International Studies Compendium Project

Extract

Comment on this article   We seek to map the landscape of systemic theories of conflict with an abbreviated sketch of its topography. Where are its main hills, valleys, and rivers? Since we have little space for plotting all of the elevations and depressions, we focus only on some of its most salient features. We also need a compass to orient our map. Our north–south compass will be informed by whether the legions of systemic theoretical and empirical works are expanding, contracting or staying about the same, and whether these theories are becoming more complex or more parsimonious over time. Ironically, systemic approaches were once more prominent than they are today. The rise, fall, and possibly the revival of systemic approaches make up a puzzle that we seek to explain. We believe that part of the solution can be understood by situating the theoretical literature on systemic conflict into two groupings: • There are the relatively concise theories that focus on two or three variables and posit fairly universal generalizations. For instance, crises are more frequent but less likely to escalate in bipolar systems than in multipolar systems. • Meanwhile, there are the more complex research programs, with an expanded number of variables which emphasize historically contingent generalizations. For example, the power transition theory asserts that the propensity of major powers to ... log in or subscribe to read full text