The Escalation of Great Power Militarized Disputes: Testing Rational Deterrence Theory and Structural Realism

by: Paul Huth, Christopher Gelpi, Scott D Bennett

The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3. (1993), pp. 609-623.

View FullText article

JSTOR

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

michmill, long

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

deterrence, no-tag, realism

Abstract

Realism has been the dominant paradigm in the study of international conflict. Within this paradigm, two leading alternative approaches have been deterrence theory and structural realism. We test the relative explanatory power of these two theoretical approaches on the escalation of deterrence encounters among great powers from 1816 to 1984. We derive a set of hypotheses from each model, operationalize them for systematic empirical analysis, and test the hypotheses on 97 cases of great-power deterrence encounters by means of probit analysis. The results are that the hypotheses derived from deterrence theory receive considerable support, whereas none of the hypotheses derived from structural realism are supported.

@article{citeulike:494895, abstract = {Realism has been the dominant paradigm in the study of international conflict. Within this paradigm, two leading alternative approaches have been deterrence theory and structural realism. We test the relative explanatory power of these two theoretical approaches on the escalation of deterrence encounters among great powers from 1816 to 1984. We derive a set of hypotheses from each model, operationalize them for systematic empirical analysis, and test the hypotheses on 97 cases of great-power deterrence encounters by means of probit analysis. The results are that the hypotheses derived from deterrence theory receive considerable support, whereas none of the hypotheses derived from structural realism are supported.}, author = {Huth, Paul and Gelpi, Christopher and Bennett, Scott D. }, citeulike-article-id = {494895}, journal = {The American Political Science Review}, keywords = {deterrence, realism}, number = {3}, pages = {609--623}, posted-at = {2006-02-07 07:27:57}, priority = {4}, title = {The Escalation of Great Power Militarized Disputes: Testing Rational Deterrence Theory and Structural Realism}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938739}, volume = {87}, year = {1993} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:494895 L3 - citeulike-article-id:494895 TI - The Escalation of Great Power Militarized Disputes: Testing Rational Deterrence Theory and Structural Realism JF - The American Political Science Review VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 609 EP - 623 N2 - Realism has been the dominant paradigm in the study of international conflict. Within this paradigm, two leading alternative approaches have been deterrence theory and structural realism. We test the relative explanatory power of these two theoretical approaches on the escalation of deterrence encounters among great powers from 1816 to 1984. We derive a set of hypotheses from each model, operationalize them for systematic empirical analysis, and test the hypotheses on 97 cases of great-power deterrence encounters by means of probit analysis. The results are that the hypotheses derived from deterrence theory receive considerable support, whereas none of the hypotheses derived from structural realism are supported. KW - deterrence KW - realism AU - Huth, Paul AU - Gelpi, Christopher AU - Bennett, Scott PY - 1993/// UR - http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938739 ER -

RIS BibTeX