IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ginixx/v22y1996i2p143-164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regime types and status quo evaluations: Power transition theory and the democratic peace

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas Lemke
  • William Reed

Abstract

A tremendous amount of attention is paid to whether or not joint democracy precludes wars within dyads. Although there now seems to be some measure of consensus that democracies rarely or never fight one another, the scholarly debate continues to be heated, lengthy, and occasionally negative. Part of the reason why the democratic peace proposition has met so much opposition might lie in the threat it poses to many established theories of international relations. However, the empirical phenomenon of the democratic peace may be compatible with at least one established theory of international relations: power transition theory. If it can be shown that democracies evaluate the status quo similarly, then power transition theory predicts that wars between them should be exceedingly rare. Further, if non‐democracies comprise the bulk of states dissatisfied with the status quo, then wars between democracies and non‐democracies are to be expected. Regime type is tentatively linked to status quo evaluations in this article, suggesting that it may be possible to incorporate the empirical observation of a democratic peace within power transition theory. Rather than contradicting established theory, the results associated with the democratic peace might indicate how strong an influence the status quo plays in restraining international conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ginixx:v:22:y:1996:i:2:p:143-164
    DOI: 10.1080/03050629608434886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03050629608434886
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03050629608434886?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Salah Salimian & Azadeh Ashrafi, 2024. "Resolving Conflicts and Strengthening International Relations with Investment: Game Theory Approach," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 23(1), pages 59-81.
    3. David Horan, 2019. "Compensation strategies to enact new governance frameworks for SDG transformations," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 43(4), pages 375-400.
    4. Michelle Benson, 2007. "Extending the Bounds of Power Transition Theory," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 211-215, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Robert A. Hart & William Reed, 1999. "Selection effects and dispute escalation: Democracy and status quo evaluations," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 243-263, March.
    7. Karim Khan & Sadia Sherbaz, 2020. "Entertaining Douglass North: Political Violence and Social Order," PIDE-Working Papers 2020:174, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    8. David H. Clark & Patrick M. Regan, 2003. "Opportunities to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 94-115, February.
    9. Kevin J. Sweeney, 2003. "The Severity of Interstate Disputes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(6), pages 728-750, December.
    10. Mary Caprioli & Peter F. Trumbore, 2005. "Rhetoric versus Reality," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 770-791, October.
    11. William Reed, 2003. "Information and Economic Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 54-71, February.
    12. Alex Braithwaite & Douglas Lemke, 2011. "Unpacking Escalation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 111-123, April.
    13. Woosang Kim, 2002. "Power Parity, Alliance, Dissatisfaction, and Wars in East Asia, 1860-1993," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 654-671, October.
    14. John R. Oneal & Indra De Soysa & Yong-Hee Park, 1998. "But Power and Wealth are Satisfying," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(4), pages 517-520, August.
    15. Batinge, Benjamin & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Brent, Alan C., 2019. "Sustainable energy transition framework for unmet electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1090-1099.
    16. Zhanna Terechshenko, 2020. "Hot under the collar: A latent measure of interstate hostility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 764-776, November.
    17. Brian Efird & Gaspare M. Genna, 2002. "Structural Conditions and the Propensity for Regional Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 267-295, September.
    18. David Sobek, 2003. "Regime Type, Preferences, and War in Renaissance Italy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(2), pages 204-225, April.
    19. 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 347-372, April.
    20. Margit Bussmann & John R. Oneal, 2007. "Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 88-111, February.
    21. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Peter F. Trumbore, 2014. "Rogue states and territorial disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(3), pages 323-339, July.
    22. Douglas Lemke & William Reed, 1998. "Power is not Satisfaction," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(4), pages 511-516, August.
    23. Susan G. Sample, 2018. "Power, Wealth, and Satisfaction," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(9), pages 1905-1931, October.

    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:taf:ginixx:v:22:y:1996:i:2:p:143-164. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GINI20 .

    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.