Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
1
GLOBAL CONSTRAINT: EXTENDING POWER TRANSITION THEORY TO INCLUDE GREAT
POWER INTERFERENCE
Volkan KALENDER
Arş. Grv. Dr., Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü, e-mail: apfriday@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT : This paper investigates the influence of the great power hierarchy on minor power dyad conflict
relations. The paper`s importance lies in providing a theoretical framework for studying great power interference in
dyadic relations among minor powers within the power transition theory. Power transition theory assumes great
power non-interference in war and peace dynamics among small power dyads. Building on the previous power
transition based models of multiple hierarchy and regional hierarchy constraint, the global constraint model
introduces the impact of the international system on the absence and existence of war among small powers within
regions. Global constraint, the proposed explanatory variable, refers to the impact of the five most powerful states in
the international system, and is operationalized as the ratio of arms transfers to the weaker dyad nation to that of the
stronger one by the great powers.
Key Words: Power transition theory, war onset, great power interference, arms transfers
ÖZET: Bu makale büyük güçler hiyerarşisinin diğer devletler arasındaki çatışma ilişkilerine etkisini incelemektedir.
Güç geçişi teorisi içinde büyük devletlerin görece daha az güçlü devletler arasındaki ilişkilere olan etkisini incelemek
için teorik bir yapı oluşturduğu için önemlidir. Güç geçişi teorisi büyük devletlerin diğer devletler arasındaki savaşbarış ilişkilerinde müdahalede bulunmadığını varsaymaktadır. Küresel kısıtlama modeli güç geçişi teorisi temelli
çoklu hiyerarşiler ve bölgesel kısıtlama modellerine dayanmaktadır. Modelin farklılığı uluslararası sistemin bölgesel
aktörler arasında savaş olup olmayacağına etkisinin incelenmesidir. Açıklayıcı değişken olarak küresel sınırlama
uluslararası sistemdeki en güçlü beş devletin etkisine işaret etmektedir. Bu etki büyük güçlerin güçsüz taraf ve güçlü
tarafa yaptıkları silah transferi oranı ile ölçülecektir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Güç geçişimi teorisi, savaş başlangıcı, büyük güçlerin müdahaleleri, silah transferi
INTRODUCTION
What is the effect of the international hierarchy on the war and peace dynamics within regions? This paper extends
the power transition theory to include the global system’s effect on minor power dyadic dynamics. The variable I
propose is the “global constraint.” I argue that the inclusion of the global constraint to the power transition theory is a
needed extension.
The major hypothesis of this paper is that an extension of power transition theory is needed to account for the effect
of the great powers on small power dyad interactions. I present the logical and theoretical justifications for this
extension, and outline the global constraint model in this paper. The focus of the examples is the Middle East region
due to two reasons. First, the region is vitally important. Second, it is widely believed in the Middle East that the
great powers do interfere in regional affairs.
To investigate great power interference in regional dyadic dynamics, I bring together power transition and arms
transfers literatures. Global constraint will be measured as the ratio of arms transfers to the challengers and the
defenders in local dyads from the great powers. The global constraint model proposes that parity, dissatisfaction with
the dyadic status quo, the un-orderliness of the region, and increased values of arms transfers from great powers to
the challengers in dyads increase the probability of interstate war.
The global constraint model brings together the systemic and sub-systemic factors that lead to war and peace. More
specifically, I extend power transition theory’s latest formulation based on the works of Lemke (2000), and Efird
(2001). Power transition theory looks at the power distribution and status quo evaluations among members of dyads.
The theory proposes that power parity and dissatisfaction with the status quo lead to conflict. This basic logic was
extended theoretically to include all dyads by Lemke (1996; 2000). Lemke’s multiple hierarchy model brings all
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
2
dyads into the scope of power transition theory. Efird, through the “hierarchy constraint”, adds to this the effect of
regional power distributions on dyadic relations.
What is missing in the power transition theory so far is the impact of the overriding international hierarchy on the
relations between pairs of states. In its extended form (especially through Lemke’s multiple hierarchies) power
transition theory empirically shows that local hierarchies function identically to the international hierarchy in the
absence of great power interference. That is, power parity and dissatisfaction with the status quo increase the
probability of conflict in dyadic relations—for both major and minor power dyads. However, it is important to note
that Lemke, after discussing the possible forms great power interference in regional affairs might take, assumes that
such interference is absent (2000: 61). Moreover, the theory’s logic asserts that the regional hierarchies are
subordinate to the overall international hierarchy (Tammen et.al., 2000: 9). This is due to the enormous power
imbalance between states which belong to the great power club and the rest.
This paper proposes that great powers interfere in the war and peace decisions of small power dyads. Indeed, a
cursory glance at the literature suggests this effect has been dwelled upon. The findings to the question of why states
give foreign aid indicate the primary motivation behind it to be the political and economic interests of the donor states
(Arase 1995; Conteh-Morgan 1990; Hook 1995; Lebovic 1988; Meernik, Krueger & Poe 1998; Poe & Meernik
1995). Schraeder, Hook & Taylor (1998) show that shared alliances, ideological alignments, and military presence
have a positive impact on the identity of foreign aid recipients and the amount of aid received. Palmer et al. (2002)
suggest in their two-good theory of foreign policy that strong states use foreign aid as a means to seek changes in the
foreign policy behaviors of the recipient countries.
More directly related to my main argument, Miller and Kagan (1997) assert that the effect of the overall international
hierarchy (the great powers hierarchy) on regional dynamics is a function of the relative capabilities of the great
powers and their interests in the region. Furthermore, Miller (2001: 206) argues that great powers’ willingness to
intervene in a region is dependent on “the intrinsic value of a region and a shared threat.” Writing in 1989, Desch
asserts that Western Europe, the Middle East, Northeast Asia and the Far East have intrinsic value for the US, while
the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean littoral and a base in the Western Pacific are extrinsically valuable (108-113).
I take these findings to be encouraging for the model presented in this study. Great powers have the capability as well
as the willingness to project power to other regions. The great powers of the international system have the ability to
change the course of events in other parts of the globe, provided the issues at stake are important. Thus, in addition to
the “hierarchy constraint” I argue that the interference of the great powers, “the global constraint,” in the regions alter
the probability of conflict or integration within those regions.
A note on terminology before proceeding: The unit of analysis for the model is a dyad of nations. In each dyad, the
more powerful nation at the beginning of the time interval is the “defender”. The “challenger” is the less powerful of
the two nations. Parity exists between the dyad members when their power ratio is between (0.8) and (1.2). “Great
powers” are those states that comprise the international hierarchy, and are the most powerful nations in the world at a
given time interval. The great power hierarchy is used interchangeably with global or international hierarchy. I refer
to those countries that are disproportionately powerless as small or minor powers.
A look at what follows: First, I provide a review of the power transition and arms transfers literatures. Then, I
elaborate on the theoretical justifications of the global constraint model. I conclude with a summary and discussion.
LITERATURE REVIEW
I offer a view of the evolution of the power transition theory first. Over the years since its original formulation, the
theory was expanded to account for a larger domain—both spatially and temporally. Next, I look at the arms transfer
research.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
3
Power Transition Theory
Power Transition Theory—Original
In its original formulation, power transition theory limits its domain to that of the major powers (the most powerful
states) and the system changing wars (Organski, 1958; Organski & Kugler, 1980). The theory assumes a hierarchical
international system, with a dominant nation (the strongest of the states) at the apex of the system. The major
proposition of power transition, in contrast to the balance of power theory (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979), is that
power preponderance leads to peace, whereas power parity leads to war. Over time, a challenger emerges from the
ranks of great powers as a result of internal growth, and the challenger has an opportunity to make a bid for replacing
the dominant power once it catches up in power. The power transition leads to conflict if the challenger is dissatisfied
with the existing world order, a peaceful takeover follows in the case the challenger is satisfied. Thus, relative power
distribution and status quo evaluations are the critical variables in determining war and peace.
Power Transition Theory—Domain Extensions
Power transition theory was applied to other pairs of nations (dyads) despite the explicit limited scope of the original
version. First came the extension in the units, and then came the extension in time.
The domain was extended to include all great power dyads (Houwelling & Siccama, 1988; Kim, 1989; Gochman,
1990), and later extended in time from the original 1816-1975 period to 1648-1992 (Kim, 1992). It is important to
note that Kim’s extension rests on relaxing the restriction on internal growth through industrialization as the only
method to augment power and letting power augmentation through the use of alliances as well.
Multiple Hierarchies—the theoretical framework for extending the scope
Lemke (1996; 2000) provides the theoretical framework to apply power transition to all dyads of states. His “multiple
hierarchies” suggest that the international system is composed of several nested hierarchies with the international
hierarchy at the top. The regional hierarchies are identical with the international hierarchy in that they, too, have
dominant, great and lesser powers. Moreover, Lemke finds that pairs of states in the regional hierarchies operate
under the same structural factors power transition theory asserts: power parity and dissatisfaction with the status quo
lead to increased probability of conflict (Lemke, 2000).
Lemke’s theoretical model is distinguished from the earlier power transition extensions in three important ways. First,
he provides a theoretical rationale for extending the scope from the international hierarchy to all hierarchies. Second,
Lemke maps the local hierarchies in accordance with the states’ ability to reach each other militarily with at least 50
% of their power intact. The importance of this measure cannot be overstated: empirical analysis based on possible
dyadic interactions lead to an inflation of cases, some of which involve dyads that do not have the capabilities
necessary to reach each others’ territories (e.g. Chile v. Egypt). Last, Lemke (2000) argues to have brought back the
original domain specification to the power transitions research by not including all dyads in his analysis, and instead
only looking at those dyads that involve the regional defenders.
Extending the Domain Further—Accounting for Cooperation and Regional Power Distributions
Efird (2001) contributes to the theory in two significant ways. First, he extends the power transitions theory to
explain cooperation, as well as, conflict through the creation of a dependent variable that combines the measures for
dispute hostility levels from the Correlates of War (COW) project and integration levels among states. Conflictintegration, the dependent variable, combines the two extreme poles of war and integration.
Second, Efird shows that the orderliness of the regions does have an inverse relation with conflict (Efird, 2001: 3);
that is the hierarchy constraint, as measured by the ratio of power capabilities between the regional dominant power
and the summation of the power capabilities of the four contenders, reduces the probability of conflict, and increases
the explanatory power of the theory for especially the minor powers.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
4
In sum, in its extended version, power transition theory explains the structural factors that lead to war and peace:
power parity, dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the absence of a preponderant regional defender increase the
probability of conflict, whereas the opposite conditions lead to peace and ultimately, integration.
Arms Transfers Research
There is a vast literature on arms transfers and their effects. The historical and anecdotal works on the subject have
been accompanied by empirical analysis, after arms transfers data became available following the Second World
War. For the purposes of this study, attention is given to the works that study the relationship between arms transfers
and war onset. Since I am interested in war initiation, and not war outcomes, I do not elaborate on those studies that
search the effects of arms transfers on war termination, duration, or severity. Catrina (1994) provides an excellent
overview of the arms trade literature for interested readers.
Two directions can be seen in assessing the effects of arms transfers on war initiation. One of these directions is to
look at the systemic, or global, impact arms transfers have on war onset, using different logics with regards to the
direction of the arms transfers and war initiation relationship. First, is the assertion that arms transfers precede wars
(Baugh & Squires, 1983; SIPRI, 1971). Alternatively, arms transfers, through deterrence, lead to fewer wars (Bobrow
et.al., 1973; Schrodt, 1983). Last, some studies contend that arms transfers follow wars (Sherwin, 1983). Craft (1999:
28-29) tests these alternative logics using SIPRI data, and finds support for arms transfers preceding war initiation,
whereas the results refute the argument of deterrence and that wars precede arms transfers.
The other direction is to look at the relationships among suppliers and recipients of arms transfers. The most
important aspect of the literature on supplier-recipient relationships is that of the effects of arms transfers on foreign
policy behaviors of the recipients. Nevertheless, the research on the effect of arms transfers on recipients’ conflict
behavior has not produced cumulative and consistent findings (Kinsella, 1994). Other scholars look into the effect of
superpower arms sales (Kinsella, 1994; Kinsella & Tillema, 1995; Sanjian, 1991). Miller (2001) suggests that the
types of great power interactions and the types of regions do affect whether the regions are peaceful or not. Great
power cooperation or hegemony leads to more peaceful outcomes in both stable and war-prone regions, whereas
competition among the great powers prevents stability. In some cases, competing great powers increase the duration
of conflict by increasing the arsenal of rival states (Miller, 2001: 200).
GLOBAL CONSTRAINT MODEL
What follows is the rationale for the global constraint model. The power transition literature, so far, has not
considered the notion of great power intervention in minor power affairs. Yet, I propose it is only logical for the great
powers to interfere with the affairs of especially those dyads that are vital for the continuation of the status quo. I
provide a brief look at the scholarly research that supports the notion of global constraint below, and follow it with
theoretical justifications for the model.
Scholars and policy makers have mentioned great power interference in dyadic affairs either as anecdotes, or as
analytical interpretations. The Middle East is consistently mentioned among the key regions for the US national
interests, with attention given to “forestalling the emergence of a hostile regional hegemon” (Lesser et.al, 1998;
Desch, 1989; Khalilzad, 1995). Looking specifically at the Middle East, Russell (2006: 3) argues that “outside
powers in the twentieth century” sought to “exert influence and protect their interests.” Brown (2001: xiv) provides
corroborating support for the argument by noting that “control of the Middle East, or denying control of this area to
an enemy, has, in short, figure prominently in the strategic thinking of the great powers for some two centuries.”
Within the power transition approach, when one looks at the moves by the global challenger, it can only be logical,
and strategically necessary, for the challenger to stay away from a head-to-head conflict with the defender, and
instead, look at opportunities to improve its relative standing through extending its influence over other regions. Rice
(1991: 154) points out to the Soviet perception of the international system as being “fundamentally hostile,” and
refers to how “Khrushchev’s third world strategy… allowed the Soviets to extend their power as cheaply as possible”
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
5
through the sale of arms to Egypt via Czechoslovakia (154-55). Rumer (2000: 43) suggests that the Soviet Union, in
order to extend its sphere of influence, and to limit that of the global defender’s, used economic subsidies and arms
transfers in its relationship with Syria during the Cold War.
This move by the Soviets does not seem to have been a one-sided move. The U.S. has signaled its commitments in
the region as well, through the “deployment of aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1963, in response to the Saudi-Egyptian
conflict in Yemen” (Russell, 2006: 205).
Lesser and colleagues (1998) argue that the persistence of the territorial status quo issues, combined with the inability
of all but a few regional states to defend their borders against a determined aggressor (209), and the region being the
major arms importer (197) demands a US commitment to the region.
One objection could be to point out that a majority of the instances that are provided as supporting viewpoints refer to
a single observation in regards to challenger-defender relations: that of the Soviet Union and the United States.
However, there are those accounts that bring China, among others, to the great power attempts at influence in the
Middle East. Sutter (2000) argues that China is indeed following a policy to weaken the dominance of the current
global defender.
[T]he Chinese government came up with a two-pronged policy of its own with regard to US interests in the
Middle East. Thus, China continued to employ strategic partnerships, such as those forged with France and
Russia and historical affinity with the region’s developing countries to weaken US dominancy; at the same
time, it continued to promote cooperation and avoided direct confrontation in the ongoing dialogue with the
United States on key regional issues (161).
Moving from the regional to the dyadic level, one finds arguments for the effect of outside powers. Looking at the
Iranian relations with the Persian Gulf nations, Akshayji (2002) underlines the American presence in the Gulf;
without which, he argues, Iran would be the preponderant player in the struggle for power (224).
The notion of great power interference is also commonly accepted by the ruling elites in the Middle East. Laipson
and Hokayem (2006) report that the presumption in “the presidential palaces and the royal diwans is that national
security depends on adapting to the preferences of powerful outside actors” (154).
The global constraint model posits that great powers interfere in the dyadic relationships among minor powers. Minor
powers’ actions are not only influenced by the power distributions and their satisfaction levels, but also by the
strategies of great powers. As Russell (2005) puts it,
Struggles for power in the greater Middle East are influenced by major nation-states that lie outside the
regions. The United States, Russia, and China each have important strategic interests in the greater Middle
East while nation-states inside the region look to outside powers to bolster their positions in regional
competitions for power. Throughout the Cold War the United States was especially concerned with
political-military moves by the Soviet Union in the greater Middle East (120).
The Logic
My justification for studying the effect of great power interference in minor power dyads is based on the perspectives
of both the defenders and challengers.
The original power transition formulation argues that the global defender would be restrained from preventing the
rise of the challenger due to the fact that it would not want to upset the status quo, which also includes the
institutional rules it created.
The assumption of great power non-interference seems to have stemmed from the original construction of power
transition theory, and its emphasis on the absence of preventive war—the defender does not use its power advantage
to stop a rising challenger. The major theoretical justifications for the absence of prevention would be that the
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
6
defender would not want to disturb the international order, and that given the internal growth assumption, the
challenger’s power increase could not easily be stopped, but only delayed, through a costly war.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the global defender does not take any action. Especially in those cases
when the global challenger is trying to increase its influence, we see actions taken by the global defender. The most
illuminating example of this is the U.S. grand strategy of containment against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Containment strategy allowed the U.S. to abstain from direct contact with the Soviet Union, and prevented Soviet
influence from expanding beyond the de facto borders generated after the Second World War.
However, once the domain of the theory is extended to include minor power dyads, the power asymmetry increases in
magnitude. Thus, I diverge from Lemke in not assuming away great power interference in small power dyads.
I justify my divergence from Lemke’s great power non-interference assumption in two aspects. First, I find it logical
for great powers to use their advantage in capabilities to create/maintain conditions to their liking. The global
defender and its satisfied allies would like to maintain the status quo, and one expects them to act in ways that would
prolong the dyadic/regional orders, so long as these orders are in lieu with the international status quo. Conversely,
small power dyads provide the global challengers with the opportunity to improve their positions of challenge.
Moreover, Lemke’s own argument that states direct their attention to their immediate vicinity gives credence to the
above statement. A dyadic challenger is expected to be after a change in the dyadic status quo, a regional challenger
searches to undo the regional order, and the global challenger is after systemic changes in the international order.
Yet, major powers do not start out as major powers, but have to go through being minor, and then regional powers.
Second, the notion of great power interference in small power relations has practical importance. The popular belief
in many developing nations is that the great powers are interfering with the dyadic dynamics. The most prominent
example of this popular belief is that of the Muslims in the Middle East; that, great powers, especially the United
States, are the sole reason for the existence of the Israeli state in the region (Russell, 2005, 19). Not only popular
beliefs, but also scholarly analysis point to the same direction: outside interference by the great powers exacerbate
regional conflicts (Ayoob 1991, 1994).
I also take issue with the construction of variables that measure regional and/or global hierarchy constraint as solely a
derivative of power capabilities. Focusing only on capabilities misses the important issue of preferences. To use
Starr’s (1978) terminology, the great powers, and especially the global dominant power, have both the “opportunity”
and the “willingness” to influence the interactions of small powers. Thus, I argue theoretically, that the effect of great
powers has to be operationalized so as to allow for their preferences and salience to be taken into consideration.
Arms transfers from great powers provide such a measure. Arms transfers from the great powers signal to both the
receiving country and its rivals the support these recipient countries get. Not only do these transfers improve the
military power of the recipients, but more importantly, they suggest the backing of the great powers. Thus, the arms
transfers reflect the political support these countries receive.
This great power intervention against minor powers in vital areas may take different forms; it might cover a range,
from air strikes to waging a war against the winner of a minor power war. Haass (1994) reports twelve cases of
intervention by the U.S. between 1979 and 1994.
Werner and Kugler’s (1996) military build-up measure provides a tangential support for the global constraint model.
The authors use military build-ups as a reflection of “the decision maker’s choice to either challenge the system or to
defend the status quo” (191). Similarly, the global constraint model proposes that the challenger uses arms transfers
to countries in the region as an initial challenge to the global order in a region important to both itself and the global
defender. The global defender reacts to this by exporting arms to key allies in those same regions.
To reiterate, I argue that the great powers do interfere in dyadic relationships. The possibility of this interference is
understood and accepted by the minor powers. Thus, in addition to dissatisfaction with the dyadic status quo and the
opportunity to rectify the dissatisfaction through the changing power distributions (parity), the dyadic challenger has
to take into account the reactions of the great powers.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
7
The Global Constraint Model
The global constraint model proposes that great powers influence the dyadic relations among small powers.
Specifically, the arms transfers from great powers to the members of minor power dyads affect whether war is waged
or not. The main hypothesis of the global constraint model is that power parity, dissatisfaction with the dyadic status
quo, the un-orderliness of the region, and the decreasing ratio of the arms transfers from great powers to dyadic
defenders increase the probability of war within regions.
Figure One: The Global Constraint Model
Figure One graphically demonstrates the global constraint model. Minor power dyads are subject to three different
levels of factors that guide their behavior: dyadic, regional and global. Dyadic interactions are guided by the power
distribution and status quo evaluations. Parity and dissatisfaction with the status quo increases the probability of
conflict between dyad members.
Dyad members also have to take into account the effects of the power distributions within their region. If the power
distribution within the region is lopsided, that is, the defender is preponderant, dyadic challengers are discouraged to
abrupt the status quo—provided that the regional defender is satisfied with the regional order. Last, dyad members
need to keep an eye on the influences of the global or great power hierarchy. Members of the global hierarchy possess
huge power advantages, and in the absence of credible political backing from at least some of the great powers, it
would be unwise for the dyadic challengers to resort to arms to change the status quo.
Regional
Hierarchy
Constraint
dyad
Global
Constraint
Global
Hierarchy
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
8
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The global constraint model presented in this paper aims to expand the power transition theory to include great power
interference in small power dyadic relations. I propose to use arms transfers ratios by the great powers to the dyadic
challengers as opposed to the dyadic defenders to gauge the political backing challengers expect. As the ratio
increases, the global constraint is reduced, and probability of war increases.
Global constraint model improves our understanding of small power dyadic war and peace dynamics over multiple
hierarchy and regional hierarchy models. Great powers do interfere in minor power dyadic relations. There is a
positive relationship between increasing arms transfers to dyadic challengers relative to dyadic defenders, and war
onset. When the global constraint is present, reflected by lower ratios of arms transfers to challengers vis-à-vis the
defenders, the probability of war decreases.
Minor powers, in their struggle to alter dyadic dynamics, have to take into account the positions of the great powers.
This means to be ready for a conflict with high severity for them, and a low-level severity for the great power. The
great powers are not going to intervene all the time, and they cannot dictate the state of the events one hundred
percent; that would mean the countries other than the great powers had no intrinsic value whatsoever. Yet, the great
powers will in most cases be able to impose their terms when they become involved in regional affairs. Thus, it is
important to study the effect of great power involvement in dyadic and regional affairs. The proposed method in this
study is to look at arms transfers from the great powers to the dyads.
A very important issue at this point is whether the global constraint measure captures the political backing of a dyad
member by the great powers, or is a measure that reflects the effects of decisions by countries to address their
discontent with their rivals. In other words, are arm transfers signals of support for small states, or are they
manifestations of intent of those small powers? Arms transfers data is from SIPRI, and proves inconclusive in
answering these questions. It includes both sales and transfers that are openly declared by the suppliers and recipients.
More research is needed in separating the two to reach more valid conclusions.
Nevertheless, I argue that the variable captures the political backing for minor powers by great powers. Logically, I
do not expect a dissatisfied dyadic challenger to receive weapons from great powers unless either the dissatisfaction
is only dyadic, or the supplier great power is regionally or globally dissatisfied. Thus, challengers whose
dissatisfactions are not limited to the dyadic level would find it hard to ensure great power backing for long periods
of time.
REFERENCES
ALSHAYJI, A. K. (2002). “Mutual Realities, Perceptions, and Impediments between the GCC States and Iran”, in
POTTER, L. G. and SICK, G.G., eds. Security in the Persian Gulf: Origins, Obstacles, and the Search for
Consensus. New York: Palgrave.
ARASE, D. (1995). Buying Power: The Political Economy of Japan’s Foreign Aid. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
AYOOB, M. (1991). “The Security Problematic of the Third World”, World Politics, 43: 257-283.
AYOOB, M. (1994) “Security in the Third World: Searching for the Core Variable”, in Seeking Security and
Development: The Impact of Military Spending and Arms Transfers, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers,
pp. 21-27.
BAUGH, W. and SQUIRES, M. (1983). “Arms Transfers and the Onset of War Part I: Scalogram Analysis of
Transfer Patterns”, International Interactions, 10: 39-63.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
9
BOBROW, D., HOPMANN, P. T., BENJAMIN, R. and SLYVAN, D.(1973). “The Impact of Foreign Assistance on
National Development and International Conflict”, Journal of Peace Science, 1: 39-60.
BROWN, L. C. (2001). “Introduction”, in BROWN, L. C., ed. Diplomacyin the Middle East: the International
Relations of Regional and Outside Powers. New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers.
CATRINA, C. (1994). “Main Directions of Research in the Arms Trade”, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 535: 190-205.
CONTEH-MORGAN, E. (1990). American Foreign Aid and Global Power Projection: The Geopolitics of
Resource Allocation.Brookfield, VT: Gower.
CRAFT, C. (1999). Weapons for Peace, Weapons for War: The Effect of Arms Transfers on War Outbreak,
Involvement, and Outcomes. New York, London: Routledge.
DESCH, M. C. (1989). “The Keys that Lock Up the World: Identifying American Interests in the Periphery,”
International Security, 14(1): 86-121.
EFIRD, B. (2001). A Generalized Power Transition Dynamics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Claremont Graduate
University.
GOCHMAN, C. S. (1990). “Capability-Driven Disputes”, in C.GOCHMAN, C. S. and SABROSKY, A., eds.
Prisoners of War?Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
HAASS, R. N. (1994). Intervention: The Use of American Military Force in the Post-Cold War World.
Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment.
HOOK, S. W. (1995). National Interest and Foreign Aid. Boulder, CO:Lynne Rienner.
HOUWELING, H. and SICCAMA, J. (1988). “Power Transitions as a Cause of War”, Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 32 (1): 87-102.
KHALILZAD, Z. (1995). “The United States and the Persian Gulf:Preventing Regional Hegemony”, Survival, 37
(2): 95-120.
KIM, W. (1989). “Power, Alliance, and Major Wars, 1816-1975”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33 (2): 255-273.
KIM, W. (1992). “Power Transitions and Great Power War from Westphalia to Waterloo”, World Politics, 45 (1):
153-172.
KIM, W. (1996). “Power Parity, Alliance and War from 1648 to 1975.” In J. Kugler and D. Lemke, eds. Parity and
War. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
KINSELLA, D. (1994). “Conflict in Context: Arms Transfers and Third World Rivalries during the Cold War”,
American Journal of Political Science, 38: 557-81.
KINSELLA, D. and TILLEMA, H. K. (1995). “Arms and Aggression in the Middle East: Overt Military
Interventions, 1948-1991”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39 (2): 306-329.
KUGLER, J. and LEMKE, D., eds. (1996). Parity and War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
LAIPSON, E. and HOKAYEM, E. (2006). “The Arab-Israeli Conflict and Regional Stability”, in RUSSELL, J.
E., ed.. Critical Issues Facing the Middle East: Security, Politics, and Economics. Palgrave:Macmillan.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
10
LEBOVIC, J. H. (1988). “National Interest and US Foreign Aid: The Carter and Reagan Years”, Journal of
Peace Research, 25 (2): 115-135.
LEMKE, D. (1996). “Small States and War: An Expansion of Power Transition Theory”, in KUGLER, J. and
LEMKE, D., eds. Parity and War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
LEMKE, D. (2000). Regions of War and Peace. Department of Political Science, University of Michigan. Book
Manuscript.
LESSER, I. O., NARDULLI, B. R. and ARGHAVAN, L. A. (1998).“Sources of Conflict in the Greater Middle
East”, in Khalilzad, Z.and Lesser, I. O., eds. Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century:Regional Futures and U.S.
Strategy. RAND Corporation.
MEERNIK, J., KRUEGER, E. L. and POE, S. C. (1998). “Testing Models of US Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid
During and After the Cold War”, Journal of Politics, 60 (1): 63-85.
MILLER, B. (2001). “The Global Sources of Regional Transitions from War to Peace”, Journal of Peace Research,
38 (2): 199-225.
MILLER, BENJAMIN, AND KORINA KAGAN. (1997). “The Great Powers and Regional Conflicts: Eastern
Europe and the Balkans from the Post-Napoleonic Era to the Post-Cold War Era”, International Studies Quarterly,
41 (1): 51-85.
MORGENTHAU, H. J. (1948). Politics among Nations. 1st Edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
ORGANSKI, A.F.K. (1958). World Politics. 1st edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
ORGANSKI, A.F. K . and KUGLER, J. (1980). The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PALMER, G., WOHLANDER, S. B. and MORGAN, D. T. C. (2002). “Give or Take: Foreign Aid and Foreign
Policy Substitutability”, Journal of Peace Research, 39 (1): 5-26.
POE, S. C. andMEERNIK, J. (1995). “US Military Aid in the 1980s: A Global Analysis,” Journal of Peace
Research, 32 (4): 399-411.
RICE, C. (1991). “The Evolution of Soviet Grand Strategy”, in KENNEDY,P., ed. Grand Strategies in War and
Peace. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
RUMER, E. B. (2000). Dangerous Drift: Russia’s Middle East Policy.Policy Paper no 54. Washington, DC: the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
RUSSELL, J. A. (2006). “Strategy, Policy, and War in Iraq: the United States and the Gulf in the Twenty-First
Century”, in RUSSELL, J.A., ed. Critical Issues Facing the Middle East: Security, Politics,and Economics.
Palgrave: Macmillan.
RUSSELL, R. L. (2005). Weapons Proliferation and War in the Greater Middle East: Strategic Contest.
London and New York:Routledge.
SANJIAN, G. (1991). “Great Power Arms Transfers: Modeling the Decision Making Processes of Hegemonic,
Industrial, and Restrictive Exporters”, International Studies Quarterly, (35): 173-93.
SCHRAEDER, P. J, HOOK, S. W. and TAYLOR, B. (1998). “Clarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle: A Comparison of
American, Japanese, French, and Swedish Aid Flows”, World Politics, 50 (2): 294-323.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
11
SCHRODT, P. A. (1983). “Arms Transfers and International Behavior in the Arabian Sea Area”, International
Interactions, 10: 101-127.
SHERWIN, R. G. (1983). “Controlling Instability and Conflict through Arms Transfers: Testing a Policy
Assumption”, International Interactions, 10: 65-99.
STARR, H. (1978). “‘Opportunity’ and ‘Willingness’ as Ordering Concepts in the Study of War”, International
Interactions, 4(4):363-387.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (1971). The Arms Trade with the Third World.
Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell.
SUTTER, R. G. (2000). Chinese Policy Priorities and their Implications for the United States. Lanham, Md:
Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, Inc.
TAMMEN, R., KUGLER, J., LEMKE, D., STAM III, A., ABDOLLAHIAN, M., ALSHARABATI, C., EFIRD, B.,
and ORGANSKI, A.F.K. (2000). Power transition: Strategic Policies for the 21st Century. Chatham: Chatham
House.
WALTZ, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill.
WERNER, S., and KUGLER, J. (1996). “Power Transitions and Military Buildups.” in KUGLER, J. and LEMKE,
D., eds. Parity and War. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi – Sayı 37 – Temmuz 2013
12
GLOBAL CONSTRAINT: EXTENDING POWER TRANSITION THEORY TO INCLUDE GREAT POWER INTERFERENCE
4/
5
Oleh
Ramazan AL
