IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v43y1999i6p675-704.html

Power Shifts and Problem Shifts

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan M. DiCicco
  • Jack S. Levy

    (Department of Political Science, Rutgers University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan M. DiCicco & Jack S. Levy, 1999. "Power Shifts and Problem Shifts," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 675-704, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:43:y:1999:i:6:p:675-704
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002799043006001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002799043006001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002799043006001?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. 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.
    2. Doran, Charles F. & Parsons, Wes, 1980. "War and the Cycle of Relative Power," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 947-965, December.
    3. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    4. Vasquez, John A., 1997. "The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 899-912, 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. Michelle Benson, 2007. "Extending the Bounds of Power Transition Theory," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 211-215, July.

    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. Indra de Soysa & John R. Oneal & Yong-Hee Park, 1997. "Testing Power-Transition Theory Using Alternative Measures of National Capabilities," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(4), pages 509-528, August.
    2. William Reed, 2003. "Information and Economic Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 54-71, February.
    3. Brock F. Tessman & Steve Chan, 2004. "Power Cycles, Risk Propensity, and Great-Power Deterrence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 131-153, April.
    4. David H. Bearce & Eric O'N. Fisher, 2002. "Economic Geography, Trade, and War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 365-393, June.
    5. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Dangerous bargains with the devil? Incorporating new approaches in peace science for the study of war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 98-116, January.
    6. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    7. Aila M Matanock & Natalia Garbiras-Díaz, 2018. "Considering concessions: A survey experiment on the Colombian peace process," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(6), pages 637-655, November.
    8. Kevin T. Greene & Caroline Tornquist & Robbert Fokkink & Roy Lindelauf & V. S. Subrahmanian, 2021. "Understanding the timing of Chinese border incursions into India," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Dominic Rohner & Mathias Thoenig & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2013. "War Signals: A Theory of Trade, Trust, and Conflict," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 1114-1147.
    10. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8m2hh491 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2012. "Political Economy of Conflict Foreword," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 122(2), pages 153-169.
    12. Toke S. Aidt & Facundo Albornoz & Esther Hauk, 2019. "Foreign Influence and Domestic Policy: A Survey," Working Papers 1072, Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. Hannes Mueller & Christopher Rauh, 2024. "Building bridges to peace: a quantitative evaluation of power-sharing agreements," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 39(118), pages 411-467.
    14. Jong-Wha Lee & Ju Hyun Pyun, 2016. "Does Trade Integration Contribute to Peace?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 327-344, February.
    15. Francis A. Beer, 1983. "Trends in American Major War and Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 661-686, December.
    16. Natasa Bilkic & Thomas Gries, 2014. "Uncertainty and Conflict Decision," Working Papers CIE 78, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    17. Chang, Yang-Ming & Sanders, Shane & Walia, Bhavneet, 2015. "The costs of conflict: A choice-theoretic, equilibrium analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 62-65.
    18. T. Clark Durant & Michael Weintraub, 2014. "How to make democracy self-enforcing after civil war: Enabling credible yet adaptable elite pacts," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(5), pages 521-540, November.
    19. Alvarez-Ramirez Jose & Rodriguez Eduardo & Tyrtania Leonardo & Urrea-Garcìa Galo R, 2010. "Regime-Transitions in the 2003-2010 Iraq War: An Approach Based on Correlations of Daily Fatalities," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-41, December.
    20. Kyle Beardsley, 2008. "Agreement without Peace? International Mediation and Time Inconsistency Problems," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 723-740, October.
    21. Nakao Keisuke, 2020. "Rationalist Explanations for Two-Front War," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jocore:v:43:y:1999:i:6:p:675-704. 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.