Power transition theory

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Power transition theory is a theory about the nature of

A.F.K. Organski
, in his textbook, World Politics (1958).

According to Organski:

An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between disadvantaged and advantaged nations; the aggressor will come from a small group of dissatisfied strong countries; and it is the weaker, rather than the stronger power that is most likely to be the aggressor.[4]

Hierarchy

While Organski's hierarchy initially referred only to the entire international system, Douglas Lemke later expanded the hierarchy model to include regional hierarchies, arguing that each region contains its own dominant, great, and small powers. Thus regional hierarchies exist embedded into the larger international hierarchy.[5]

Historical application

The Royal Prince and other vessels at the Four Days Fight, 11–14 June 1666 by Abraham Storck depicts a battle of the Second Anglo-Dutch War. This period marked the beginning of a significant threat to Dutch hegemony in Europe

Power transition theory, a precursor of the

long-cycle theory of hegemony, seeks to explain trends between warring states in the past 500 years. It detects a general trend: a nation achieves hegemonic power and then is challenged by a great power. This leads to a war which, in the past, has resulted a transition between two powers. Eugene R. Wittkopf explores past wars and their relation to power transition theory in his 1997 book World Politics: Trend and Transformation. He explains the interactions using George Modelski's Seapower Concentration Index.[2]

In 1518,

Second World War (1939–1945) the United States invested in a drastic increase in seapower concentration – and the U.S. and the Soviet Union became the world's first superpowers.[2]

In general, hegemonic periods last approximately 60 to 90 years and conflicts which result in a period stabilization of power-distribution last approximately 20 years.[2] This can be explained through war-weariness and the tendency (although this was broken in the first half of the 20th century) for nations not to engage themselves in another conflict after being involved in a power transition.[2]

Power transitions play an important role in applications of the bargaining model of war where wars are more likely to break out and be severe in situations of uncertainty and of commitment problems. During power transitions, it is harder for actors to credibly commit to abide by any agreement, thus creating major commitment problems.[6][7]

U.S. imperialism in the late nineteenth century, the outbreak of World War II, and Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine."[8]

See also

  • Thucydides trap

References

  1. Organski, AFK (1958). World Politics. New York.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link
    )
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Wittkopf, Eugene R. (1997). World Politics: Trend and Transformation. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  3. ^ Tammen, Ronald L. (2000). Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century. Seven Bridges Press.
  4. ^ Organski 1980, 19
  5. doi:10.1002/jid.1014
    .
  6. S2CID 15861342
    .
  7. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1xx5pk
    .
  8. S2CID 260736779
    .

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_transition_theory&oldid=1199364361"