Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper presents a test of elements of Power Transition Theory (PTT) through an examination of types of demographic transitions against civil war. It divides population transitions into nine types and, from PTT logic, derives testable hypotheses. It also tests elements of PTT's rival, Balance of Power Theory (BPT). Although the logic of PTT seems appropriate to testing at the substate level, the results are mixed. Most states plagued by ethnic civil wars have stable populations (i.e. no transitions), yet three types of transitions stand out. Even here, however, PTT predicts violence in only one of these three types of transitions. BPT fares a bit better.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The relationship between state and market actors is often cast in terms of competition and conflict. In large part this attitude reflects a sense that financial market actors have become relatively more powerful than states, precipitating a disorderly retreat of the state in the face of the growing hegemony of financial markets. Yet this zero-sum view overlooks the deep complementarities and interdependencies evident in state/market relations. States have found market actors can enhance their pursuit of social welfare goals through product, market, and technology expertise and innovation. In turn, market actors have found they cannot predictably maximize profits without a stable regulatory structure, policy environment and legal infrastructure. Each depends, therefore, on the unique roles, knowledge and capabilities of the other to achieve their individual goals. This paper argues that shifting relations of complementary authority, therefore, rather than shifting relations of conflicting power, best characterizes state/market relations. It traces shifting patterns of authority relations evident across the twentieth century, identifies the main causes for these shifts, and investigates the implications of this argument on current debates in international political economy.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Although spatial theory posits that political parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties’ policy strategies, there is little comparative research that evaluates this hypothesis. Using the Comparative Manifesto Project data, we analyze the relationship between parties’ policy programmes and the policies of their opponents in twenty-five postwar democracies. We conclude that parties tended to shift their policy positions in the same direction that their opponents had shifted their policies at the previous election; furthermore, parties were particularly responsive to policy shifts by other members of their “ideological families,” i.e. leftist parties responded to other leftist parties while right-wing parties responded to right-wing parties. Our findings have important implications for spatial models of elections, for the dynamics of party systems, and for political representation.