Suchergebnisse

AbstractScholars have written extensively about hierarchical international order, on the one hand, and war on the other, but surprisingly little work systematically explores the connection between the two. This disconnect is all the more striking given that empirical studies have found a strong relationship between the two. We provide a generative computational network model that explains hierarchy and war as two elements of a larger recursive process: The threat of war drives the formation of hierarchy, which in turn shapes states' incentives for war. Grounded in canonical theories of hierarchy and war, the model explains an array of known regularities about hierarchical order and conflict. Surprisingly, we also find that many traditional results of the international relations literature—including institutional persistence, balancing behavior, and systemic self‐regulation—emerge from the interplay between hierarchy and war.

The 'efficient cabinet' of the 18th cent is the body from which the modern cabinet has developed & it is from a similar process that the office of Prime Minister has emerged. Although there was no hierarchy in the sense of authority coming down through clear chains of command, there did exist a hierarchy insofar as; (1) some ministers (MIN's) were always, some were sometimes, & others were never in the Cabinet, (2) the MIN's' posts could be arranged in order of precedence, importance, & lucrativeness, (3) some MIN's were more important than others, in a specific area of responsibility, (4) some MIN's were largely subordinate to others, (5) most MIN's owed their positions, in some part, to the influence of others in the Cabinet or ministry. & (6) a pol'al career consisted in promotion from one office to another. In the 19th & 20th cent's, the attempt has been made to draw up the list according to the 'principle of evolving precedence'; since the middle of the 19th cent there has seemed to be some doubt as to the precedence to be accorded to the newer offices, & some of the older ones also. Today place seems to be fixed by either formal precedence, the importance of the office, or the abilities of the officeholder, & a ministry contains continuous gradations of rank, both within & between the various orders of the hierarchy. IPSA.

According to social dominance theory, intergroup dynamics are strongly influenced by the social positions which individuals hold in society. Several studies suggest that holding a position of power can, sometimes automatically, generate negative attitudes and hostile behaviors toward subordinate social groups. However, at present, the studies carried out on these effects of power have not taken into account the influence of the normative context. Based on the distinction made by Sidanius and Pratto between "hierarchy‐enhancing" (HE) vs. "hierarchy‐attenuating" (HA) environments, this study examines if the effects of power on legitimizing cognitions vary as a function of the normative environment. A laboratory study and a study conducted in a natural environment confirm our hypothesis that individuals holding a powerful or dominant social role in a HE setting differ significantly from individuals holding an equally powerful role in a HA setting. The effects of power observed in past research probably resulted from studying power in hierarchy‐enhancing environments, but not in hierarchy‐attenuating ones.