Abstract
Hypotheses to explain cross-national variation in levels of rebellious political conflict can be grounded principally either in relative deprivation assumptions of frustration-aggression theory or in expected utility assumptions or rational choice theory. Previous theory and research have tended to focus exclusively on one or the other approach or else have combined the two eclectically. To evaluate the validity of these competing theories in comparative macrosocietal research, it is necessary to formulate alternative models that can be confronted empirically. Equations for a relative deprivation model and a power contention model (grounded in rational action assumptions) are specified here and a test of the models is conducted with quantitative cross-national data. The results support the predictions of the power contention model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
