William Moul
Biographic Data
| ID | 4373555 |
|---|---|
| NAME | William Moul |
| GIVEN NAMES | William |
| FAMILY NAME | Moul |
| SIGNATURE | MOUL W |
| AFFILIATIONS | Department of Political Science University of Waterloo, Ontario |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 4 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 16 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 4 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1988 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2005 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
Counting the Seven Weeks War: Dyads, Disputes and Balances of Power
The usual quantitative study of inter-state war and peace tallies observations on hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dyads or pairs of states. These observations miss elementary features of inter-state relations that should be examined when testing Realist explanations of war and peace. The way in which three prominent studies (Bremer, 1992; Bueno de Mesquita, 1981; 1985) chose to count the Seven Weeks War dramatically reveals the theoretical diff…
Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989
Empirical study has worn essential theoretical edges from the power transition theory and rival balance-of-power theories, leaving a misshapen question: does parity in quantitative power capabilities of opposing individual states discourage or encourage war between those two states? Distortions of both theory and evidence—mixing balances of power with balances of terror; overlooking political geography, political incapacity, and alliance formatio…
Dangerous balances, 1816–1989: A simple theory with longitudinal evidence
To be explained are the Great Power versus Great Power wars, 1816–1989. Familiar strands of ‘realist’ thinking are twisted into a good simple balances of power theory to explain peace, war and the extent of war. The evidence, quantitative and qualitative, is that non-separated approximate equals in power capabilities formed dangerous balances. Generally, would-be-combatant great powers used alliances to restrain stronger third parties and to add …
Crisis and WarPatrick James Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988, pp. x, 192
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989
Empirical study has worn essential theoretical edges from the power transition theory and rival balance-of-power theories, leaving a misshapen question: does parity in quantitative power capabilities of opposing individual states discourage or encourage war between those two states? Distortions of both theory and evidence—mixing balances of power with balances of terror; overlooking political geography, political incapacity, and alliance formatio…
Counting the Seven Weeks War: Dyads, Disputes and Balances of Power
The usual quantitative study of inter-state war and peace tallies observations on hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dyads or pairs of states. These observations miss elementary features of inter-state relations that should be examined when testing Realist explanations of war and peace. The way in which three prominent studies (Bremer, 1992; Bueno de Mesquita, 1981; 1985) chose to count the Seven Weeks War dramatically reveals the theoretical diff…
Dangerous balances, 1816–1989: A simple theory with longitudinal evidence
To be explained are the Great Power versus Great Power wars, 1816–1989. Familiar strands of ‘realist’ thinking are twisted into a good simple balances of power theory to explain peace, war and the extent of war. The evidence, quantitative and qualitative, is that non-separated approximate equals in power capabilities formed dangerous balances. Generally, would-be-combatant great powers used alliances to restrain stronger third parties and to add …
Crisis and WarPatrick James Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988, pp. x, 192
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Dangerous balances, 1816–1989: A simple theory with longitudinal evidence
To be explained are the Great Power versus Great Power wars, 1816–1989. Familiar strands of ‘realist’ thinking are twisted into a good simple balances of power theory to explain peace, war and the extent of war. The evidence, quantitative and qualitative, is that non-separated approximate equals in power capabilities formed dangerous balances. Generally, would-be-combatant great powers used alliances to restrain stronger third parties and to add …
Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989
Empirical study has worn essential theoretical edges from the power transition theory and rival balance-of-power theories, leaving a misshapen question: does parity in quantitative power capabilities of opposing individual states discourage or encourage war between those two states? Distortions of both theory and evidence—mixing balances of power with balances of terror; overlooking political geography, political incapacity, and alliance formatio…
Counting the Seven Weeks War: Dyads, Disputes and Balances of Power
The usual quantitative study of inter-state war and peace tallies observations on hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dyads or pairs of states. These observations miss elementary features of inter-state relations that should be examined when testing Realist explanations of war and peace. The way in which three prominent studies (Bremer, 1992; Bueno de Mesquita, 1981; 1985) chose to count the Seven Weeks War dramatically reveals the theoretical diff…
Political science (4 works) · Economics (3 works) · International Relations and Foreign Policy (3 works) · Law (3 works) · Law (3 works) · Physics (3 works) · Political Conflict and Governance (3 works) · Power (physics (3 works) · Psychology (3 works) · Sociology (3 works)