Premium
Power Politics and the Balance of Risk: Hypotheses on Great Power Intervention in the Periphery
Author(s) -
Taliaferro Jeffrey W.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
political psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.419
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1467-9221
pISSN - 0162-895X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00368.x
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , politics , power (physics) , intervention (counseling) , prestige , balance (ability) , homeland , state (computer science) , homeland security , political science , development economics , political economy , economics , psychology , law , terrorism , linguistics , philosophy , physics , algorithm , quantum mechanics , neuroscience , psychiatry , computer science
Great powers frequently initiate risky diplomatic and military interventions in the periphery—regions that do not directly threaten the security of a great power's homeland. Such risky interventions are driven by leaders’ aversion to losses in their state's relative power, international status, or prestige. These leaders often persist in such courses of action even when they incur mounting political, economic, and military costs. More surprisingly, they undertake risky strategies toward other great powers in an effort to continue these failing interventions. Hypotheses concerning such interventions are derived from the prospect theory and defensive realist literatures.