Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Political Research Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Enterline, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Regime Changes and Interstate Conflict, 1816-1992

Andrew J. Enterline

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

Are domestic regime changes catalysts for interstate conflict? How does this relationship vary across different types of regime change? Do regime changes affect the vulnerability and aggressiveness of states equally in foreign policy? I investigate these questions using pooled data identifying three categories of regime change and militarized interstate conflict be havior for 171 states for the period 1816-1992. Specifically, I estimate the effects of regime changes on dispute and war initiation and target behavior during the first 15 years of the new regime's existence for two sample periods, 1816-1992 and 1946-1992. The analyses consistently demonstrate a strong link between autocratization and dispute initiation, and a less robust relationship between autocratization and war initiation. New autocratic regimes and dispute targets are positively related, though this link is contingent upon the operationalization of the dependent vari able. Autocratization and war target are negatively related when the de pendent variable is non-revisionism. Lastly, the analyses consistently suggest that new democracies are not more dispute or war prone, either as initiator or target.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 2, 385-409 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/106591299805100205


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
B. E. Goldsmith and Baogang He
Letting Go Without a Fight: Decolonization, Democracy and War, 1900--94
Journal of Peace Research, September 1, 2008; 45(5): 587 - 611.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
European Journal of International RelationsHome page
U. E. Daxecker
Perilous Polities? An Assessment of the Democratization-Conflict Linkage
European Journal of International Relations, December 1, 2007; 13(4): 527 - 553.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
D. Sobek
Rallying Around the Podesta: Testing Diversionary Theory Across Time
Journal of Peace Research, January 1, 2007; 44(1): 29 - 45.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Conflict Management and Peace ScienceHome page
S. Suzuki, V. Krause, and J. D. Singer
The Correlates of War Project: a Bibliographic History of the Scientific Study of War and Peace, 1964-2000
Conflict Management and Peace Science, January 1, 2002; 19(2): 69 - 107.
[Abstract] [PDF]