1970
DOI: 10.1177/002200277001400304
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The perception of national power

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

1975
1975
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Precisely what constitutes national &dquo;capabilities&dquo; or &dquo;power,&dquo; of course, is far from certain. Several different indicators of power and its relationship to the incidence of war have been suggested (e.g., German, 1960;Singer, Bremer and Stuckey, 1972;Alcock and Newcombe, 1970;Organski, 1968;Hermann and Hermann, 1967). The most comprehensive measure of power currently available is that developed on the Correlates of War Project at the University of Michigan (Singer, Bremer and Stuckey, 1972).…”
Section: General Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Precisely what constitutes national &dquo;capabilities&dquo; or &dquo;power,&dquo; of course, is far from certain. Several different indicators of power and its relationship to the incidence of war have been suggested (e.g., German, 1960;Singer, Bremer and Stuckey, 1972;Alcock and Newcombe, 1970;Organski, 1968;Hermann and Hermann, 1967). The most comprehensive measure of power currently available is that developed on the Correlates of War Project at the University of Michigan (Singer, Bremer and Stuckey, 1972).…”
Section: General Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also possesses a certain face validity [14] in that, ceteris paribus, a state which spends twice as much as another on the same range of military goods is probably going to be stronger than its rival-although not necessarily twice as strong. In addition, at least one recent study (Alcock and Newcombe, 1970: 342) has found that military expenditures alone are the most significant single indicator of perceived national power. This was particularly evident when the states involved had prior war experience.…”
Section: Capabilities Of the Major Powersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In conjunction with other secondary aspects, such as, economic growth and strength (Knorr, 1956;Kugler & Tamen, 2004) (national income (Davis, 1954;Organski, 1958), gross national product (Hitch & McKean, 1960), and industrial capacity (Sandhu, 2009)), military force (Claude, 1962;Deutsch, 1968) (military expenditures (Alcock & Newcombe, 1970), maritime force (Modelski & Thompson, 1987), and nuclear capability (German, 1960)), as well as social stability (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2007). among others (Akira, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The importance of stressors, or those factors causing stress, fatigue, and &dquo;overloads&dquo; during the crisis decision-making, are studied (Holsti, 1972b;Milburn, 1972). The role of images and the impact of perceived threats in crises are receiving growing attention (McCormick and Champion, 1975;Alcock and Newcomb, 1970;Jervis, 1970Jervis, ,1976Holsti et al 1968). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inherent bargaining nature of crisis situations is 644 examined to learn ways in which each side attempts to maximize its own gains at the expense of an opponent (Snyder, 1972;Young, 1968;Schelling, 1960). Some refine this approach further by suggesting various techniques for more successful crisis management within the context of coercive diplomacy (George et al, 1971;McCormick and Champion, 1975;Alcock and Newcomb, 1970;Jervis, 1970Jervis, , 1976Holsti et al, 1968). Others study crisis management in terms of outcomes among participants as they bargain with each other (Latour et al, 1976).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%