for two decades, has failed to support the theory, despite commonly held expectations to the contrary. Some significant discrepancies between theory and testing are uncovered during the review. These missing elements of externalization subsequently are incorporated in a crisis-oriented model. This model of crisis resolution, based on domestic conflict change as the independent variable and war versus de-escalation as the dependent variable, is tested using International Crisis Behaviour Project data from 1948-1975. The results are encouraging to the theory and suggest the value of further research in the area. Resume. Cette enqubte examine la thborie de l'externalisation, en incluant l'argument contestable que les chefs politiques engageaient autrefois leur pays dans les conflits externes afin de retablir la cohesion chez eux. Malgre les attentes des chercheurs, les r~sultats de la recherche ne soutiennent pas la thiorie depuis 20 ans. La premiire partie de l'article r~vele des discordances importantes entre la theorie et les risultats dans le programme de verification de la recherche. Ensuite, ces 6l1ments manques du processus d'externalisation font partie d'un module de crise. Ce modele de la resolution d'une crise traite du changement au niveaux des conflits internes comme variable ind~pendante de la guerre ou la d~sescalade comme variable dipendante. Le modele est v~rifi6 avec les donn~es de l'International Crisis Behaviour Project, 1948-1975. Les r~sultats indiquent dans quel sens il vaut la peine de poursuivre la recherche en la matiire. Some examples will bring out these points quite readily. In a series of investigations, Wilkenfeld and others found domestic and foreign conflict linkages in the presence of an intervening variable-type of government. For instance, in the case of polyarchic states (Western, industrialized democracies), external belligerence could be traced to the presence of internal warfare." Other researchers discovered specific regional connections. Collins, for one, used a sample of 33 independent countries in Africa and events data for the years 1963-1965.He found that violent foreign behaviour could not be explained in terms of prior domestic strife, although anti-foreign unoffical behaviour and complaints about foreign interference in internal affairs could be predicted from the level of domestic disorder. Similarly, Onate examined the conflict behaviour of the People's Republic of China from 1950 to 1970, and his results suggested a minor relationship involving (ed.), Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and Research (New York: Free Press, 1980), 325. 6 Jonathan Wilkenfeld's highly influential studies include "Domestic and Foreign Conflict Behavior of Nations," Journal