Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06
Yet in spite of the potential consequences of Barnett’s work, little has been done to test it. For instance, do the measures he gives for the â€œGapâ€ actually correlate with being in the Gap? Does another accepted model work better?
This model predicts that Barnett’s more granular summary, divided into the Old Core, New Core, and Gap, is both positive for each of the measures he defines as well as superior to alternate ternary models of the Global South. Likewise, this model predicts that his simpler version, with a united Core and the Gap, is both positive for each of those measures as well as superior to alternate binary measures. Last, this paper predicts that the more granular version is superior on these same counts to the less granular one.
This model will contain five independent variables, and a sixth which is a composite of the five. The five independent variables are the measures of poverty, nastiness, shortness, brutality, and solitariness previously described. All independent variables will come form Barnett’s first measurement of the Gap.
All data for this study will come from the CIA’s World Factbook, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World study, or the University of Maryland’s International Crisis Behavior Project. The World Factbook has been used in academic studies down the decades (Evans 2003:1311; Lennox 1993:705; Partem 1983:8). Freedom House is a leader in measuring democratic rights in countries, and is a standard on which other measures are judged (Davenport and Armstrong 2004 541; Vanhanen 2000 251). The University of Maryland’s database is also a leading statistical resource, but of war instead of rights (Caprioli and Boyer 2001 504; Oneal and Bryan 1995 380).
Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes