This article analyzes the evolution of power transition theory from the perspective of Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programs. The authors reconstruct the development of the power transition research program by analyzing its hard core of irrefutable assumptions, its negative and positive heuristics, and exemplary works contributing to its protective belt of testable auxiliary hypotheses. It is argued that some developments (e.g., Lemke's multiple hierarchy model) constitute progressive problemshifts, but other areas of the research program exhibit signs of degeneration. These include the treatment of the timing and initiation of wars associated with power transitions and causal mechanisms driving such wars. Findings show that the evolution of the power transition research program has generally been progressive in Lakatosian terms, but its future vitality will require continued efforts to explain the above-mentioned theoretical and empirical anomalies in a way that is consistent with the hard core of the research program and that generates new testable propositions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abdollahian, Mark A. 1996. In search of structure: The nonlinear dynamics of international politics. Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School.
2.
Alsharabati, Carole. 1997. Dynamics of war initiation. Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School.
3.
Backhouse, Roger E. , ed. 1994. New directions in economic methodology. London: Routledge.
4.
Benson, Michelle . 1998. Measuring the international status quo: The hegemon vs. the stag hunt. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 3-6.
5.
Blaug, Mark . 1992. The methodology of economics. 2d ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1962. Conflict and defense: A general theory. New York: Harper & Row.
7.
Brams, Steven J. 1994. Theory of moves. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bremer, Stuart A.1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36:309-341.
9.
Brooks, Stephen G.1997. Dueling realisms. International Organization51:445-477.
10.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce . 1980. Theories of international conflict: An analysis and an appraisal. In Handbook of political conflict, edited by Ted R. Gurr, 361-398. New York: Free Press.
11.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce . 1981. The war trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce . 1985. Toward a scientific understanding of international conflict—A personal view. International Studies Quarterly29:121-136.
13.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce . 1990. Pride of place: The origins of German hegemony. World Politics43:28-52.
14.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce , and David Lalman. 1992. War and reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Buzan, Barry , Charles Jones, and Richard Little. 1993. The logic of anarchy: Neorealism to structural realism. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
Claude, Inis L. 1962. Power and international relations. New York: Random House.
17.
Copeland, Dale C.1996. Neorealism and the myth of bipolar stability: Toward a new dynamic realist theory of war. Security Studies5:29-89.
18.
de Marchi, Neil . 1991. Introduction: Rethinking Lakatos. In Appraising economic theories: Studies in the methodology of scientific research programs, edited by Neil de Marchi and Mark Blaug, 1-30. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
19.
de Soysa, Indra , John R. Oneal, and Yong-Hee Park. 1997. Testing power-transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution41:509-528.
20.
DiCicco, Jonathan M. 1998. Parity, transitions, and the onset of war: A review of empirical tests of power transition theory. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), October 16-18, East Brunswick, New Jersey.
21.
DiCicco, Jonathan M., and Jack S. Levy. 1999. The power transition research program: Theoretical development, empirical corroboration, and metatheoretical implications. In Progress in international relations theory: Lakatos and beyond, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Unpublished manuscript.
22.
Doran, Charles F. 1989a. Power cycle theory of systems structure and stability: Commonalities and complementarities. In Handbook of war studies, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, 83-110. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
23.
Doran, Charles F.1989b. Systemic disequilibrium, foreign policy role, and the power cycle: Challenges for research design. Journal of Conflict Resolution33:371-401.
24.
Doran, Charles F. 1991. Systems in crisis: New imperatives of high politics at century's end. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Doran, Charles F. 2000. Confronting the principles of the power cycle: Changing systems structure, expectations, and war. In Handbook of war studies II, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
Doran, Charles F. , and Wes Parsons. 1980. War and the cycle of relative power. American Political Science Review74:947-965.
27.
Doyle, Michael W. 1997. Ways of war and peace. New York: W. W. Norton.
28.
Elman, Colin, and Miriam Fendius Elman. 1999a. Introduction: Parsing progress. In Progress in international relations theory: Lakatos and beyond, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Unpublished manuscript.
29.
Elman, Colin , and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds. 1999b. Progress in international relations theory: Lakatos and beyond. Unpublished anthology.
30.
Fearon, James D.1995. Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49:379-414.
31.
Frankel, Benjamin , ed. 1996. Realism: Restatements and renewal. Security Studies5.
32.
Friedman, Milton . 1953. The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics, edited by M. Friedman, 3-43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Garnham, David . 1976. Power parity and lethal international violence, 1969-1973. Journal of Conflict Resolution20:379-394.
34.
Geller, Daniel S.1992. Power transition and conflict initiation. Conflict Management and Peace Science12:1-16.
35.
Galler, Daniel S. 1996. Relative power, rationality, and international conflict. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 127-144. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36.
Gibler, Douglas M. 1998. Identifying revisionist states: Testing four indicators of state satisfaction with the international status quo. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), October 16-18, East Brunswick, New Jersey.
37.
Gilpin, Robert . 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Gilpin, Robert . 1988. The theory of hegemonic war. In The origin and prevention of major wars, edited by Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, 15-37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Gilpin, Robert . 1996. No one loves a political realist. Security Studies5:3-26.
40.
Gulick, Edward Vose . 1955. Europe's classical balance of power. New York: Norton.
41.
Houweling, Henk , and Jan G. Siccama. 1988. Power transitions as a cause of war. Journal of Conflict Resolution32:87-102.
42.
Houweling, Henk , and Jan G. Siccama. 1991. Power transitions and critical points as predictors of great power war: Toward a synthesis. Journal of Conflict Resolution35:642-658.
43.
Houweling, Henk , and Jan G. Siccama. 1996. A two-level explanation of world war. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 107-116. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44.
Jervis, Robert . 1997. System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Kadera, Kelly M. 1995. The power-conflict story: A dynamic model of interstate rivalry. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
46.
Kadera, Kelly M. 1996. The conditions and consequences of dyadic power transitions: Deductions from a dynamic model. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 287-312. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
47.
Kadera, Kelly M.1998. Transmission, barriers, and constraints: A dynamic model of the spread of war. Journal of Conflict Resolution42:367-387.
48.
Keohane, Robert O. 1983. Theory of world politics: Structural realism and beyond. In Political science: The state of the discipline, edited by Ada W. Finifter, 503-540. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
49.
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
Kim, Woosang . 1989. Power, alliance, and major wars, 1816-1975. Journal of Conflict Resolution33:255-273.
51.
Kim, Woosang . 1991. Alliance transitions and great power war. American Journal of Political Science35:833-850.
52.
Kim, Woosang . 1992. Power transitions and great power war from Westphalia to Waterloo. World Politics45:153-172.
53.
Kim, Woosang . 1996. Power parity, alliance, and war from 1648 to 1975. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 93-106. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
54.
Kim, Woosang , and James D. Morrow. 1992. When do power shifts lead to war?American Journal of Political Science36:896-922.
55.
King, Gary , Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
Kugler, Jacek , and Marina Arbetman. 1989. Choosing among measures of power. In Power in world politics, edited by Richard J. Stoll and Michael D. Ward, 49-77. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
57.
Kugler, Jacek , and Marina Arbetman, eds. 1997. Political capacity and economic behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
58.
Kugler, Jacek , and William Domke. 1986. Comparing the strength of nations. Comparative Political Studies19:39-69.
59.
Kugler, Jacek , and Douglas Lemke, eds. 1996. Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger.”Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
60.
Kugler, Jacek , and Douglas Lemke, eds. 2000. The power transition research program: Assessing theoretical and empirical advances. In Handbook of war studies II, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
61.
Kugler, Jacek , and A.F.K. Organski. 1989. The power transition: A retrospective and prospective evaluation. In Handbook of war studies, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, 171-194. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
62.
Kugler, Jacek , and Frank C. Zagare, eds. 1987. Exploring the stability of deterrence. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
63.
Kugler, Jacek , and Frank C. Zagare, eds. 1990. The long-term stability of deterrence. International Interactions15:255-278.
64.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2d ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
Lakatos, Imre . 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, edited by I. Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 91-196. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Latsis, Spiro J. , ed. 1976. Method and appraisal in economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Laudan, Larry . 1977. Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
68.
Lemke, Douglas. 1993. Multiple hierarchies in world politics. Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University.
69.
Lemke, Douglas . 1995. Toward a general understanding of parity and war. Conflict Management and Peace Science14:143-162.
70.
Lemke, Douglas . 1996. Small states and war: An expansion of power transition theory. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 77-92. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
71.
Lemke, Douglas . 1997. Peace and war in the Far East: An application of the multiple hierarchy model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, March, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
72.
Lemke, Douglas , and Jacek Kugler. 1996. The evolution of the power transition perspective. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 3-33. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
73.
Lemke, Douglas , and William Reed. 1996. Regime types and status quo evaluations: Power transition theory and the democratic peace. International Interactions22:143-164.
74.
Lemke, Douglas , and Suzanne Werner. 1996. Power parity, commitment to change, and war. International Studies Quarterly40:235-260.
75.
Levy, Jack S.1987. Declining power and the preventive motivation for war. World Politics40:82-107.
76.
Levy, Jack S. 1989. The diversionary theory of war: A critique. In Handbook of war studies, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, 259-288. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
77.
Levy, Jack S. 1991. Long cycles, hegemonic transitions, and the long peace. In The long postwar peace, edited by Charles Kegley, Jr., 147-176. New York: HarperCollins.
78.
Levy, Jack S.1994. The theoretical foundations of Paul W. Schroeder's international system. International History Review16:715-744.
79.
Levy, Jack S.1997. Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly41:87-112.
80.
Levy, Jack S.1998. The causes of war and the conditions of peace. Annual Review of Political Science1:139-165.
81.
Levy, Jack S. , and Joseph R. Gochal. 1999. Democracy and “preventive war”: Israel and the 1956 Sinai campaign. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September, Atlanta, GA.
82.
Maoz, Zeev , and Ben D. Mor. 1998. Satisfaction, capabilities, and the evolution of enduring rivalries, 1816-1990: A statistical analysis of a game theoretic model. In Conflict in world politics: Advances in the study of crisis, war and peace, edited by Frank P. Harvey and B. D. Mor, 33-61. New York: St. Martin's Press.
83.
Mearsheimer, John J. 1999. Great power politics. Unpublished manuscript.
84.
Milner, Helen . 1991. The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. Review of International Studies17:67-85.
85.
Modelski, George . 1978. The long cycle of global politics and the nation-state. Comparative Studies in Society and History20:214-235.
86.
Modelski, George , and William R. Thompson. 1989. Long cycles and global war. In Handbook of war studies, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, 23-54. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
87.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1948. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York: Knopf.
88.
Morrow, James D. 1996. The logic of overtaking. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 313-330. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
89.
Most, Benjamin A. , and Harvey Starr. 1989. Inquiry, logic, and international politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
90.
Oneal, John , Indra de Soysa, and Yong-Hee Park. 1998. But power and wealth are satisfying: A reply to Lemke and Reed. Journal of Conflict Resolution42:517-520.
91.
Organski, A.F.K. 1958. World politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
92.
Organski, A.F.K. , and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93.
Popper, Karl R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row.
94.
Powell, Robert . 1999. In the shadow of power: States and strategies in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
95.
Rasler, Karen A. , and William R. Thompson. 1994. The great powers and global struggle, 1490-1990. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
96.
Reiter, Dan . 1995. Exploding the powderkeg myth: Preemptive wars almost never happen. International Security20:5-34.
97.
Rose, Gideon . 1998. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics51:144-172.
98.
Russett, Bruce M. 1993. Grasping the democratic peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
99.
Schweller, Randall L. , and David Priess. 1997. A tale of two realisms: Expanding the institutions debate. Mershon International Studies Review41:1-32.
100.
Signorino, Curtis S. , and Jeffrey M. Ritter. 1999. Tau-b or not Tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43:115-144.
101.
Singer, J. David , Stuart A. Bremer, and John Stuckey. 1972. Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965. In Peace, war, and numbers, edited by Bruce M. Russett, 19-48. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
102.
Siverson, Randolph M. , and Ross A. Miller. 1996. The power transition: Problems and prospects. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 57-76. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
103.
Spiezio, K. Edward . 1990. British hegemony and major power war, 1815-1939: An empirical test of Gilpin's model of hegemonic governance. International Studies Quarterly34:165-181.
104.
Tammen, Ronald , Jacek Kugler, Douglas Lemke, Alan Stam III, Mark Abdollahian, Carole Alsharabati, Brian Buford-Efird, and A.F.K. Organski. 2000. Power transitions. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
105.
Thompson, William R. 1983. Succession crises in the global system: A test of the transition model. In Crises in the world system, edited by Albert Bergesen, 93-116. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
106.
Thompson, William R. 1988. On global war: Historical-structural approaches to world politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
107.
Thompson, William R. 1996. Balances of power, transitions, and long cycles. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 163-186. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
108.
Van Evera, Stephen . 1999. Causes of war: Structures of power and the roots of international conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
109.
Vasquez, John A. 1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
110.
Vasquez, John A. 1996. When are power transitions dangerous? An appraisal and reformulation of power transition theory. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 35-56. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
111.
Vasquez, John A.1997. The realist paradigm and degenerative versus progressive research programmes: An appraisal of neotraditional research on Waltz's balancing proposition. American Political Science Review91:899-912.
112.
Walker, Thomas C. 1999. Peace, rivalry, and war. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.
113.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
114.
Wayman, Frank Whelon . 1996. Power shifts and the onset of war. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 145-162. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
115.
Weede, Erich . 1976. Overwhelming preponderance as a pacifying condition among contiguous Asian dyads, 1950-1969. Journal of Conflict Resolution20:395-411.
116.
Werner, Suzanne , and Jacek Kugler. 1996. Power transitions and military buildups: Resolving the relationship between arms buildups and war. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of “The war ledger,” edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 187-210. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
117.
Zahar, Elie . 1973. Why did Einstein's programme supersede Lorentz's? (I). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science24:95-123.
118.
Zakaria, Fareed . 1998. From wealth to power: The unusual origins of America's world role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
