Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2013-03-12T09:26:06Z
dc.date.available2013-03-12T09:26:06Z
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.date.submitted2012-05-14en_US
dc.identifier.citationBaptista, José Pedro Filipe De Oliveira. Power transitions and conflict. Masteroppgave, University of Oslo, 2012en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/34001
dc.description.abstractThe historical record of great power transitions is plagued with episodes of violence. Hence, the ‘rise of China’ and America’s relative decline sparks a heated debate on whether history, in the longer or shorter term, will repeat itself. The possible outcomes of this cyclical event, ranging from hegemonic war to a smooth transition, vary with the theoretical approach adopted: power transition theory postulates that the rising challenger becomes more conflict-prone as it approaches the crossover point with the declining hegemon in terms of power, while liberal-institutionalist theory draws attention to the exceptional character of the current Western-led order as the main cause for optimism. In this comparative analysis, each theory’s conflicting concepts of power, and the contrasting expectations each hold for transitions, are compared. Their focus on different indicators in measuring power yields different answers about the size of the US-China power gap and the speed at which it is being closed; at the same time, opposing assumptions on state satisfaction influence the hypothesis of China being successfully accommodated by the international system. An empirical analysis focused on the rising challenger’s behaviour over the past two decades reveals alternating periods of revisionism and status quo orientation, but in the recent past liberal-institutionalist theory is more apt for understanding China’s posture vis-à-vis the US, even after discounting for uncertainty and calculative behaviour. On the US’ suppositional impulse to seek confrontation in a desperate attempt to retain its leading position in the system, evidence on its approach to China also dismisses the alternative proposition of preventive action suggested by power transition theorists.eng
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.titlePower transitions and conflict : Applying power transition theory and liberal-institutionalist theory to US-China relationsen_US
dc.typeMaster thesisen_US
dc.date.updated2013-02-26en_US
dc.creator.authorBaptista, José Pedro Filipe De Oliveiraen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::240en_US
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft.au=Baptista, José Pedro Filipe De Oliveira&rft.title=Power transitions and conflict&rft.inst=University of Oslo&rft.date=2012&rft.degree=Masteroppgaveen_US
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-32678en_US
dc.type.documentMasteroppgaveen_US
dc.identifier.duo161155en_US
dc.contributor.supervisorProf. Arild Underdalen_US
dc.identifier.bibsys130713740en_US
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/34001/1/Baptista-MA.pdf


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata