Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:53:34.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Threat, status disequilibrium, and national power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Charles F. Doran ,
Kim Quaile Hill  and
Kenneth Mladenka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Associated with the concept of the nation state and system is a latent threat structure which this article seeks to delineate and to explore empirically. Why do the Japanese perceive the Russians as a serious political threat while discounting the potential military impact of the Chinese? Why did the United States consider the threat to its interests sufficiently grave in Indochina to fight a 10-year war against communism there while virtually ignoring the Castro regime less than 100 miles off the Florida coast ? What combination of German attributes and behaviour convinced France and Britain in the presence of aggresssive capability that they could disregard the threat posed to Czechoslovakia by Hitler in 1938? The latent threat structure of the nation state is neither obvious nor of trivial importance to global security and peace.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , April 1979 , pp. 37 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 37 note 1. Scott, William A., ‘Psychological and Social Correlates of International Images‘, International Behavior: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Jahoda, G., ‘Nationality Preferences and National Stereotypes in Ghana Before Independence‘,Journal of Social Psychology, 50 (1959), pp. 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 174; Scott, W. A., 'Cognitive Consistency, Response Reinforcement, and Attitude Change‘,Sociometry, 22 (1959), pp. 219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W. J. MacKinnon and R.Centers, 'social-psychological Factors in Public Orientation Toward an Out-Group‘, American Journal of Sociology, 63 (1958), pp. 415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 37 note 2. Boulding, Kenneth E., ‘Towards a Pure Theory of Threat Systems’,American Economic Review, 53 (1963), pp. 424–434Google Scholar.

Page 37 note 3. Buchanan, W. and Cantril, H., How Nations See Each Other: A Study in Public Opionion(Urbana, 1953)Google Scholar; Eysenck, H. J., ‘Primary Social Attitudes: A Comparison of Attitude Patterns in England, Germany and Sweden‘, Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 48 (1953)Google Scholar, pp. 536–568; I. L. Child and L. Doob, ‘Factors Determining National Stereotypes’, Journal of Social Psychology, 17 (1943), pp. 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mace, G. A., ‘National Stereotypes - Their Nature and Function’, Sociological Review, 35 (1943), pp. 29—36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levinson, D. J., ‘Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy‘, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1957)2 pp 37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sampson, D. L. and Smith, H. P., ‘A Scale to Measure World-minded Attitudes‘, Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1957), pp. 99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 38 note 1. Sawyer, Jack and Guetzkow, Harold, ‘Bargaining and Negotiation in International Relations’, International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis, Kelman, Herbert (ed. (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Deutsch, M. and Krauss, R. M., ‘studies of Interpersonal Bargaining‘, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1957), pp. 69–81Google Scholar; Ikle, F. G. and Leites, N., ‘Political Negotiation as a Process of Modifying Utilities’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6 (1962), pp. 19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lanzetta, J. T., ‘some Effects of Situation Threat on Group Behavior’, Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 49 (1954), pp. 445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Loomis, J. L., ‘Communication, the Development of Trust, and Cooperative Behavior’, Human Relations, 12 (1959), pp. 305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walton, R. E. and McKersie, R. B., A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Zinnes, Dina A., North, R. G., and Koch, H. E., Jr., ‘Capability, Threat, and the Outbreak of War,’ International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in and Theory, Rosenau, James N. (ed.), (New York, 1961)Google Scholar.

Page 38 note 2. Milburn, T., ‘What Constitutes Effective Deterrence?’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3 (1959), pp. 138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russett, Bruce M., ‘Pearl Harbor: Deterrence Theory and Decision Theory’, Journal of Peace Research, 2 (1967), pp. 89—106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘The Calculus of Deterrence‘, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 7 (June), pp. 97–109; Raoul Naroll, ‘Deterrence in History’, Theory and Research on the Causes of War (Englewood Cliffs, 1969)Google Scholar; Singer, J. David, ‘Inter nation Influence: A Formal Model’, American Political Science Review, 57 (1963), pp. 420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 430; Raser, John R. and Crow, Wayman J., ‘A Simulation Study of Deterrence Theories’, Proceedings of the International Peace Research Association Inaugural Conference (Assen, The Royal VanGorcum Ltd., 1966)Google Scholar; Snyder, Glenn H., ‘The Balance of Power and the Balance of Terror’, Balance of Power, (San Francisco, 1965)Google Scholar; Schelling, T. C., The Strategy of Corflict (Cambridge, Mass., 1960)Google Scholar; Wolstetter, A., ‘The Delicate Balance of Terror’, Foreign Affairs, 37 (1959) PP. 211–234Google Scholar; Doran, Charles F., ‘A Theory of Bounded Deterrence’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17 (1973), pp. 243–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 38 note 3. McClelland, Charles A., ‘The Acute International Crisis’, World Politics, 14 (1961), pp. 182–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hermann, Charles F., International Crisis (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; and Crisis in Foreign Policy (Indianapolis, 1969)Google Scholar; Holsti, Ole R., Brody, Richard A., and North, Robert C., ‘The Management of International Crisis: Affect and Action in American-Soviet Relations’, Journal ofPeace Research, 3–4 (1964), pp. 170–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holsti, K.J., ‘The Use of Objective Criteria for the Measurement of International Tension Levels’, Background, 1 (1963), pp. 77–96Google Scholar; Pachter, Henry M., Collision Course: The Cuban Missile Crisis and Coexistence (New York, 1963)Google Scholar

Page 38 note 4. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘To Intervene or Not to Intervene’, Foreign Affairs. 45 (1967), p. 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Payne, James L., The American Threat: The Fear ofWar as an Instrument ofForeign Policy (Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar; Rosecrance, R. N., Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar; Singer, J. D., ‘Threat-Perception and the Armament-Tension Dilemma’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2 (1958), pp. 90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, D and Cutler, N. E., ‘Time-Oriented Explanations of National Security Beliefs: Cohort, Life Stage, and Situation’, Peace Research Society (International) Papers, 87, pp. 31–57Google Scholar; McNamara, Robert S, ‘The Chinese Threat’, The Use of Force: International Politics and Foreign Policy (Boston, 1971)Google Scholar; Osgood, Robert and Tucker, Robert (eds.), Force, Order and Justice (Baltimore, 1967)Google Scholar.

Page 39 note 1. Galtung, J., ‘A Structural Theory of Aggression’, Journal of Peace Research, 2 (1964)Google Scholar.

Page 39 note 2. Fossum, E., ‘Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Military Coups d'Etat in Latin America’, Journal of Peace Research, 3 (1967), pp. 225–251Google Scholar.

Page 39 note 3. Midlarsky, M., ‘Status Inconsistency and the Onset of International Warfare’, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Evanston: Northwestern University; M. A. East, ‘stratification in the International System: An Empirical Analysis’, The Analysis of International Politics (New York, 1971)Google Scholar.

Page 39 note 4. Ibid.

Page 40 note 1. Wallace, M. D. ‘Power, Status and International War’, Journal of Peace Research, 1 (1971), pp. 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page 40 note 2. Wallace, Michael D., ‘status, Formal Organization, and Arms Levels as Factors Leading to the Onset of War, 1820–1964’, Peace, War, and Numbers, Russett, B. M. (ed. (Beverley Hills, 1972)Google Scholar.

Page 40 note 3. Waltz, Kenneth N., ‘stability of the Bipolar World’, Daedalus, xciii (1964), pp. 881–909Google Scholar.

Page 40 note 4. Deutsch, Karl W. and Singer, J. David, ‘Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability’, World Politics, xvi (1964), pp. 390–406Google Scholar; Smoker, Paul, ‘Fear in the Arms Race: A Mathematical Study’, Journal of Peace Research, 1 (1964), pp. 55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 41 note 1. Kaplan, M., System and Process in International Politics (New York, 1955)Google Scholar.

Page 41 note 2. Rosecrance, R. N., ‘Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and the Future’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 (1966), pp. 314–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 41 note 3. Haas, Michael, ‘International Subsystems: Stability and Polarity‘, American Political Science Review, Ixiv (1970), pp. 98—123Google Scholar.

Page 41 note 4. Russett, B. M., International Regions and the International System (Chicago, 1967)Google Scholar.

Page 41 note 5. R. J. Rummel, ‘U.S. Foreign Relations: Conflict, Cooperation, and Attribute Distances’, Peace, War, and Numbers, op. cit.

Page 41 note 6. J. David Singer, Stuart Bremer, and John Stuckey, ‘Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820—1965’, Ibid.

Page 42 note 1 See Doran, Kim Q, Charles F.,. Hill, , Mladenka, Kenneth R., and Wakata, Kyoji, ‘Perceptions of National Power and Threat: Japan, Finland and the United States,’ International Journal of Group Tensions, 4 (1974), pp. 431—453Google Scholar, where this relationship is pirically observed for three nation samples.

Page 43 note 1. The respondents to our attitude questionnaire were non-randomly selected university students in each of the three nations. Despite relatively small sample sizes and the selected nature of the samples, extensive analysis of these data gave us considerable confidence in the reliability and validity. For details of this prior analysis, see Charles F. Doran, Kim Q,. Hill, Kenneth R. Mladenka, and Kyoji Wakata, ‘Perceptions of National Power and Threat: Japan, Finland and the United States’, op. cit.

Page 43 note 2. Singer, J. David and Small, Melvin, The Wages of War, 1816–1965: A Statistical Handbook(New York, 1972)Google Scholar; East, Maurice A., ‘stratification in the International System: An Empirical Analysis’, The Analysis ofInternational Politics (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Wallace, Michael D., ‘Power, Status and International War’, Journal of Peace Research, 1 (1971) pp. 23–35Google Scholar.

Page 43 note 3. As a test of the validity of indexing ascribed power via diplomatic representation, we were able to compare the ordering of nations on that variable with those where our respondents ranked nations in terms of their perceptions of national power. First, we should note that the intercorrelations of the three perceived power rankings for our sets of Finnish, Japanese, and American respondents were all above 0.90. Thus, across all three cultural perspectives, national power rankings were perceived quite commonly. Having demonstrated the validity of the perceived power scores, we correlated one of those rankings with the diplomatic representation index. The resultant Pearsonian r was —0.65, indicating moderate association in the appropriate direction (more diplomatic representation associated with a smaller score — meaning greater power — on the perceived power index). Examination of the scatterplot between these two variables revealed several significant outliers with high perceived power and abnormally low diplomatic representation. These outliers tended to be communist states or widely sanctioned members of the international system like Rhodesia and South Africa. Elimination of the six most extreme of these outliers boosted the r to —0–76.

These results represent satisfactory association in the appropriate direction to validate the use of the diplomatic representation variable to index ascribed status. In fact, diplomatic, representation is probably a better measure on conceptual grounds than would be our perceived power rankings. Discrepancies between diplomatic status and indicators of achieved power might reasonably be expected to result in nation hostility. On the other hand, discrepancies between publicly perceived power and achieved power more likely reflect the recognition of existing hostile behaviour.

Page 44 note 1. Loadings on the first factor were as follows: population (0–93), military expenditures (0.89), armed forces (0.90), GNP (0.84), GNP/population (0.14), and population density (0.20). The standardized regression equation had the following form: power = (0·774) Factor I + (0·492) Factor II + (0·076) Factor III p<o·ooi p<o·ooi p = 0·039 See Doran et al. op.cit. pp. 439–441.

Page 44 note 2. Ibid. Segal, D. R., ‘status Inconsistency, Gross Pressures, and American Political Behavior’, American Sociological Review, 34 (1969), pp. 352–359Google Scholar; Shimbori, M., et al, ‘Measur ing a Nation's Prestige’, American Journal of Sociology, 64 (1959), pp. 64–68Google Scholar; Gladstone, A. I., ‘The Possibility of Predicting Reactions to International Events’, Journal of Sociological Issues, 1 (1955) PP. 21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 44 note 3. We demonstrated empirically that proper operationalization is critical when attempting test the status or power discrepancy concept. The alternative model employs an absolute value difference score obtained by comparing the diplomatic representation index and our factor scoie index of objective power. The gap, whether positive or negative, between the indices was taken to mean status discrepancy. Regardless of whether we used the Singer-Small diplomatic index or the index derived from perceived power, the absolute value calculation failed to correlate with the index of power for any of the nation samples.

Page 45 note 1. Doran et al., op. cit.

Page 49 note 1. This conclusion is supported by additional, unreported subset regressions where the status disequilibrium index was omitted as an independent variable. The decline in variance explained (R2) for the regressions reported in Tables 2 and 3 was negligible in every case.

Page 50 note 1. Verba, Sidney, Brody, Richard A., Parker, Edwin B., Nie, Norman H., Polsby, Nelson W., Ekman, Paul, and Black, Gordon S., ‘Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam’, American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), pp. 536–547Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience (Boston, 1967)Google Scholar; Lippmann, Walter, The Public Philosophy (Boston, 1964)Google Scholar.

Page 52 note 1. B. M. Russett, International Regions and the International System op. cit.; Charles F. Doran, ‘A Theory of Bounded Deterrence’, op. cit.

Page 53 note 1. Doran, Charles F., Domestic Conflict in State Relations: The American Sphere of Influence, Sage Professional Papers in International Studies, 4, 02—037 (Beverly Hills and London, 1976)Google Scholar.

Page 55 note 1. Levinson, D. J., ‘Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1957), pp. 37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mischel, W. and Schopler, J, ‘Authoritarianism and Reactions to “Sputniks” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 59 (1959), pp. 142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aubert, V, Fisher, B. R., and Rokkan, S., ‘A Comparative Study of Teachers’ Attitudes to International Problems and Policies‘, Journal of Issues, 10 (1954), pp. 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Block, J. and Block, Jeanne, ‘An Investigation of the Relationship Between Intolerance of Ambiguity and Ethnocentrism’, Journal ofPersonality, 19 (1951), pp. 303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fensterwald, B., Jr., ‘The Anatomy of American Isolation and Expansionism IF, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2 (1958), pp. 280–309Google Scholar; Christiansen, B., Attitudes Toward Foreign Affairs as a Function of Personality (Oslo, 1959)Google Scholar; Farris, C. D., ‘selected Attitudes on Foreign Affairs as Correlates of Authoritarianism and Political Anomie’, Journal of Politics, 22 (1960), pp. 50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 56 note 1. See, for example, Midlarsky, Manus I., ‘Power, Uncertainty, and the Onset of International Violence’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18 (1974), pp. 395–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar.