IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v14y2011i3p61-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Superpower Dispute Initiation: An Empirical Model of Strategic Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher K. Butler

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher K. Butler, 2011. "Superpower Dispute Initiation: An Empirical Model of Strategic Behavior," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 14(3), pages 61-90, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:14:y:2011:i:3:p:61-90
    DOI: 10.1177/223386591101400303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/223386591101400303
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/223386591101400303?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. Huffman, Wallace E & Lange, Mark D, 1989. "Off-Farm Work Decisions of Husbands and Wives: Joint Decision Making," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(3), pages 471-480, August.
    2. Meng, Chun-Lo & Schmidt, Peter, 1985. "On the Cost of Partial Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(1), pages 71-85, February.
    3. Signorino, Curtis S., 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 279-297, June.
    4. Lui Hebron & Patrick James & Michael Rudy, 2007. "Testing Dynamic Theories of Conflict: Power Cycles, Power Transitions, Foreign Policy Crises and Militarized Interstate Disputes," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-29, January.
    5. Yatchew, Adonis & Griliches, Zvi, 1985. "Specification Error in Probit Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(1), pages 134-139, February.
    6. Douglas Lemke & William Reed, 1996. "Regime types and status quo evaluations: Power transition theory and the democratic peace," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 143-164, May.
    7. Ostrom, Charles W. & Job, Brian L., 1986. "The President and the Political Use of Force," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 541-566, June.
    8. Douglas Lemke, 2008. "Power Politics and Wars without States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 774-786, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. William Reed, 2003. "Information and Economic Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 54-71, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Julio J. Guzman, 2019. "The demand for child care subsidies under rationing," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1349-1379, December.
    4. Muhammet A. Bas, 2012. "Measuring Uncertainty in International Relations: Heteroskedastic Strategic Models," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(5), pages 490-520, November.
    5. Susan G. Sample, 2018. "Power, Wealth, and Satisfaction," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(9), pages 1905-1931, October.
    6. Campbell, Randall C. & Nagel, Gregory L., 2016. "Private information and limitations of Heckman's estimator in banking and corporate finance research," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 186-195.
    7. Anthony Edo & Nicolas Jacquemet & Constantine Yannelis, 2019. "Language skills and homophilous hiring discrimination: Evidence from gender and racially differentiated applications," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 349-376, March.
    8. Wang, Xiaobing & Herzfeld, Thomas & Glauben, Thomas, 2007. "Labor allocation in transition: Evidence from Chinese rural households," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 287-308.
    9. Almeida, Alexandre N. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2019. "Agricultural productivity, shadow wages and off-farm labor decisions in Nicaragua," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 99-110.
    10. Justo Manrique & Kalu Ojah, 2003. "The demand for housing in Spain: an endogenous switching regression analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 323-336.
    11. John R. Freeman & Jude C. Hays & Helmut Stix, 1999. "Democracy and Markets: The Case of Exchange Rates," Working Papers 39, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    12. 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.
    13. Athanasios P. Papadopoulos & Gregory T. Papanikos, 2005. "The determinants of vinegrowers employment and policy implications: the case of a Greek island," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 61-72, January.
    14. Jacob Ausderan, 2018. "Reassessing the democratic advantage in interstate wars using k-adic datasets," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 451-473, September.
    15. Richard Williams, 2009. "Using Heterogeneous Choice Models to Compare Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 531-559, May.
    16. Jia, Lili, 2012. "Land fragmentation and off-farm labor supply in China," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 66, number 66.
    17. Luca Grilli, 2005. "Internet start-ups access to the bank loan market: evidence from Italy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 293-305.
    18. Hoetker, Glenn, 2004. "Confounded Coefficients: Accurately Comparing Logit and Probit Coefficients across Groups," Working Papers 03-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    19. Alfonso Sousa‐Poza, 2004. "Is the Swiss Labor Market Segmented? An Analysis Using Alternative Approaches," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 18(1), pages 131-161, March.
    20. Huffman, Wallace E., 1996. "Farm Labor: Key Conceptual and Measurement Issues on the Route to Better Farm Cost and Return Estimates," ISU General Staff Papers 199604010800001279, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    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:intare:v:14:y:2011:i:3:p:61-90. 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://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    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.