Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Airballoon Island - 54757
Transcript of Airballoon Island - 54757
How Empires Matter
An holistic approach to conflict analysis
Intro: Is the Cold War really over?
While the great majority of research regarding wars and inter state conflicts is focused on state actors, it seems that in the modern global village these dynamics are widely related to geopolitical and imperialistic division, as the world has become extremely intertwined with interests and international agendas. On the other hand, world-system theories, claim that the greatest shifts of social, economical and geographical shifts, are due to world-systems that include various countries in each system, and different dynamics between them. This theory however, has not yet been populary used in the conflict analysis field. The proposed research is aiming to include a meta-state global systems view in some classical conflict analysis models.
Since the beginning of history, humans were divided into groups and empires. These empires effected social, technological and philosophical norms, as well as conflicts, and shaped the world as we know it. In a sense, the history of the world is shaped mainly by imperialism throughout human existence. From the Nords, the Romans, the Turks and the British empire. Today, although much have changed, the new imperialism is still dramatically influencing world dynamics.
For a time, certain countries become the world hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and to the United States of America, alongside othre hegmonies. The world-systems model claims that the ties between nations in a certain global tie, as well as their status (Core nations, Peripheral nations, Semi-peripheral nations) are the strognest determinators of social and financial influence. We suggest it also has great influence on conflicts and their resolutions. In this global reality, ties between countries, interests and geopolitical deals: are often much more influential than the type of regime or any other variables we may address regarding state level actors. This approach can also explain the democratic peace phenomenon: it’s not that democracies tend to fight less with each other, than they do with non democracies: It’s the new geopolitical division, creating at least three major groups of countries, bound by interests and the formation of a larger set of values and agendas that tie them together. These dynamics between states in a unifiying system, can be addressed by two major dimensions:
Their Identification with one another, as meta-state entities (Strong/Weak, Negative/positive)
Their dynamics within the system (Core nations vs. Peripheral nations vs Semi-Peripheral vs External areas)
Both elements may be valuable at portraying the connections and likelihood of conflict between the world's states.
How do Tribes matter?
On the other hand, the effect of inner state groups on intra state wars (and inter state wars): will also receive a focus, as the superficial separation to states is weaker than the power and dynamics of the groups consisting it within a certain geography (IE. ISIS, Curds, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians).
In this dimension, the level of heterogeneous, the sense of deprivation, the sizes of the groups, their power dynamics, the distribution of a certain group’s population and impact in and outside the state: might be very valuable determinations of conflicts, rather focusing mainly on the motivation and resources of states and actors in general.
This variable will be looked upon in a structural sense, rather than a motivational one (I.E. Grievance).
This research has several steps: the first is to
generate and validate a new scale that assess the level in which different countries perceive their relationship as important and positive as well as their dynamics.
The second step shall validate a
new scale that measures the same dimensions in an intra state group level
(The level in which different social groups in the same country perceive their relationship as important and positive).
The third step is to
include these two scales in various existing conflict analysis models, such as the normative and structural models.
The end goal is to create a
consolidating theory of conflict analysis based on the classical models with the inclusion of world-system view, offering a deeper and wider eco system and understanding of world conflicts. Research
How World-Systems effect states' conflict
Does strong meta-state identification and world-system-dynamics decrease the probability of conflict between these states?
Conflict, World-system, Nation dynamic (Core, Peripheral, Semi-Peripheral), Meta-State group identification, probability of war
States with a strong Meta-State identification with each other shall be less inclined to fight one another, compared to states
that share a weak identification, or a negative one.
Peripheral states will be less inclined to battle Core state within the same world-system, than with a Peripheral state from a different world-system
1. Conflict analysis – The Democratic peace
In a sense, a geopolitical global view can be regarded as an extension of democratic peace theories, as it deals with common attributions that different states share and influence the probability of conflict.
Maoz Z., Russett B. (1993), Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986
Mousseau M., Yuhang S. (1999), A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic
The two researches above will be used as a theoretical and empirical framework for the current research.
Gibler D. M. (2007), Bordering on Peace: Democracy, Territorial Issues, and Conflict -
offer a comparison between the new model and the findings that regard high significance of territorial proximity, as an alternative explanation.
Werner S. (2000), The Effects of Political Similarity on the Onset of Militarized Disputes, 1816-1985 –
this research is especially valuable as it resembles the proposed research by testing (and verifying) parts of the new scale: demonstrating how similar political systems generate less likelihood of conflict.
2. Social Psychology – Group identification
Troop L. R., Wright S. C. (2001), Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self
Waldemar L., Diehl M. (1999), Measuring National Identity
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and
the reduction of intergroup Bias. European Review of Social
Psychology, 4, 1-26
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the Contact Hypothesis: The induction of a Common Ingroup Identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271-290.
Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability:
A meta-analytic integration
B Mullen, L Hu (1989), Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic integration
The researches above shall be used to create a consolidated scale of meta-state group identification as well as to the second inrta state scale.
4. Conflict anaylysis in an inter-state geopolitical prism: research and theories exploring geo political intra-state connections and identifications, new imperialism and inter state dynamics
Vogt, M.; Bormann, N.-C.; Rüegger, S.; Cederman, L.-E.; Hunziker, P. & Girardin, L. 2015. Integrating Data on Ethnicity, Geography, and Conflict: The Ethnic Power Relations Dataset Family Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2015, 59, 1327-1342
Wucherpfennig, J.; Hunziker, P. & Cederman, L.-E. 2015.Who Inherits the State? Colonial Rule and Post-Colonial Conflict American Journal of Political Science, 2015, Forthcoming
Wucherpfennig, J., Metternich, N., Cederman, L.-E., and Gleditsch, Kristian S. 2012.Ethnicity, the State and the Duration of Civil WarWorld Politics 64(1):79-115
Cederman, L.-E, Warren, T. C., and Sornette, D. 2011.Testing Clausewitz: Nationalism, Mass Mobilization, and the Severity of War.International Organization 65(4):605-38
Cederman, L.-E., Weidmann, N.B., and Gleditsch, K.S. 2011.Horizontal Inequalities and Ethno-Nationalist Civil War:
A Global Comparison American Political Science Review 105(3):478-95Schutte, S.,
Weidmann, N.B. 2011. Diffusion Patterns of Violence in Civil War.Political Geography 30(3):143-152
Wucherpfennig, J., Weidmann, N. B., Girardin, L., Cederman, L.-E. and Wimmer, A 2011. Politically Relevant Ethnic Groups across Space and Time: Introducing the GeoEPR Dataset Conflict Management and Peace Science 28(5):423-37
Albert, M., Cederman, L.-E., and Wendt, A. (eds.) 2010. New Systems Theories of World Politics. London:
Palgrave Macmillan Warren, C. 2010.The Weidmann, N. B. and Cederman, L.-E. 2009. GeoContest: Modeling Strategic Competition in Geopolitical Systems. Social Science Computer Review 26
Cederman, L.-E. 2005. Computational Models of Social Forms: Advancing Generative Macro Theory American Journal of Sociology 110: 864-893
Cederman, L.-E. 2001. Political Boundaries and Identity Trade-Off. Geometry of Security: Modeling Interstate Alliances as Evolving Networks Journal of Peace Research 47(6):697-709
Topic: How Empires and Tribes effect states conflict
Research question: Do strong Meta-State group identification decrease the probability of conflict between these nations?
Major Variables: Conflict, Meta-State group identification, probability of war
Hypothesis: States with a strong Meta-State identification with each other shall be less inclined to fight one another, compared to states that share a weak identification, or a negative one.
The major aim of this research is to offer a new, unified measure of “Inter state identification”/ “Meta-State identification” scale, measuring the extent in which a certain country perceives the strength and importance of its connection with another country (and more), and as result creating a geopolitical division based on those identification levels (A geopolitical forces based map). This scale should offer both positive and negative scores ranging from a highly strong identification to highly negative identification, to offer us a double direction variable.
An effective operationalization of that variable will allow us to include it in the normative model and a deeper understanding of the democratic peace phenomenon, for example.
Such a scale will be developed by utilizing and unifying the “National identity scale”, “Inner group identification scale”, “Degree of alliance” scale, Outer group appraisal scales and perceived out group threat scale, and perhaps other measurements that will be tested and tightened based on multiple regression analysis. Once identifying a solid scale, we can implement it in modulations and further research.
The Method and design
For elegance and simplicity, we offer to utilize the research population and various
operationalization of “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace”
(Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett, 1993) in a way that shall allow us to explore this new theoretical hypothesis, based on a strong empirical and theoretical research foundation.
Our unit of analysis is the dyad-year between 1946-86, redacted as in the original research. We look at each pair of countries in each year to see whether they engaged in any kind of militarized dispute (based on COW and ICB unified data sets), and the character of such dispute intent (dispute involvement, dispute escalation) as well as creating a two sided evaluation of each country’s identification level with the other, for each dyad (The “Meta-State identification” variable).
The world-system membership and nation dynamics will be defined based on the World-System division and modulation.
Conflict and probability of war will be defined, as in the original research, as dispute involvement and dispute escalation
Since we already have the results regarding alternative explanations (Normative and constructional approaches, as well as democracy as an independent variable on both aspects), the major independent variables will be the level of mutual “Meta-state” identification between two countries, based on the former dyads, membership of a world-system and nation dynamic within the system (based on WS research).
After identifying a “Meta-State” identification scale, as well as a world-system categorization, we’ll utilize a panel of judges to score various countries, in each year, based on research portraying the media coverage, opinion polls, and any data we can gather on the subject.
Since the former method might be difficult to implement retroactively, we shall create an international survey amongst 10 major states, in which we’ll ask subjects from these states to fill in the “Meta-Identification” scales regarding each one of the other 9 states, as well as the perceived hostility and probability of war between these dyads. This method shall give us additional validation of those that scale, and the predicted interaction with the probability of war.
The effect of World-Systems, Meta-State identity, and social groups on conflicts and wars
Do strong meta-state identity and world-system dynamics decrease the likelihood of war?
Reseach shows that countries who share some characteristics (Governance, set of values) tend to participate less in wars amongst themselves. World-System theories claims that the only way to understand great shifts of power, social and economical shifts, are derieved from meta-nation systems. Creating a consilidating scale for those similarities and identification (Based on social psychology, conflict analysis, world-system theory and geo research), will introduce a greater understanding and prediction of these tendencies as world-systems rather than states.
A new map of conflict analysis.
In a geo political global world conflict analysis has to include models of greater powers and forces than relaying mainly on state level actors. Identifying and understanding these powers will allow us to further understand and deal with world conflicts.
States with strong positive mutual meta-state identification will be less inclined to fight one another than with stats who share a weak identification. .
States who are peripheral in a certain world system, will be less inclined to fight core states within that system, than with peripheral States from an external system.
Research proposal: Tribes & Empires
World-systems theory* (also known as world-systems analysis or the world-systems perspective) is a multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change, emphasizing the world-system (and not nation states) as the primary (but not exclusive) unit of social analysis.
* Immanuel Wallerstein, (2004), "World-systems Analysis." In World System History, ed. George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK
3. World-System theories
Immanuel Wallerstein, (2004), "World-systems Analysis." In World System History, ed. George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK
Frank Lechner, Globalization theories: World-System Theory, 2001
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.
Paul Halsall Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory, August 1997
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1992). "The West, Capitalism, and the Modern World-System", Review 15 (4), 561-619; .
The world system theory shall serve as the major theoretical and empirical foundation for the world-system conflict analysis, portraying the current division to meta-state entities and forces.
A representation of the organic or stable regions of the core, periphery, and semiperiphery between 1975–2002. Countries depicted are those which were consistently classified in a particular zone throughout the 27-year period.
Salvatore J. Babones, "The country-level income structure of the world-economy," Journal of World-Systems Research 11, no. 1 (2015): 29–55.