Content deleted Content added
JArthur1984 (talk | contribs) →Theory: Chan |
JArthur1984 (talk | contribs) →Theory: as pyramid |
||
Line 7:
==Theory==
Organski first described power transition theory.<ref name=":Ma&Kang" />{{Rp|page=22}} According to Organski in his textbook, ''World Politics'' (1958):<blockquote>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.<ref>Organski 1980, 19</ref></blockquote>Steve Chan summarizes the theory as "the danger of systemic war is greatest when a rising challenger catches up with or even overtakes a declining hegemon."<ref name=":Ma&Kang" />{{Rp|page=23}}
Power transition theory interprets the international system as a hierarchical pyramid with the dominant power at the apex, then lesser [[Great power|great powers]], then other medium and small states and dependences.<ref name=":Ma&Kang" />{{Rp|page=22}}
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.<ref>Mold, Andrew. (2003). Regions of war and peace edited by Douglas Lemke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 235). Journal of International Development. 15. 805–806. {{doi|10.1002/jid.1014}}.</ref>
| |||