IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v27y2010i3p219-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gauging the Magnitude of Civilization Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Glynn Ellis

    (Georgia Southern University, USA)

Abstract

Multiple studies of Huntington’s suggestion of a clash of civilizations have found no support for it. This study does not reanalyze his thesis, but rather focuses on specific features of the different-civilization conflict he theorizes about. Using empirical analysis I find that different-civilization conflict is more prevalent than same-civilization conflict, and is therefore appropriate for continued scholarly examination. Even so, I conclude that over time it is not only shrinking as a percentage of the overall world conflict as previously reported but is doing so at a rate more pronounced than heretofore realized. My results support Roeder’s findings that the most contentious civilizations are the West, Orthodox, and Islam, with Western states as a group being more contentious than the other two. As for a most contentious civilization dyad, I find the probability of conflict to be about the same for Western-Islamic and Western-Orthodox states. Finally, I conclude that the contentiousness of Western states derives in large part from their tendency to band together or cooperate during violent conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Glynn Ellis, 2010. "Gauging the Magnitude of Civilization Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(3), pages 219-238, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:27:y:2010:i:3:p:219-238
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894210366510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894210366510
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894210366510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    2. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Explaining Rare Events in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 693-715, July.
    3. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Morrow, James D. & Siverson, Randolph M. & Smith, Alastair, 1999. "An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 791-807, December.
    4. Fearon, James D. & Laitin, David D., 1996. "Explaining Interethnic Cooperation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(4), pages 715-735, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Buscema, Massimo & Ferilli, Guido & Sacco, Pier Luigi, 2017. "What kind of ‘world order’? An artificial neural networks approach to intensive data mining," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 46-56.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Todd S. Sechser, 2004. "Are Soldiers Less War-Prone than Statesmen?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(5), pages 746-774, October.
    2. William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
    3. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    4. Michael Horowitz & Rose McDermott & Allan C. Stam, 2005. "Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 661-685, October.
    5. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    6. Idean Salehyan, 2008. "The Externalities of Civil Strife: Refugees as a Source of International Conflict," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 787-801, October.
    7. James Lee Ray, 2001. "Integrating Levels of Analysis in World Politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 355-388, October.
    8. Sally Anderson & Mark Souva, 2010. "The Accountability Effects of Political Institutions and Capitalism on Interstate Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(4), pages 543-565, August.
    9. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.
    10. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    11. Renato Corbetta & William J. Dixon, 2005. "Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 39-61, February.
    12. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    13. Lin Scott Y. & Seiglie Carlos, 2014. "Same Evidences, Different Interpretations – A Comparison of the Conflict Index between the Interstate Dyadic Events Data and Militarized Interstate Disputes Data in Peace-Conflict Models," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-26, April.
    14. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2008. "Power or Plenty," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 213-242, April.
    15. Matthew Fuhrmann & Sarah E. Kreps, 2010. "Targeting Nuclear Programs in War and Peace: A Quantitative Empirical Analysis, 1941-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(6), pages 831-859, December.
    16. Ely Ratner, 2009. "Reaping What You Sow," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(3), pages 390-418, June.
    17. Michael Horowitz, 2009. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons and International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 234-257, April.
    18. Benjamin E. Goldsmith, 2003. "Bearing the Defense Burden, 1886-1989," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(5), pages 551-573, October.
    19. David Lektzian & Mark Souva, 2007. "An Institutional Theory of Sanctions Onset and Success," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(6), pages 848-871, December.
    20. Michael G. Findley & Josiah F. Marineau, 2015. "Lootable resources and third-party intervention into civil wars," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(5), pages 465-486, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:27:y:2010:i:3:p:219-238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.