Author: Paul F. Diehl, Mark J. C. Crescenzi
Publisher/Publication: Journal of Peace Research
Volume/Issue: 35 (1)
DOI/ISBN: 10.1177/0022343398035001007
Abstract: The authors argue for better theoretical specification of the arms race-war relationship and empirical tests to determine whether this relationship is direct, indirect, or spurious. They also advocate some methodological changes, including more studies, a wider spatial scope that includes secondary powers, less reliance on military spending, and multivariate (rather than bivariate) tests of the arms race–war relationship. The paper critiques Susan Sample’s work, which purports to resolve a debate that has drawn much scholarly attention over the past two decades, whether arms races are linked to the escalation of militarized disputes into war. The authors outline a research agenda designed to reshape the arms war debate rather than perpetuate the conflict. Part of the Wallace-Diehl Debate on the quantitative study of arms races and conflict.