Bandingkan metode
Tinjau metode pilihan Anda berdampingan; baris yang berbeda akan disorot.
| Militarized Interstate Dispute Analysis× | Power Transition Analysis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Bidang | International Relations | International Relations |
| Keluarga | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Tahun asal≠ | 1996 | 1980 |
| Pencetus≠ | Daniel Jones, Stuart Bremer & J. David Singer (Correlates of War project) | A. F. K. Organski & Jacek Kugler |
| Tipe≠ | Coding and statistical analysis of interstate militarized confrontations | Theory-driven observational analysis of war between rising and dominant powers |
| Sumber perintis≠ | Jones, D. M., Bremer, S. A., & Singer, J. D. (1996). Militarized interstate disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 15(2), 163–213. DOI ↗ | Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The War Ledger. University of Chicago Press. link ↗ |
| Alias | MID Analysis, Militarized Dispute Coding, Correlates of War Dispute Analysis, Dyadic Conflict Onset Analysis | Power Transition Theory Analysis, Power Parity and War Analysis, Hegemonic Transition Analysis, Overtaking and War Analysis |
| Terkait | 3 | 3 |
| Ringkasan≠ | Militarized interstate dispute (MID) analysis is the coding and quantitative study of confrontations in which one state threatens, displays, or uses military force against another. Built on the Correlates of War project's MID dataset and the coding rules codified by Jones, Bremer, and Singer (1996), it provides the standard observational measure of interstate conflict short of and including war, structured as dyad-years so that the onset, escalation, and outcomes of disputes can be modeled statistically across two centuries of the international system. | Power transition analysis examines when and why war breaks out between a dominant state and a rising challenger as their relative power converges. Originating in A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler's The War Ledger (1980), it holds that the international system is hierarchical and most dangerous not at moments of clear preponderance but when a dissatisfied rising power approaches parity with the dominant state — and it operationalizes this by tracking relative national capabilities over time and relating overtaking to the onset of major war. |
| ScholarGateSet data ↗ |
|
|