Abdollahian, M. (1996). In search of structure: The nonlinear dynamics of international. (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate School.
Abdollahian, M., & Alsharabati, C. (2003). Modeling the strategic effects of risk and perceptions in linkage politics. Rationality and Society, 15(1), 113–135.
Abdollahian, M., Arbetman-Rabinowitz, M., & Kang, K. (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.
Abdollahian, M., Baranick, M., Efird, B., & Kugler, J. (2006). Senturion: A predictive political simulation model. Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense University.
Abdollahian, M., & Kang, K. (2008). In search of structure: The nonlinear dynamics of power transitions. International Interactions, 34(4), 333–357.
Alcock, N. Z., & Newcombe, A. G. (1970). The perception of national power. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14(3), 335–343.
Allison, Graham. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape the ‘Thucydides Trap’? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Alsharabati, C. (1997). Dynamics of war initiation. (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University.
Alsharabati, C., & Kugler, J. (2008). War initiation in a changing world. International Interactions, 34(4), 358–381.
Altfeld, M., & Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1979). Choosing sides in war. International studies Quarterly, 23(2), 87–112
Arbetman, M. (1996). The consequences of the American Civil War. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 211–230). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Arbetman, M., & Kugler, J. (1997). Political capacity and economic behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Arbetman Rabinowitz, M., & Johnson, K. (2008). Relative political capacity: Theory, model, data, & updates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA.
Arbetman Rabinowitz, M., & Johnson, K. (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.
Bapat, N. A., & Morgan, C. (2009). Multilateral versus unilateral sanctions reconsidered: A test using new data. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1075–1094.
Bennett, D. S., & Stam, A. C. (2000). A universal test of an expected utility theory of war. International Studies Quarterly, 44(3), 451–480.
Benson, M. (1999). The ties that bind: Status quo preferences, democracy, and conflict. (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University.
Benson, M. (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, M. (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.
Benson, M. (2006). Trade expectations: The trend in trade and dyadic disputes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Benson, M. (2007). Extending the bounds of power transition theory. International Interactions, 33(3), 211–215.
Benson, M. (2007). Status quo preferences and disputes short of war. International Interactions, 33(3), 271–288.
Benson, M., & Kugler, J. (1998). Power parity, democracy, and the severity of internal violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(2), 169–209.
Benson, M., & Rochon, T. R. (2004). Interpersonal trust and the magnitude of protest. Comparative Political Studies, 37(4), 435–457.
Berkowitz, B. D. (1985). Proliferation, deterrence, and the likelihood of nuclear war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29(1), 112–136.
Berman, S. (2001). Modernization in historical perspective: The case of Imperial Germany. World Politics, 53(3), 431–462.
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boswell, T., & Sweat, M. (1991). Hegemony, long waves, and major wars: A time series analysis of systemic dynamics, 1496–1967. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 123–149.
Braithwaite, A., & Lemke, D. (2011). Unpacking escalation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(2), 111–123.
Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309–341.
Boulding, K. (1962). Conflict and defense. New York: Harper.
Brodie, B. (Ed.). (1946). The absolute weapon. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Brodie, Bernard (1959). Strategy in the missile age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1975). Measuring systemic polarity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(2). 187–216.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1981). Risk, power distributions, and the likelihood of war. International Studies Quarterly, 25, 541–568.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1990). Pride of place: The origins of German hegemony. World Politics, 43, 28–52.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1996). Beliefs about power and the risks of war: A power transition game. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 271–286). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Downs, G. (2005). Development and democracy. Foreign Affairs, 84(5), 77–86.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Lalman, D. (1988). Empirical support for systemic and dyadic explanations of international conflict. World Politics, 41, 1–20.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Lalman, D. (1992). War and reason: Domestic and international imperatives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Riker, W. (1982). An assesment of the merits of selective nuclear proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(2), 283–306.
Bussmann, M., & Oneal, J. R. (2007). Do hegemons distribute private goods? A test of power transition theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(1), 88–111.
Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T., & Simmons, B. A. (2002). Handbook of international relations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Cederman, L.-E., Buhaug, H., & Rød, J. K. (2009a). Ethno-nationalist dyads and civil war: A GIS-based analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(4), 496–525.
Cederman, L.-E., Girardin, L., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2009b). Ethnonationalist triads: Assessing the influence of kin groups on civil wars. World Politics, 61(3), 403–437.
Cederman, L.-E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2010). Why do ethnic groups rebel? World Politics, 62(1), 87–119.
Chan, S. (2008). China, the U.S, and the power-transition theory: A critique. New York: Routledge.
Childs, S. (2011). Security as satisfaction: Conventional arms transfers and the international order, (Doctoral Dissertation). Claremont Graduate University.
Cunningham, D., Gleditsch, K. S., & Salehyan, I. (2010). Dyadic interactions and civil war duration. New York: Mimeo.
Danilovic, V. (1996). Modeling power transition: An extended version. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 117–126). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Danilovic, V. (2001). Conceptual and selection bias issues in deterrence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(1), 97–125.
Danilovic, V. (2002). When the stakes are high: Deterrence and conflict among major powers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Danilovic, V., & Clare, J. (2007). Global power transitions and regional interests. International Interactions, 33(3), 289–304.
de Soysa, I., Oneal, J. R., & Park, Y.-H. (1997). Testing power-transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(4), 509–528.
DiCicco, J. M., & Levy, J, S. (1999). Power shifts and problem shifts: The evolution of the power transition research program. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(6), 675–704.
Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (2001). War and peace in international rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Doran, C. (1991). Systems in crisis: New imperatives of high politics at century’s end. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Doran, C., & Parsons, W. (1980). War and the cycle of relative power. American Political Science Review, 74, 947–965.
Efird, B., & Genna, G. (2002). Structural conditions and propensity for regional integration. European Union Politics, 3(3), 267–295.
Efird, B., Kugler, J., & Genna, G. (2003). From war to integration: Generalizing the dynamic of power transitions. International Interactions, 29(4), 293–313.
Efird, B., Kugler, J., & Tammen, R. 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.
(Video) Fundamentals of Marx: A Theory of TransitionsEfird, B., Yesilada, B., & Noordijk, P. (2005). Power transition analysis of the Caucasus region, 2010–2050. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, HI.
Fearon, J. (1995). Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization, 49(3), 379–414.
Fearon, J. (1997). Signaling foreign policy interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68–90.
Feng, Y. (2006). Challenges to China’s growth to dominance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, CA.
Feng, Y., & Genna, G. (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, Y., & Kugler, J. (2015). Tectonic move in 21st century international relations: Ukrainian territorial crisis, realignments of major powers, and implications for the world. The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 2(1), 55–75
Feng, Y., Kugler, J., Swaminathan, S., & Zak, P. (2008). Path to prosperity: The dynamics of freedom and economic development. International Interactions, 34(4), 423–441.
Feng, Y. Kugler, J., & Zak, P. (2000). The politics of fertility and economic development. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 667–693.
Feng, Y., & Zak, P., (1999). Determinants of democratic transitions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43, 162–177.
Filson, D., & Werner, S. (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, M. P. (1978). Economic retrospective voting in American national elections: A micro-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 426–443.
Fisunoglu, A. (2014). Beyond the phoenix factor: Consequences of major wars and determinants of postwar recovery. (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University.
Fisonoglu, A., Kugler, T., & Kang, K. (2017). Rebuilding states: Influences of foreign aid on war recovery. Working Paper, Tans-Research Consortium.
Fravel, M. T. (2007). Power shifts and escalation: Explaining China’s use of force in territorial disputes. International Security, 32(3), 44–83.
Friedberg, A. L. (1988). The weary titan: Britain and the experience of relative decline, 1895–1905. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Frumkin, G. (1951). Population changes in Europe since 1939. London: Allen & Unwin.
Garnham, D. (1976). Power parity and lethal international violence, 1969–1973. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(3), 379–394.
Garnham, D. (1976). Dyadic War 1816–1965: The role of power parity and geographic proximity. The Western Political Quarterly, 29, 231–242.
Geller, D. (1990). Nuclear weapons, deterrence, and crisis escalation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(2), 291–310.
Geller, D. (1992a). Power transition and conflict initiation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 12, 1–16.
Geller, D. (1992b). Capability concentration, power transition, and war. International Interactions, 17, 269–284.
Geller, D. (1993). Power differentials and war in rival dyads. International Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 173–193.
Geller, D. (2000). Status quo orientation, capabilities, and patterns of war initiation in dyadic rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18(1), 73–96.
Geller, D. (2003). Nuclear weapons and the Indo-Pakistani conflict: Global implications of a regional power cycle. International Political Science Review, 24(1), 137–150.
Genna, G. (2002). Changing power, sovereignty and loyalty in European Union. (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University.
Genna, G., & Taeko, H. (2002). Power preponderance and domestic politics: Explaining regional economic integration in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1960–1997. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Working Paper Series, 3(1).
George, A. L., & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in the American foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Gochman, C. (1990). Capability driven disputes. In C. Gochman & A. Sobrosky (Eds.), Prisoners of war? Nations states in the modern era (pp. 141–159). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Goldstein, A. (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.
Goldstein, A. (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, A. (2008). Rising to the challenge: China’s grand strategy and international security. Singapore: NUS Press.
Hamlin, A., & Klempp, T. (2016). Foreign policy and the strategic value of satisfaction: Examining military arms transfers as a determinant metric of satisfaction, MORS 84th Symposium, Marine Corps University, Quantico, Virginia.
Hamlin, A., & Kugler, J. (2016). Peaceful or conflictual transition. Presented at the International Studies Association Meetings, Atlanta, GA.
Harrison, E., & Mitchell, S. M. (2014). The triumph of democracy and the eclipse of the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hebron, L., James, P., & Rudy, M. (2007). Testing dynamic theories of conflict: Power cycles, power transitions, foreign policy crises, and militarized interstate disputes. International Interactions, 33(1), 1–29.
Heckman, G. (2010). Power capabilities and similarity of interests: A test of the power transition theory. (Master’s thesis). Louisiana State University.
Hegre, H. (2008). Gravitating toward war: Preponderance may pacify, but power kills. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(4), 566–589.
Heo, U., Christensen, E. J., & Karaman, T. (2003). Power parity, alliance, differential growth, and great power wars: An empirical research note. Armed Forces and Society, 29(3), 449–459.
Hinich, M., & Munger, M. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Houweling, H., & Siccama, J. (1988a). Studies of war. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Houweling, H., & Siccama, J. (1988b). Power transitions as a cause of war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 87–102.
Houweling, H., & Siccama, J. (1991). Power transitions and critical points as predictors of great power war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(4), 642–658.
Houweling, H., & Siccama, J. (1996). A two-level explanation of world war. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 107–116). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Hunter, L., & McMichael, T. (2008). Trade, power transitions and conflict: A multiple hierarchical analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the MPSA Annual National Conference, Hilton, Chicago.
Huth, P., & Russett, B. (1993). General deterrence between enduring rivals: Testing three competing models. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 61–73.
Hwang, Y.-B., & Kugler, J. (1998). The likelihood of major conflict in East Asia and the Korean Peninsula. World Affairs, 161(2), 99–111.
Intriligator, M., & Brito, D. (1981). Nuclear proliferation and the probability of nuclear war. Public Choice 37, 247–260.
Intriligator, M., & Brito, D. (1984). Can arms races lead to the outbreak of war? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(1), 63–84.
Kadera, K. (1996). The conditions and consequences of dyadic power transitions: Deductions from a dynamic model. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 287–312). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Kadera, K. (2001). The power-conflict story: A dynamic model of interstate rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kadera, K., & Morey, D. 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.
Kadera, K., & Sorokin, G. (2004). Measuring national power. International Interactions, 30(3), 211–230.
Kang, K. (2011). Conditional deterrence: Microeconomic analysis of war initiation mechanism. (Doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University.
Kang, K., Fisunuglu, A., & Kugler, T. (2017). Rebuilding states: Influence of politics and foreign aid on war recovery. Paper presented at the Transresearch Consortium, Carmel, CA.
Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2009). Confronting nuclear challenges: Deterrence, proliferation, and terrorism. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the ISA’s 50th Annual Convention. New York City.
Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (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.
Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2011). Nuclear weapons: Stability of terror. In S. Clark & S. Hoque (Eds.), Debating a post-American world: What lies ahead? New York: Routledge.
Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2015a). Assessment of deterrence and missile defense in East Asia: A power transition perspective. International Area Studies Review, 18(3), 280–296.
Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2015b). Conditional deterrence: Why do actors engage in extreme wars?
(Video) Is the house of history built on foundations of sand? | Graham Hancock | TEDxReadingKang, K., & Kugler, J. (2017). The costly transition to nuclear power: A new model of escalation dynamics in an era of WMD proliferation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, MD.
Kapur, S. P. (2009). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia. Singapore: NUS Press.
Kennedy, P. (1988). The rise and fall of great powers. New York: Random House.
Keohane, R. (1980). Theory of hegemonic stability and change in international economic regimes. In O. Holsti, R. Siverson, & A. George (Eds.), Change in the international system. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kim, W. (1989). Power, alliance, and major wars, 1816–1975. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(2), 255–273.
Kim, W. (1991). Alliance transitions and great power war. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 833–850.
Kim, W. (1992). Power transitions and great power war from Westphalia to Waterloo. World Politics, 45(1), 153–172.
Kim, W. (1996). Power parity, alliance, and war from 1648 to 1975. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 93–106). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Kim, W. (2002). Power parity, alliance, dissatisfaction and wars in East Asia 1860–1993. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(5), 654–671.
Kim, W., & Morrow, J. (1992). When do power shifts lead to war? American Journal of Political Science, 36(5), 896–922.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The world in depression. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kinsella, D. (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, CA.
Klare, M. T. (2003). The empire’s new frontiers. Current History, 102(667), 383–387.
Klare, M. T. (2005). Revving up the China threat. Nation, 281(13).
Knorr, K. (1956). The war potential of nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Knorr, K. (1970). Military power and potential. Cambridge, U.K.: D. H. Heath.
Koubi, V. (2005). War and economic performance. Journal of Peace Research, 42(1), 67–82.
Koubi, V., Kugler, T., Kugler, J., Tobias, B., & Zagorowski, P. (2011). Power transition, environmental degradation, and civil conflict. Paper presented at the European Political Science Association’s 1st Annual Convention, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Kugler, J. (1993). The consequences of war: Fluctuations in national capabilities following major wars, 1880–1970. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan.
Kugler, J. (1984). Terror without deterrence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(3), 470–506.
Kugler, J. (1996). Beyond deterrence: Structural conditions for a lasting peace. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 231–248). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Kugler, J. (2006). The Asian ascent: Opportunity for peace or precondition for war? International Studies Perspectives, 7, 36–42.
Kugler, J., & Arbetman, M. (1987). The phoenix factor revisited. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC.
Kugler, J., & Arbetman, M. (1989a). Exploring the phoenix factor with the collective goods perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(1), 84–112.
Kugler, J., & Arbetman, M. (1989b). Choosing among measures of power. In R. Stoll & M. Ward, (Eds.), Power in world politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Kugler, J., & Domke, W. (1986). Comparing the strength of nations. Comparative Political Studies, 19, 39–69.
Kugler, J., & Feng, Y. (1999). Explaining and modeling democratic transitions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(2), 139–146.
Kugler, J., Fisunoglu, A., & Yesilada, B. (2015). Consequences of reversing the European Union integration. Foreign Policy Analysis, 11, 17–39.
Kugler, J., & Hwang, Y.-B. (1998). The likelihood of major conflict in East Asia and the Korean Peninsula: A power parity perspective. World Affairs, 161(2), 99–111.
Kugler, J., & Lemke, D. (1996). Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kugler, J., & Lemke, D. (2000). The power transition program: Assessing theoretical and empirical advances. In M. I. Midlarsky (Ed.), Handbook of war studies II (pp. 129–165). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kugler, J., & Organski, A. F. K. (1989). The power transition: A retrospective and prospective evaluation. In M. I. Midlarsky (Ed.), Handbook of war studies (pp. 171–194). Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Kugler, J., & Organski, A. F. K. (1989). The end of hegemony? International Interactions, 15, 113–128.
Kugler, J., & Tammen, R. (2003). Exploring the causes of an Asian challenge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Kugler, J., & Tammen, R. (2004). Regional challenge: China’s rise to power. In J. Rolfe (Ed.), The Asia-Pacific: A region in transition. Waikiki, HI: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
Kugler, J., Tammen, R., & Efird, B. (2004). Global and regional implications of the war on terror. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Chicago.
Kugler, J., Tammen, R., & Efird, B. (2004). Integrating theory and policy: Global implications of the war in Iraq. In D. Geller & J. Vasquez (Eds.), The construction and cumulation of knowledge in international relations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kugler, J., & Tammen, R. (2005). China: Satisfied or dissatisfied, the strategic equation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, HI.
Kugler, J., & Tammen, R. (2006). Middle east regional stability after the Iraq war. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Diego, CA.
Kugler, J., & Tammen, R. (2008). Implications of Asia’s rise to global status. In W. R. Thompson (Ed.), Systemic transitions: Past, present, and future. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kugler, J., Tammen, R., & Swaminathan, S. (2008). The new century: U.S. dominance, European integration, and the Asian challenge. Transformancje/Transformations, 39–40, 87–102.
Kugler, J., Tammen, R., & Thomas, J. (2011). Global Transitions. In S. Clark & S. Houcke (Eds.), Debating a post-American world: What lies ahead? London: Routledge.
Kugler J., & Tammen, R., ed. (2012). The performance of nations. Washington, D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kugler, J., & Zagare, F., ed. (1987). Exploring the stability of deterrence. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Kugler, J., & Zagare, F. (1990). The long-term stability of deterrence. International Interactions, 15, 255–278.
Kugler, T., & Coan, T. (2008). The politics of foreign direct investment: An interactive framework. International Interactions, 34, 402–422.
Kugler, T., & Kugler, J. (2010). Political demography: Status of the field. International Studies Compendium Project. ISACompendium.com.
Kugler, T., & Swaminathan, S. (2006). The politics of population. International Studies Review, 8(4), 581–596.
Kugler, T., Kang, K., Kugler, J., Arbetman, M., & Thomas, J. (2013). Demographic and economic consequences of conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 57(1), 1–12.
Kumar, S. (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.
Lai, David. (2011). The United States and China in power transition, Strategic Studies Institute Book. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil
Laich, J. (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.
Lake, D. A. (2007). Escape from the state of nature. International Security. 32(1), 47–79.
Lebow, R. N. (1994). The long peace, the end of the Cold War, and the failure of realism. International Organization, 48(2), 249–277.
Lebow, R. N., & Valentino, B. (2009). Lost in transition: A critical analysis of power transition theory. International Relations, 23(3), 389–410.
Lemke, D. (1993). Multiple hierarchies in the world politics.(Doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University.
Lemke, D. (1995). Toward a general understanding of parity and war. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 14(2), 143–162
Lemke, D. (1996). Small states and war: An expansion of power transition theory. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 77–92). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Lemke, D. (1997). The continuation of history: Power transition theory and the end of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research, 34(1), 23–36.
Lemke, D. (2002). Regions of war and peace. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
(Video) 1177 B.C.: When Civilization Collapsed | Eric ClineLemke, D. (2003). Investigating the preventive motive for war. International Interactions, 29(4), 273–292.
Lemke, D. (2004). Great powers in the post-cold war world: A power transition theory perspective. In T. V. Paul, J. Wirtz, & M. Fortmann (Eds.), Balance of power (pp. 52–75). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lemke, D. (2008). Power politics and wars without states. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 774–786.
Lemke, D. (2010). Dimensions of hard power: Regional leadership and material capabilities. In D. Flemes (Ed.), Regional leadership in the global system (pp. 31–50). Franham, Surrey, U.K.: Ashgate.
Lemke, D., & Kugler, J. (1996). The evolution of the power transition perspective. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 3–34). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Lemke, D., & Reed, W. (1996). Regime type and status quo evaluations: Power transitions and the democratic peace proposition. International Interactions, 22(2), 143–164.
Lemke, D., & Reed, W. (1998). Power is not satisfaction. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), 511–516.
Lemke, D., & Reed, W. (2001a). War and rivalry among great powers. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 457–469.
Lemke, D., & Reed, W. (2001b). The relevance of politically relevant dyads. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(1), 126–144.
Lemke, D., & Tammen, R. (2003). Power transition theory and the rise of China. International Interactions, 29(4), 269–271.
Lemke, D., & Werner, S. (1996). Power parity, commitment to change, and war. International Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 235–260.
Levy, J. (1987). Declining power and the preventive motivation for war. World Politics, 40(1), 273–292.
Levy, J., & Thompson, W. (2010). Causes of war. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lucas, G. (1975). An equilibrium model of the business cycle. Journal of Political Economy, 83(6), 1113–1144.
Maddison, A. (1991). Dynamic forces in capitalist development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mandel, R. (1980). Roots of the modern interstate border dispute. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(3), 27–454.
Maoz, Z. (1985). Decision theortic and game theoretic models of international conflict. In U. Luterbacher & M. D. Ward (Eds.), Dynamic models of international conflict (pp. 77–112). Boulder: Boulder, CO: Lynne Riener.
Maoz, Z. (1993). The onset and initiation of militarized interstate disputes in the modern era. International Interactions, 19, 117–141.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
Miller, G. (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, CA.
Miller, S. E., Lynn-Jones, S. M., & Brown, M. E. (2000). America’s strategic choices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Morgan, C., & Palmer, G. (2003). To protect and to serve: Alliances and foreign policy portfolios. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(2), 180–203.
Morrow, J. (1991). Alliances and asymmetry: An alternative to the capability aggregation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 904–933.
Morrow, J. (1996). The logic of overtaking. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 313–330). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Mott, W. H., IV (1997). The economic basis of peace: Linkages between economic growth and international conflict. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Moul, W. (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, W. (2003). Power parity, preponderance, and war between great powers, 1816–1989. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4), 468–489.
Mueller, H., & Carsten, R. (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.
Mundell, R. (1961). A theory of optimum currency areas. The American Economic Review, 51(4), 657–665.
Mundell, R. (2009). Mexico: Perspectives on economic development. In D. L. Torres & B. Mungaray (Eds.). Mexico and the world. Comparative perspective for the study of development. Mexicali, Baja California: Universidad Autonoma de Baja California.
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, D. (2006). Power and power hierarchies in international relations: Towards an analytical concept for the study of regional powers. GIGA Working Paper no. 29. Hamburg, Germany: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
Nye, J. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (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 (2d ed.). New York: Knopf.
Organski, A. F. K., & Arbetman, M. (1993). The second American century. In W. Zimmerman & H. K. Jacobson (Eds.), Behavior, culture, and conflict in world politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Organski, A. F. K., Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Lamborn, A. (1972). The effective population in international politics. In K. Nash (Ed.), Governance and population: The governmental implications of population change (pp. 235–250). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1977). The costs of major wars: The phoenix factor. American Political Science Review, 71, 1347–1366.
Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1978). Davids and Goliaths: Predicting the outcomes of international wars. Comparative Political Studies, 11(1), 141–180.
Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Organski, A. F. K., Kugler, J.; Johnson, T., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Births, deaths, and taxes: The demographic and political transitions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Organski, A. F. K., & Tammen, R. (1996). The new open door policy. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 331–346). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Organski, K. F., & Organski, A. F. K. (1961). Population and world power. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Palmer, G., & Morgan, T. C. (2006). A theory of foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Palmer, G., & Morgan, T. C. (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.
Park, Y.-H. (2008). The effects of power and satisfaction on violent interstate conflict: A test of power transition theory, 1816–2002. (Doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University.
Powell, R. (1996). Stability and the distribution of power. World Politics, 48(2), 239–267.
Powell, R. (1999). In the shadow of power: States and strategies in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quackenbush, S. 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 V. R. Raghavan (Ed.), Seminar on the US and the Rising Powers. Chennai: Centre for Security Analysis.
Rarkin, D., & Thompson, W. R. (2003). Power transition, challenge and the (re)emergence of China. International Interactions, 29(4), 315–342.
Rasler, K. A., & Thompson, W. R. (1994). The great powers and global struggle: 1490–1990. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Reed, W. (2000). A unified statistical model of conflict onset and escalation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 84–93.
Ritter, J. (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, CA.
Ritter, J. (2009). A rationale for alliances of restraint. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago.
Ross, R. S.,& Feng, Z. (2008). China’s ascent: Power, security, and the future of international politics. New York: Cornell University Press.
Russett, B. (1996). Ten balances for weighing UN reform proposals. Political Science Quarterly, 111(2), 259–269.
(Video) Could One Physics Theory Unlock the Mysteries of the Brain?Russett, B. (2010). Peace in the twenty-first century? Current History, 109(723), 11–16.
Russett, B., & Stam, A. C. (1998). Courting disaster: An expanded NATO vs. Russia and China. Political Science Quarterly, 113(2), 361–382.
Sample, S. G. (1998). Military buildups, war, and realpolitik: A multivariate model. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(2), 156–175.
Samuelson, P. (1958). An exact consumption-loan model of interest with or without the social contrivance of money. Journal of Political Economy, 66, 467–482.
Sanjian, G. 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, M., & 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.
Signorino, C. S., and Ritter, J. M. (1999). Tau-b or not tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 115–144.
Simon, M. V., & Starr, H. (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, D. J., Bremer, S., Stuckey, J., & Russett, B. (1972). Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–196. In B. Russett (Ed.), Peace, war, and numbers. Beverely Hills, CA: SAGE.
Siverson, R., & Miller, R. (1996). The power transition: problems and prospects. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 57–76). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Siverson, R., & Sullivan, M. P. (1983). The distribution of power and the onset of war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(3), 473–494.
Siverson, R. M., & Miller, R. A. (1993). The escalation of disputes to war. International Interactions, 19(1), 77–97.
Sjoberg, L. (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, CA.
Smith, V. (1998). The two faces of Adam Smith. Southern Economic Journal, 65, 1–19.
Sobek, D., & Payne, C. L. (2010). A tale of two types: Rebel goals and the onset of civil wars. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 213–240.
Solow, R. (1960). Investment and technical progress. In K. Arrow, S. Korbin, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Mathematical methods in social sciences 1959 (pp. 89–104). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Southwood, K. E. (1978). Substantive theory and statistical interaction: Five models. American Journal of Sociology, 83(5), 1154–1203.
Souva, M. (2004). Institutional similarity and interstate conflict. International Interactions, 30(3), 263–280.
Stein, A. A. (1982). Structural perspectives, coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world. International Organization, 36(2), 299–324.
Swaine, M. D., & Tellis, A. J. (2000). Interpreting China’s grand strategy: Past, present, and future. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sweeney, K. J. (2003). The severity of interstate disputes: Are dyadic capability preponderances really more pacific? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 728–750.
Tammen, R. (2000). Power transitions: Strategies for the 21st century. New York: Chatham House. Subsequent revisions and translations into Chinese and Arabic.
Tammen, R. (2003). The impact of the second Iraqi War on the Cross Straits discussions. In the 2003 Tamkang University International Forum Book. Taiwan, China: Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University.
Tammen, R. (2006). The impact of Asia on world politics: China and India options for the United States. International Studies Review, 8(4), 563–580.
Tammen, R. (2008). The Organski legacy: A fifty-year research program. International Interactions, 34(4), 314–332.
Tammen, R., & Kugler, J. (2005). The Chinese dilemma: Satisfied or dissatisfied. In Science in International Politics and Research. Beijing: Tsinghua University.
Tammen, R., & Kugler, J. (2006). Power transition and China-U.S. conflicts. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 1(1), 35–55. In Chinese.
Tammen, R., & Kugler, J. (2009). National strategy for the 21st century. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the ISA’s 50th Annual Convention, New York.
Tammen, R., Kugler, J., & Swaminathan, S. (2001). Power transitions and alliances in the twenty-first century. Asian Perspectives, 25, 5–29.
Tammen, R., & Kugler, J. (2018). Regions of war and peace. Washington, D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Taylor, A. J. P. (1954). The struggle for mastery in Europe, 1848–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tammen, R., & Umar, A. (2010). Challenging the argument that China will become the next dominant power. In A. C. Hsiang (Ed.), Power transitions: Theory and applications. China: Book-Wind Publishers. In Chinese.
Thompson, W. (1983). Contending approaches to world system analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Thompson, W. (1996). Balances of power, transitions, and long cycles. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 163–186). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Toft, M. D. (2007). Population shifts and civil war: A test of power transition theory. International Interactions, 33(3), 243–269.
Tuzova, Y., & Qayum, F. (2015). Global oil glut and its impact on Putin’s Russia, Energy Policy 90, 140–151.
Vasquez, J. (1996). When are the power transitions dangerous? An appraisal and reformulation of power transition theory. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 35–56). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Waltz, K. (2003). More may be better. In S. Sagan & K. Waltz (Eds.), The spread of nuclear weapons: A debate renewed. New York: W. W. Norton.
Wang, V., & Stamper, G. (2002). Asymmetric war? Implications for China’s information warfare strategies. American Asian Review, 20(4), 167–207.
Wayman, F. W. (1996). Power shifts and the onset of war. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 145–162). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Weede, E. (1976). Overwhelming preponderance as a pacifying condition among contiguous Asian dyads, 1950–1969. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(3), 395–411.
Werner, S. (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, S., & Kugler, J. (1996). Power transitions and military buildups: Resolving the relationship between arms buildups and war. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 187–210). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Werner, S., & Lemke, D. (1997). Opposites do not attract: The impact of domestic institutions, power, and prior commitments on alignment choices. International Studies Quarterly, 41(3), 529–546.
Wheeler, T. (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.
Wittman, D. (1979). How a war ends: A rational model approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(4), 743–763.
Wohlforth, W. C. (2009). Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics, 61(1), 28–57.
Wright, T. (2010). Do international institutions make power transitions more peaceful? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, LA.
Yesilada, B. (2013). EU-Turkey relations in the 21st century, London: Routledge.
Yesilada, B., Efird, B., & Noordijk, P. (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, B., Kugler, J., Genna, G., & Tanrikulu, O. (2017). Global power transition and the future of the European Union. London: Routledge
Yesilada, B., Noordijk, P., & Efird, B. (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, CA.
Yesilada, B., Tanrikulu, O., Kugler, J., & Hamlin, A. (2016). Power transition and the future of European Union integration. Presented at the International Studies Association Meetings, Atlanta.
Yoder, B. (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.
Zagare, F. (1987). Dynamics of deterrence. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Zagare, F. (1990). Rationality and deterrence. World Politics, 42, 238–260.
Zagare, F. (1996). The rites of passage: Parity, nuclear deterrence, and power transitions. In J. Kugler & D. Lemke (Eds.), Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger (pp. 249–270). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Zagare, F., & Kilgour, M. (1993). Asymmetric deterrence. International Studies Quarterly, 37, 1–27.
Zagare, F., & Kilgour, M. (2000). Perfect deterrence. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Zak, P. (2013). The moral molecule: The source of love and prosperity. New York: Penguin Group.
Zak, P., Feng, Y., & Kugler, J. (2002). Immigration, fertility, and growth. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26(4), 547–576.
Zak, P., & Kugler, J. (2017). Neuropolitics and international studies: A new understanding of trust. In S. Yetiv & P. James, (Eds.), Advancing interdisciplinary approaches to international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
(Video) Fighting the transgressives | Ben Shapiro LIVE at Texas A&M UniversityZhao, Q. (2005). America’s response to the rise of China and Sino-us relations. Asian Journal of Political Science, 13(2), 1–27.
Zhu, Z. (2006). US-China relations in the 21st century: Power transition and peace. New York: Routledge.
FAQs
What are the key assumptions of the power transition theory? ›
The theory of the power transition, unlike the theory of the balance of power, assumes that industrial strength is one of the major determinants of a nation's power and that a nation may therefore increase its power greatly through internal changes in its economy, i.e., through industrialization.
What is the power transition theory simplified? ›Power transition focuses on differential growth rates and their effect on altering relative power between nations, resulting in new relationships among nations or competing groups and the formation of new political and economic entities.
What is the Thucydides trap power transition theory? ›Thucydides Trap, or Thucydides' Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon.
What are the main differences between balance of power and power transition theories? ›The other important difference between the balance of power and the power transition theories is the fact that theoreticians of the balance of power mostly focus on military power, while those of the power transition theory take into account many other factors when analysing state power, such as economics, demographics ...
What is the goal of transitions theory? ›1. What is the purpose of the theory? Two of nurses' major goals are to prepare individuals and families for developmental, situational and health illness transitions, and to care for them during the transition and to enhance their wellbeing and the quality of their lives.
What is the framework of transition theory? ›Schlossberg identified four major sets of factors that influence a person's ability to cope with a transition: situation, self, support, and strategies, which are also known as the 4 S's.
What are the four stages of transition theory? ›The demographic transition model was initially proposed in 1929 by demographer Warren Thompson. The model has four stages: pre-industrial, urbanizing/industrializing, mature industrial, and post-industrial.
What are the advantages of transition theory? ›The advantages of transition state theory are: The value of activation energry and pre-exponential factor A can be calculated. The value of steric factor can also be predicted. This theory is applicable to both gaseous and aqueous reaction.
How does a transition of power work? ›A peaceful transition or transfer of power is a concept important to democratic governments in which the leadership of a government peacefully hands over control of government to a newly-elected leadership.
What is Morgenthau's main point about power? ›In his philosophy, power and the will for domination constitutes the nature of politics. In his explanatory approach power, expressed in terms of interest, provides both the aim of foreign policy and the means for its achievements.
Who argued that that each power transition is resolved through hegemonic war? ›
Eventually, a dissatisfied great power that approaches the power of the current hegemon will cause a new global war and the cycle repeats. Robert Keohane coined the term "Hegemonic stability theory" in a 1980 article.
What is the theory of power politics and change? ›Power politics is a theory of power in international relations which contends that distributions of power and national interests, or changes to those distributions, are fundamental causes of war and of system stability.
Is power transition theory part of realism? ›Both (balance-of-power) realism and power transition theory are concerned with war and peace in the international system, focus on the state as the central actor and put a special emphasis on the role of power. Because of these similarities, PTT is often regarded as a variant or branch of realism.
What are the three theories of power? ›- Class theory of power.
- Elite theory of power.
- Pluralist theory of power.
Balance of Power Theory Criticism
Balance of power critics have often pointed to the fact that the theory assumes state intention occurs or is influenced at the global level and leaves out room for incorporating individual state policies and practices.
Critical theory assumes an active role in the betterment of human affairs according to the potential for freedom inherent in modernity and the identification of political alternatives at hand in the globalising society and the historical process bringing it into being.
What are the assumptions of the bargaining model of war? ›The core idea of bargaining theory is that, because war is costly, there must ex- ist a negotiated outcome that will leave both sides better off than if they actu- ally fight. In this way, war is a failure of bargaining, an inefficient outcome that all parties would avoid in the absence of bargaining imperfections.
What are the three theories of power politics and change? ›Social Power Theories: Pluralist, Power-Elite & Marxist Models.
What are the four theories of the origin of governmental power? ›What are the 4 theories on government? The four theories of government are force theory, evolutionary theory, divine right theory, and social contract theory.