This article evaluates a formal theory of domestic political conflict using a forecasting approach. The theory, a mobilization of discontent model, argues that the extent of open political conflict within nations is a function of popular discontent, popular dispositions toward conflict, and the balance of organizational strengt between challengers and the regime. In order to examine the forecasting power of this argument, two competing and less elaborate models of domestic political conflict are also proposed. One, a model of the conflict process, forms linkages between the extent and intensity of conflict. The other is a truly naive model, which represents only a persistence of conflit argument. All three models are used to forecast conflict for 10 randomly selected nations in 1971-1975, and implications for the modelling of domestic political conflict are drawn.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ANDRIOLE, S. J. and HOPPLE, G. W. (1984) Revolution and Political Instability: Applied Research Methods. New York: St. Martin's Press.
2.
BARNES, S. , M. KAASE, et al. (1979) Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
CAPORASO, J. (1978) “Dependence, dependency, and power.”Int. Organization32: 13-43.
4.
COHAN, A. S. (1975) Theories of Revolution: An Introduction. New York: Halstead Press.
5.
ECKSTEIN, H. (1980) “Theoretical approaches to explaining collective political violence,” in T.R. Gurr (ed.), Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.
6.
FIRESTONE, J. N. (1974) “Continuities in the theory of violence: a review.”J. of Conflict Resolution, 18: 117-142.
7.
GOLDSTONE, J. (1980) “Theories of revolution: the third generation.”World Politics22: 425-453.
8.
GRANGER, C.W.J. and P. NEWBOLD (1977), Forecasting Economic Time Series. New York: Academic Press.
9.
GURNEY, J. N. and TIERNEY, K. J. (1982) “Relative deprivation and social movements: a critical look at twenty years of theory and research.”Soc. Q.23: 33-47.
10.
GURR, T. R. (1967) The Conditions of Civil Violence: First Tests of a Causal Model. Princeton, N.J.: Center of International Studies Research Monograph 28.
11.
GURR, T. R. (1968) A Causal Model of Civil Strife: A Comparative Analysis using New Indices. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.62: 1104-1124.
12.
GURR, T. R. (1970a) Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
GURR, T. R. (1970b) “Sources of rebellion in western societies: some quantitative evidence.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science391: 128-144.
14.
GURR, T. R. (1979) “Political protest and rebellion in the 1960s: the United States in world perspective, in H. D. Graham and T. R. Gurr (eds.) Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
GURR, T. R. (1980) “On the outcomes of violent conflict,” in T. R. Gurr (ed.) Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.
16.
GURR, T. R.[ed.] (1983) “Group protest and policy responses: New crossnational perspectives.”Amer. Behavioral Scientist26 (January-February).
17.
GURR, T. R. and R. DUVALL (1973) “Civil conflict in the 1960's: a reciprocal theoretical system with parameter estimates.”Comparative Pol. Studies6: 135-170.
18.
GURR, T. R. and R. DUVALL (1976) “Introduction to a formal theory of conflict within social systems,” in L. A. Coser and O.N. Larsen (eds.) The Uses of Controversy in Sociology. New York: Free Press.
19.
GURR, T. R. , and LICHBACH, M. I. (1979) “A forecasting model for political conflict within nations,” in J. D. Singer and M.D. Wallace (eds.) To Augur Well: Early Warning Indicators in World Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
GURR, T. R.et al. (1978) Comparative Studies of Political Conflict and Change: Cross-National Datasets. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
21.
HIMES, J. S. (1980) Conflict and Conflict Management. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
22.
HUANG, D. S. (1970) Regression and Econometric Methods. New York: Wiley.
23.
KICK, E. L. (1980) “World system properties and mass political conflict within nations: theoretical framework.”J. of Pol. and Military Sociology8: 175-190.
24.
LICHBACH, M. I. (forthcoming) “Protest in America: a time series analysis of the postwar era using univariate ARIMA models.”Western Pol. Q.
25.
LICHBACH, M. I. (forthcoming) “Protest: random or systematic? A time series analysis of the postwar United Kingdom using univariate ARIMA models.”Armed Forces and Society.
26.
LICHBACH, M. I. and T. R. GURR (1981) “The conflict process: a formal model.”J. of Conflict Resolution25: 3-30.
27.
MULLER, E. N. (1979) Aggressive Political Participation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
28.
MULLER, E. N. (1980) “The psychology of political protest and violence,” in T.R. Gurr (ed.) Handbook of Political Conflict and Violence: Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.
29.
SALERT, B. (1976) Revolutions and Revolutionaries. New York: Elsevier.
30.
TILLY, C. (1975) “Revolutions and collective violence,” in F.I. Greenstein and N. Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science Vol. 3. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey.
31.
TILLY, C. (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey.
32.
WONNACOTT, R. J. and T. H. WONNACOTT (1970) Econometrics. New York: Wiley.
33.
ZIMMERMAN, E. (1983) Political Violence, Crises, and Revolution: Theories and Research. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
