A method is presented for empirically modeling simultaneous decisions using the estimation technique of bivariate probit. This technique is used to examine the directed dispute-initiation behavior of the superpowers during the Cold War. Power-transition concepts of satisfaction and rates of capability change can be used to explain directed dispute-initiation behavior. In particular, the international influence of the rival translates into a superpower's dissatisfaction, making dispute initiation by that superpower more likely, ceteris paribus. Additionally, a rapid strengthening of the challenger, ceteris paribus, increases the likelihood of dispute initiation in either direction. Changes in the hegemon's capabilities, though consistent with power-transition theory, have no effect on dispute-initiation behavior. These effects hold even while controlling for various domestic conditions in each country.
BerinskyAdam J. (1999) The Two Faces of Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science43(4): 1209–30.
2.
BrennerSaulHagleTimothy M.SpaethHarold J. (1990) Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court. Polity23: 309–18.
3.
de MesquitaBueno BruceLalmanDavid (1992) War and Reason, Domestic and International Imperatives.New Haven, C.T.Yale University Press
4.
de MesquitaBueno Bruce (1990) Pride of Place: The Origins of German Hegemony. World Politics43(1): 28–52.
5.
CarlsonLisa J. (1995) A Theory of Escalation and International Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution39(3): 511–534.
6.
ChanSteve (2008) China, the U.S., and the Power-Transition Theory: A Critique.LondonRoutledge
7.
Clark, William Roberts (1998) Agents and Structures: Two Views of Preferences, Two Views of Institutions. International Studies Quarterly42(2): 245–70.
de SoysaIndraOnealJohn R.ParkYong-Hee (1997) Testing Power-Transition Theory Using Alternative Measures of National Capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(4): 509–528.
10.
Diplomatic List. (1946–1992) Washington, DC: United States Department of State.
11.
Europa World Year Book. (1989–1992) London: Europa Publications Limited.
12.
Europa Year Book. (1960–1988) London: Europa Publications.
13.
FinneyJohn W. (1974) New York Times (30 December 1974): sect. A, p. 1, col. 1.
14.
FordhamBenjamin (1998) Partisanship, Macroeconomic Policy, and U.S. Uses of Force, 1949–1994. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(4): 418–439.
15.
FriedenJeffry A. (1999) Actors and Preferences in International Relations. In LakeDavid A.PowellRobert (eds.) Strategic Choice and International Relations, pp. 39–76.
16.
GaddisJohn Lewis (1987) The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War.New YorkOxford University Press
17.
GaddisJohn Lewis (1997) We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History.OxfordOxford University Press
18.
GellerDaniel S. (1992) Power Transition and Conflict Initiation. Conflict Management and Peace Science12(1): 1–16.
19.
GellerDaniel S. (1996) Relative Power, Rationality, and International Conflict. In KuglerJacekLemkeDouglas (eds.) Parity and War, Evaluations and Extensions of The War Ledger.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (127–144).
20.
GellerDaniel S. (2000) Status Quo Orientation, Capabilities, and Patterns of War Initiation in Dyadic Rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science8(1): 73–96.
21.
GilpinRobert (1981) War and Change in World Politics.CambridgeCambridge University Press
22.
GilpinRobert (1988) The Theory of Hegemonic War. In RotbergRobert I.RabbTheodore K. (eds.) The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GochmanCharles S.MaozZeev (1984) Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1976: Procedures, Patterns, and Insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution28(4): 585–615.
24.
GreeneWilliam H. (1993) Econometric Analysis.Englewood Cliffs, NJPrentice Hall
25.
HebronLuiJamesPatrickRudyMichael (2007) Testing Dynamic Theories of Conflict: Power Cycles, Power Transitions, Foreign Policy Crises and Militarized Interstate Disputes. International Interactions33(1): 1–29.
26.
HojnackiMarie (1997) Interest Groups’ Decisions to Join Alliances or Work Alone. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 61–87.
27.
HolstiOle R. (1996) Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy.Ann ArborUniversity of Michigan Press
28.
HuffmanWallace E.LangeMark D. (1989) Off-Farm Work Decisions of Husbands and Wives: Joint Decision Making. Review of Economics and Statistics71(3): 471–480.
29.
HuthPaul K.AlleeTodd L. (2002) The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century.CambridgeCambridge University Press
30.
JonesDaniel M.BremerStuart A.SingerDavid J. (1996) Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 163–213. Kim, Woosang & James D. Morrow (1992) When Do Power Shifts Lead to War? American Journal of Political Science 36(4): 896–922.
31.
KimWoosang (1991) Alliance Transitions and Great Power War. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 833–850.
32.
KuglerJacekOrganskiA. F. K. (1989) The Power Transition: A Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation. In MidlarskyManus I. (ed.) Handbook of War Studies.Boston: Unwin Hyman (171–194).
33.
LeedsAshleyB.DavisDavid R. (1997) Domestic Political Vulnerability and International Disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(6): 814–834.
34.
LemkeDouglas (2008) Power Politics and Wars without States. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 774–786.
35.
LemkeDouglasKuglerJacek (1996) The Evolution of the Power Transition Perspective. In KuglerJacekLemkeDouglas (eds.) Parity and War, Evaluations and Extensions of The War Ledger.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (3–34).
36.
LemkeDouglasWernerSuzanne (1996) Power Parity, Commitment to Change, and War. International Studies Quarterly40(2): 235–260.
37.
LemkeDouglasReedWilliam (1996) Regime Types and Status Quo Evaluations: Power Transition Theory and the Democratic Peace. International Interactions22(2): 143–164.
38.
LemkeDouglasReedWilliam (1998) Power is Not Satisfaction: A Comment on de Soysa, Oneal, and Park. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(4): 511–516.
39.
LemkeDouglas (1995) Toward a General Understanding of Parity and War. Conflict Management and Peace Science14(2): 143–162.
40.
MaozZeev (1982) Paths to Conflict, International Dispute Initiation, 1816–1976.Boulder, COWestview Press
41.
MengChun-LoSchmidtPeter (1985) On the Cost of Partial Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model. International Economic Review26(1): 71–85.
42.
ModelskiGeorgeThompsonWilliam R. (1989) In MidlarskyManus I. (ed.) Handbook of War Studies.Boston: Unwin Hyman (23–54).
43.
ModelskiGeorge (1987) Long Cycles in World Politics.BasingstokeMacmillan Press
44.
MorrowJames D. (1994) Game Theory for Political Scientists.PrincetonPrinceton University Press
45.
OnealJohn R.de SoysaIndraParkYong-Hee (1998) Power is Not Satisfaction/Reply. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(4): 517–520.
46.
OrganskiA. F. K. (1958) World Politics.New YorkAlfred A. Knopf
47.
OrganskiA. F. K.KuglerJacek (1980) The War Ledger.ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press
48.
OstromCharles W.Jr.JobBrian (1986) The President and the Political Use of Force. American Political Science Review80(2): 541–566.
49.
PalmerGlennReganPatrick M. (1999) Power, Domestic Structure, and Parties: Untangling Entangling Democracies. Paper presented at the Nordic Political Science Congress, Uppsala, Sweden, August 19–21, 1999.
50.
Reed, William (2000) A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 84–93.
51.
Reed, William, David H. Clark, Timothy Nordstrom & Wonjae Hwang (2008) War, Power, and Bargaining. Journal of Politics70(4): 1203–1216.
52.
SchellingThomas C. (1960) Arms and Influence.New Haven, CTYale University Press
53.
SenesePaul D. (1997) Between Dispute and War: The Effect of Joint Democracy on Interstate Conflict Escalation. Journal of Politics59(1): 1–27.
54.
SignorinoCurtis S. (1999) Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict. American Political Science Review93(2): 279–98.
55.
SignorinoCurtis S.RitterJeffrey M. (1999) Tau-B or Not Tau-B: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115–144.
56.
SingerDavidJ.SmallMelvin (1966) Formal Alliances, 1815–1939: A Quantitative Description. Journal of Peace Research3(1): 1–32.
57.
SingerDavidJ.SmallMelvin (1982) Resort to Arms.Beverly HillsSAGE Publications
58.
SingerJ. DavidBremerStuartStuckeyJohn (1972) Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965. In RussettBruce M. (ed.) Peace, War, and Numbers.Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications (49–69).
59.
SmithAlistair (1999) Testing Theories of Strategic Choice: The Example of Crisis Escalation. American Journal of Political Science43(4): 1254–1283.
60.
SpiezioEdwardK. (1993) Power Cycle Theory and State Involvement in Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1976. Conflict Management and Peace Science13(1): 87–100.
61.
TammenRonald L.KuglerJacekLemkeDouglasStamAllan C.IIIAlsharabatiCaroleAndrewAbdollahian MarkEfirdBrianOrganskiA. F. K. (2000). Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century.New York: Chatham House.
62.
VasquezJohn A. (1996) Distinguishing Rivals That Go to War from Those That Do Not: A Quantitative Comparative Case Study of the Two Paths to War. International Studies Quarterly40(4): 531–558.
63.
WallaceMichael D. (1972) Status, Formal Organization, and Arms Levels as Factors Leading to the Onset of War, 1820–1964. In RussettBruce M. (ed.) Peace, War, and Numbers.Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications (49–69).
64.
YatchewAdonisGrilichesZvi (1985) Specification Error in Probit Models. Review of Economics and Statistics67(1): 134–139.
