An assessment of the validity of empirical measures of state satisfaction with the systemic status quo

Kang, Choong-Nam; Gibler, Douglas M.

doi:10.1177/1354066112436702

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second tack for future research is to explore the relationship between the IMaC and the concept of satisfaction. The field lacks a system level variable of satisfaction (Kang and Gibler 2013), and IMaC might meet that need. Finally, the opening of the "black box" of peace raises the question about the relationship between IMaC and the quality of interstate peace (Goertz et al 2016;Wallensteen 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Universalism to Managerial Coordination: Major Power Regulation of the Use of Force

Travlos¹

2016

AISR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation among major powers in order to regulate an aspect of international relations has been central to questions of global governance. In peace science the focus has been on the efficacy of major power regulation of the use of force. However, fruitful study requires variables that can capture the quality of major power regulation of the use of force. To provide such an instrument I use Peter Wallensteen’s “universalism-particularism” variable-concept as the foundation. On it I built the concept of managerial coordination and the instrument that captures its quality, the scale of interstate managerial coordination (IMaC). Using IMaC, puzzling prior findings concerning major power regulation and minor power conflict are shown to be artifacts of operationalization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Universalism to Managerial Coordination: Major Power Regulation of the Use of Force

Travlos¹

2016

AISR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both of these operationalizations, however, are problem-ridden (De Soysa et al 1998;DiCicco and Levy 2003;Kang and Gibler 2012). The armament indicator starts from the reasonable assumption that a power which has dedicated itself to radical and violent revision of the international order needs appropriate instruments of force.…”

Section: The Missing Link -How To Satisfy a Great Power?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 An additional approach that highlights similarities in the domestic realm and hence offers an interesting link to democratic peace theory is presented by Lemke and Reed (1996). Kang and Gibler (2012) recently suggested using cost of money for sovereign borrowers as indicator. 9 By contrast there is a clearer correlation between the variables armament and war (see Singer 1963;Siverson and Diehl 1989;Vasquez 2009), although it may run both ways (De Soysa et al 1998: 518).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 It will, however, not be able to capture dissatisfaction among middle or lesser powers that may lack the (financial) capabilities for major military build-ups. 13 See De Soysa et al (1998), Kang and Gibler (2012), Kim (1996), Lemke and Kugler (1996), Siverson and Miller (1996), Werner and Kugler (1996). 14 For another perspective see Clark's (2009) work on hegemony and the English school.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making the world safe for power transition - Towards a conceptual combination of power transition theory and hegemony theory

Raucha¹,

Wurmb²

2013

Journal of Global Faultlines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to establish a political framework to mitigate the crisis propensity of power transitions in the international system. One approach that focuses on this phenomenon is Power Transition Theory, which warns that situations in which rising powers approach a (declining) hegemon often escalate into conflict or war. Specifically unsatisfied rising powers are expected to come into conflict with the dominant power and each other. Power Transition Theory, however, has only a limited view on the structure of the international order. It overlooks the possibility of ruling the system by consensus rather than by coercion, highlighted by Liberal Hegemony Theory. Merging Power Transition Theory with liberal Hegemony Theory can reveal previously hidden opportunities to manage peaceful power transitions. In the light of the prolonged economic growth of countries like China and India this finding might prove to be crucial for the thinking of future world-order-governance politics.

show abstract

“… 26. For assessments of conventional satisfaction indicators see Kang and Gibler (2013) and Chan (2004). There is a widespread agreement within PTT circles that the lack of understanding of the satisfaction variable is one of the biggest weaknesses of the theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two power transitions: Capabilities, satisfaction, and the will to power in the relations between the United Kingdom, the United States, and Imperial Germany

Rauch

2017

International Area Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the current redistributions in the global balance of power, power transition theory (PTT) has once again become an important intellectual factor. Many observers employing PTT are anxious about China’s ascendance and expect serious conflicts between Washington and Beijing in the coming years. Such skepticism, however, is problematic for three reasons. First, it is false theoretically; PTT does not claim that all rising powers will resort to war or that all power transitions will result in war. Second, it is false empirically; not all power transitions in history have resulted in Great Power wars. Third, it leads to flawed policy advice; if rising powers are not always dissatisfied and do not always challenge the status quo, then policies meant to oppose them might breed dangerous dissatisfaction in the first place. This article amends PTT by adding a variable, the “will to power” (WTP), that captures the willingness of rising powers to commit themselves to changing the status quo. Furthermore, it scrutinizes two historical power transition constellations (United Kingdom–United States and United Kingdom–Imperial Germany). In both cases the new variable is consistent with the outcome and particularly in the United Kingdom–United States case the WTP variable broadens our understanding by making it possible to see this relationship as “missed” or “eschewed” instead of as a peaceful power transition. Doing so extends the power transition dichotomy to a much more complex and realistic typology of power transition constellations.

show abstract

An assessment of the validity of empirical measures of state satisfaction with the systemic status quo

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

From Universalism to Managerial Coordination: Major Power Regulation of the Use of Force

From Universalism to Managerial Coordination: Major Power Regulation of the Use of Force

Making the world safe for power transition - Towards a conceptual combination of power transition theory and hegemony theory

A tale of two power transitions: Capabilities, satisfaction, and the will to power in the relations between the United Kingdom, the United States, and Imperial Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About