9
The second element of Power Transition theory is the extent to which a nation is
satisfied with the global and/or local status quo. Power Transition postulates that
satisfaction with this dyadic status quo is a major determinant of conflict but gains and
losses will be attained directly from dyadic interactions among participants.
While the status quo can be conceptually identified, empirically there is little
consensus about what determines variation in satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For instance,
Lemke and Reed (1996) suggest that it may be attributed to similarity in political
systems.
6
III. Dynamics of War, Peace and Integration in Power Transition theory
Power Transition theory contends that the likelihood of nations to engage in war,
peace or integration is driven by (a) changes in the relative power of the challenger and
the dominant nation prompted by differential growth in populations and output, and (b)
the challenger’s degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Dissatisfied challengers will
challenge for the leadership of the global hierarchy at the stage of power parity with the
dominant nation. While relative power parity can lead to severe conflicts, a condition of
power preponderance ensures peace within the hierarchy. It should be noted that the
dynamics of war and peace in local hierarchies follow the same principles that Power
Transition theory postulates for the global hierarchy. Regional wars occur when a
regional contender, dissatisfied with the local status quo, achieves power parity with the
regional dominant nation. Wars among the dominant nation and major power challengers
reorder the global hierarchy while wars fought among regional contenders within the
local hierarchies alter the local distribution of resources, and the local status quo, but
6
See also Tammen (2000).
Convention