Chapter three provides a medium-N, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) analysis of the empirical record, assessing the outcomes of all 20 militarised interstate disputes that have taken place in the post-Cold War era. QCA is the most proper method given that the focus of this study is on several conditions and their complex relationship. QCA results show that 9 of the 20 cases of asymmetric militarised disputes resulted in war, confirming the importance of this phenomena. Moreover, the analysis reveals that not a single condition is both necessary and sufficient to explain the minor power's choice to go to war. However, the domestic crisis seems to be of particular importance, as it is a necessary condition for the outcome to occur. While this is somewhat expected, more surprising results indicate that domestic crisis is only sufficient when occurring together with a stable regime and either foreign support or window of opportunity. Likewise, regimes with anomalous beliefs tend to ignore the importance of conditions such as foreign support or window of opportunity. Given the limited number of cases, these results can be further strengthened through case studies, that is, process tracing and counterfactual assessment.
{"title":"Pathways to Conflict Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)","authors":"Marinko Bobić","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr00xmm.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr00xmm.9","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter three provides a medium-N, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) analysis of the empirical record, assessing the outcomes of all 20 militarised interstate disputes that have taken place in the post-Cold War era. QCA is the most proper method given that the focus of this study is on several conditions and their complex relationship. QCA results show that 9 of the 20 cases of asymmetric militarised disputes resulted in war, confirming the importance of this phenomena.\u0000Moreover, the analysis reveals that not a single condition is both necessary and sufficient to explain the minor power's choice to go to war. However, the domestic crisis seems to be of particular importance, as it is a necessary condition for the outcome to occur. While this is somewhat expected, more surprising results indicate that domestic crisis is only sufficient when occurring together with a stable regime and either foreign support or window of opportunity. Likewise, regimes with anomalous beliefs tend to ignore the importance of conditions such as foreign support or window of opportunity. Given the limited number of cases, these results can be further strengthened through case studies, that is, process tracing and counterfactual assessment.","PeriodicalId":317648,"journal":{"name":"Why Minor Powers Risk Wars with Major Powers","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114298119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-23DOI: 10.1332/policypress/9781529205206.003.0007
Marinko Bobić
The concluding chapter develops four main findings of the book, based on the evidence obtained in all the empirical chapters. First, there is more than one way for a conflict to brew. All five conditions that were studied have causal relevance but in different ways. Second, major powers are not the main threat in these asymmetric disputes, but rather it is the domestic crisis because it can threaten regime stability, and thus the very survival of the regime. Third, minor powers seem to have reachable war objectives, such as regime survival or denying domestic opponents a victory. Fourth, the case of Iraq shows a failure of the regime to comprehend an opponent’s intentions and capabilities. Such anomalous beliefs are particularly a consequence of closed, personalistic regimes where there are no competitive ideas that can dislodge subjective views. The concluding chapter wraps up with some insights on how these findings can be used to assess the current Syrian conflict and policy implications.
{"title":"Conclusion: Dealing with Complexity, Defeat and Beliefs","authors":"Marinko Bobić","doi":"10.1332/policypress/9781529205206.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529205206.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"The concluding chapter develops four main findings of the book, based on the evidence obtained in all the empirical chapters. First, there is more than one way for a conflict to brew. All five conditions that were studied have causal relevance but in different ways. Second, major powers are not the main threat in these asymmetric disputes, but rather it is the domestic crisis because it can threaten regime stability, and thus the very survival of the regime. Third, minor powers seem to have reachable war objectives, such as regime survival or denying domestic opponents a victory. Fourth, the case of Iraq shows a failure of the regime to comprehend an opponent’s intentions and capabilities. Such anomalous beliefs are particularly a consequence of closed, personalistic regimes where there are no competitive ideas that can dislodge subjective views. The concluding chapter wraps up with some insights on how these findings can be used to assess the current Syrian conflict and policy implications.","PeriodicalId":317648,"journal":{"name":"Why Minor Powers Risk Wars with Major Powers","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114676804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Conclusion:","authors":"","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvr00xmm.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvr00xmm.13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":317648,"journal":{"name":"Why Minor Powers Risk Wars with Major Powers","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123501385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：