Power is not Satisfaction
A Comment on de Soysa, Oneal, and Park
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6284299 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Douglas Lemke (0000-0002-6176-8051, University of Michigan), William Reed (0000-0002-4580-485X, Florida State University), William L Reed (Florida State University) |
| Year | 1998 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 511-516 |
| Publication date | 1998-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022002798042004006 |
| OpenAlex | W45878808 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 26 |
| References cited | 9 |
In an otherwise careful and thorough replication and reevaluation of empirical findings reported by Organski and Kugler (1980) and by Houweling and Siccama (1988), de Soysa, Oneal, and Park (1997) suggest that power transition theory suffers from a problematic interconnection between its two principal explanatory variables: relative power and status quo evaluations. We argue that there is no such problematic interconnection within the theory and demonstrate empirically that there is no such interconnection in reality. The article by de Soysa, Oneal, and Park (1997) is not about this problematic interconnection, and our comment is not exactly a critique of their work. We believe their empirical conclusions are correct. Rather, we comment on their misinterpretation of an existing theory. Such commentary is important, we believe, because the theory in question offers one of the more promising explanatory tools available to international relations scholars. We hope that de Soysa, Oneal, and Park's misrepresentation of power transition theory will not discourage researchers from working within the power transition tradition. We begin by quoting de Soysa, Oneal, and Park (1997, 512) at some length
Economics · Empirical research · Epistemology · Explanatory power · Interconnection · Market economy · Misrepresentation · Political science · Positive economics · Power (physics · Sociology · Status quo · Telecommunications · Transition (genetics · Computer Science · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Philosophy · Political Conflict and Governance
NewGene
Security and International Relations
The “New Great Game” in Central Asia
Lost in Transition
Research note
Superpower Dispute Initiation
Rising Temperatures, Rising Tensions
Alliance Formation and the Timing of War Involvement
The importance of money and connections
Eugene
Status Quo Preferences and Disputes Short of War
Deterrence theory
The rise of China, balance of power theory and US national security
Power transitions and the rise of the regulatory state
Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods
Power, Wealth, and Satisfaction
Power Parity, Alliance, Dissatisfaction, and Wars in East Asia, 1860-1993
But Power and Wealth are Satisfying
The legacy of Admiral von Tirpitz
Dirty Pool
Dangerous Liaisons
A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation
To Engage or Not to Engage? Explaining the Logic of the US’s China Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era
An assessment of the validity of empirical measures of state satisfaction with the systemic status quo
Discerning states’ revisionist and status-quo orientations
Dyadic Hostility and the Ties That Bind
Parity and War
Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods
War and Reason
Regime types and status quo evaluations
Power Transitions and Great Power War from Westphalia to Waterloo
Testing Power-Transition Theory Using Alternative Measures of National Capabilities
Power Transitions as a Cause of War
Alliance Transitions and Great Power War
When Do Power Shifts Lead to War
| Unique citing works | 26 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,93 |
| Citation span | 1998 - 2025 (28) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 26 |