Countries have better abilities and stronger incentives to engage in militarized conflicts the larger and more powerful they are. The article applies Zipf's notion of a ``gravity model'' to the risk of interstate conflict and argues that the empirical relationship between size and distance and conflict is stronger than any other identified in dyadic statistical studies of interstate conflict. Most empirical studies of interstate conflict fail to take size properly into account. The article shows that controlling for size variables improves the estimation of other variables of interest, and it explores the impact of omitting size variables for the investigation of the power preponderance versus power parity debate. The results indicate that even though a power capability ratio variable suggests asymmetric dyads are less conflict-prone, the risk-increasing effect of power itself means that a unilateral increase of power in one country increases the risk of conflict.
Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker.1998. Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science42 (4): 1260-88.
2.
Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan C. Stam III.1996. The duration of interstate wars, 1816-1985. American Political Science Review90 (2): 239-57.
3.
---. 2000. Research design and estimator choices in the analysis of interstate dyads. Journal of Conflict Resolution44 (5): 653-85.
4.
Blainey, Geoffrey.1988. The causes of war. New York : Free Press.
5.
Boulding, Kenneth E.1962. Conflict and defense. A general theory. New York: Harper & Row.
6.
Bremer, Stuart.1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36 (2): 309-41.
7.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce.1981. The war trap. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.
8.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David Lalman.1992. War and reason. Domestic and international imperatives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
Buhaug, Halvard, and Nils Petter Gleditsch .2006. The death of distance? The globalization of armed conflict. In Territoriality and conflict in an age of globalization, ed. Miles Kahler and Barbara F. Walter, 187-216. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
10.
Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffler.2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers56 (4): 563-95.
11.
Deardorff, Alan V.1998. Determinants of bilateral trade: Does gravity work in a neoclassical model? In The regionalization of the world economy , ed. Jeffrey A. Frankel.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Fearon, James D.1995. Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49 (3): 379-414.
13.
Fearon, James D., and David Laitin.2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war . American Political Science Review97 (1): 75-90.
14.
Garfinkel, Michelle, and Stergios Skaperdas .2000. Conflict without misperception or incomplete information: How the future matters. Journal of Conflict Resolution44 (6): 793-807.
15.
Gartzke, Erik.2007. The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science51 (1): 166-91.
16.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter.1995. Geography, democracy, and peace. International Interactions20 (4): 297-323.
17.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, and J. David Singer .1975. Distance and international war, 18161965. In Proceedings of the IPRA Conference, IPRA Studies in Peace Research, 481-506. Oslo: International Peace Research Association.
18.
Hegre, Håvard.2000. Development and the liberal peace: What does it take to be a trading state? Journal of Peace Research37 (1): 5-30.
19.
---. 2004. Size asymmetry, trade, and militarized conflict . Journal of Conflict Resolution48 (3): 403-29.
20.
---. 2005. Gravitating toward war. The gravity model of trade and the liberal peace. Presented at the 3rd General Conference of the European Consortium of Political Research, Budapest, Hungary, September 8-10. http://folk.uio.no/hahegre/papers.htm .
21.
---. 2008. Trade dependence or size dependence? The gravity model of trade and the liberal peace. Unpublished manuscript.
22.
Intriligator, M.D., and D.L. Brito.1984. Can arms races lead to the outbreak of war? Journal of Conflict Resolution28 (1): 63-84.
23.
Jaggers, Keith, and Ted Robert Gurr .1995. Transitions to democracy: Tracking democracy's third wave with the Polity III data. Journal of Peace Research32 (4): 469-82.
24.
Kennedy, Paul.1988. The rise and fall of the great powers. Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. London : Unwin Hyman.
25.
Kim, Woosang.2002. Power parity, alliance, dissatisfaction, and wars in East Asia, 1860-1993. Journal of Conflict Resolution46 (4): 654-71.
26.
Lacina, Bethany.2006. Explaining the severity of civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution50 (2): 276-89.
27.
Lemke, Douglas.2002. Regions of war and peace. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
28.
Lemke, Douglas, and Jacek Kugler.1996. The evolution of the power transition perspective. In Parity and war. Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger, ed. Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 3-33. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
29.
Maoz, Z.2005. Dyadic MID dataset. Version 2.0. http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/dyadmid.html.
30.
Morgenthau, Hans.1967. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace . New York: Knopf.
31.
Mousseau, Michael.2000. Market prosperity, democratic consolidation, and democratic peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution44 (4): 472-507.
32.
Oneal, John R.2006. Confirming the liberal peace with analyses of directed dyads, 1885-2001. In Approaches, levels, and methods of analysis in international politics: Crossing noundaries, ed. Harvey Starr, 73-94. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
Oneal, John R., Frances H. Oneal, Zeev Maoz, and Bruce M. Russett .1996. The liberal peace: Interdependence, democracy, and international conflict, 1950-85. Journal of Peace Research33 (1): 11-28.
34.
Oneal, John R., and Bruce M. Russett .2005. Rule of three, let it be: When more really is better. Conflict Management and Peace Science22 (4): 293-310.
35.
Organski, A.F.K.1958. World politics. New York: Knopf .
36.
Organski, A.F.K., and Jacek Kugler.1980. The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Powell, Robert.1999. In the shadow of power. States and strategies in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Raknerud, Arvid, and Håvard Hegre.1997. The hazard of war: Reassessing the evidence for the democratic peace. Journal of Peace Research34 (4): 385-404.
39.
Ray, James Lee.2005. Constructing multivariate analyses (of dangerous dyads) . Conflict Management and Peace Science22 (4): 277-92.
40.
Reed, William.2003. Information, power, and war. American Political Science Review97 (4): 633-41.
41.
Rosecrance, Richard.1986. The rise of the trading state. Commerce and conquest in the modern world. New York: Basic Books.
42.
Russett, Bruce M., and John R. Oneal .2001. Triangulating peace. democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York : Norton.
43.
Signorino, Curtis S.1999. Strategic interaction and the statistical analysis of international conflict. American Political Science Review93 (2): 279-97.
44.
Signorino, Curtis S., and Ahmer Tarar2006. A unified theory and test of extended immediate deterrence . American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 586-605.
45.
Singer, J. David, Stuart A. Bremer, and J. Stuckey.1972. Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965. In Peace, war, and numbers , ed. Bruce M. Russett, 19-48. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
46.
Vasquez, J.A.1995. Why do neighbors fight-Proximity, interaction, or territoriality . Journal of Peace Research32 (3): 277-93.
47.
Waltz, Kenneth.1959. Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis . New York: Columbia University Press.
48.
Ward, Michael D., and Peter D. Hoff .2007. Persistent patterns of international commerce. Journal of Peace Research44 (2): 157-75.
49.
Werner, Suzanne.1999. Choosing demands strategically. The distribution of power, the distribution of benefits, and the risk of conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution43 (6): 705-26.
50.
Wohlstetter, Albert.1968. Theory and opposed-systems design. Journal of Conflict Resolution12 (3): 302-31.
51.
Wright, Quincy.1965. A study of war. Second edition with a commentary on war since 1942. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (First edition published 1942)
52.
Zagare, Frank C., and D. Mark Kilgour .2000. Perfect deterrence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Zipf, George Kingsley.1946. The P1P2/D hypothesis: On the intercity movement of persons . American Sociological Review11 (6): 677-86.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
