Exploring the “Phoenix Factor” with the Collective Goods Perspective
- 1 March 1989
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Vol. 33 (1) , 84-112
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002789033001004
Abstract
This inquiry explores whether domestic political and economic levels of destruction account for the ability of developed nations to recover within two decades from the massive economic losses they suffer in the wake of a war. We test Olson's collective goods argument that nations defeated in war, the political structures and distributional coalitions of which are also devastated, will thereby increase economic competition and accelerate economic recovery. We also tangentially explore the impact of the economic devastation on postwar recovery. Our results show that economic destruction has a positive impact on the rates of recovery, but that the destruction of political structures does not add to that explanation. We conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that Olson's persuasive collective goods argument does not explain the well-established difference in the postwar recovery among victors and vanquished.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Economic Growth in Japan and the USSRPublished by Taylor & Francis ,2013
- Elements of EconometricsPublished by University of Michigan Library ,1997
- Does Political Stability Hinder Economic Development? Mancur Olson's Theory and the Third WorldComparative Politics, 1987
- Growth with Equity: A Test of Olson's Theory for the Asian Pacific-Rim CountriesJournal of Peace Research, 1987
- Structure, growth, and power: three rationalist accountsInternational Organization, 1983
- Phases of Capitalist DevelopmentsPublished by Springer Nature ,1980
- The Costs of Major Wars: The Phoenix FactorAmerican Political Science Review, 1977
- The Economic Consequences of the PeacePublished by Springer Nature ,1971
- The Structure of the East German EconomyPublished by Harvard University Press ,1960
- The anatomy of revolution.Published by American Psychological Association (APA) ,1938