About

T. Clifton Morgan is the Albert Thomas Professor of Political Science at Rice University. His research employs formal modeling techniques to analyze foreign policy decisions and international conflict. He is the author of the book 'Untying the Knot of War' published in 1994 by the University of Michigan Press, and has authored numerous articles in scholarly journals. His latest book, 'A Theory of Foreign Policy', co-authored with Glenn Palmer, was published by Princeton University Press in 2006. Dr. Morgan's current research focuses on the use and effectiveness of economic sanctions, supported by the National Science Foundation. His research interests include applying formal models to the study of bargaining in international crises and conducting quantitative analyses of the causes of war.

Research topics

• Computer Science
• Political Science
• Sociology
• Philosophy
• Law
• Medicine
• Econometrics
• Mathematics

Selected publications

• Sanction threats

  Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2025-11-13

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Peace as a composite indicator: the goals and future of the Global Peace Index

  Pathways to Peace and Security · 2021 · 4 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Computer Science

  This article provides an overview of the purpose, development and future of the Global Peace Index (GPI), a composite indicator of peacefulness at the national level. It explains why the concept of negative peace is well suited to being captured by a composite index, for both theoretical and statistical reasons. It examines how the GPI fits within the field of peace and conflict studies and how its methodological soundness has been assessed. This is done by looking at the history and structure of the GPI and showing how it relates to other definitions and indicators of peacefulness. The article then analyzes how the index is constructed with respect to its weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Some of the criticisms of the index are also explored, as well as the main proposed directions for the GPI evolution over the coming decade. Three main advantages of the index are identified as the ones that best reflect its novel input in peace and conflict studies. First, a composite indicator of peace helps to provide a more compelling narrative around the dynamics of peace between countries, to generate more interest in the peace and conflict field and to promote the concept of peace as a crucial driver of development. Second, the aggregation of multiple indicators of violence allows for the construction of a continuous measure of peacefulness with a less skewed distribution that can serve as the baseline for seeing which factors in other areas are correlated with peacefulness. Third, this composite measure of peacefulness highlights areas where data on aspects of negative peace are missing, incomplete, or not comparable across countries and drives the creation of new and novel indicators to fill these data gaps.

  PublisherDOI

• The Two-Good Theory in Practice: From Abstract Generalization to Specific Inference

  Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics · 2017-04-26 · 1 citations

  reference-entry1st authorCorresponding

  The “two-good theory” is a theory of foreign policy that is meant to apply to all states in all situations; that is, it is <italic>general</italic>. The theory is simple and assumes that states pursue two things in theory with respect to foreign policies: <italic>change</italic> (altering aspects of the status quo that they do not like) and <italic>maintenance</italic> (protecting aspects of the status quo that they do like). It also assumes that states have finite resources. In making these assumptions, the theory focuses on the trade-offs that states face in constructing their most desired foreign policy portfolios. Further, the theory assumes that protecting realized outcomes is easier than bringing about desired changes in the status quo. The theory assumes that states pursue two goods instead of the more traditional one good; for realism, that good is “power,” and for neorealism, it is “security.” This small step in theoretical development is very fruitful and leads to more interesting hypotheses, many of which enjoy empirical support. The theory captures more of the dynamics of international relations and of foreign policy choices than more traditional approaches do. A number of empirical tests of the implications of the two-good theory have been conducted and support the theory. As the theory can speak to a variety of foreign policy behaviors, these tests appropriately cover a wide range of activities, including conflict initiation and foreign aid allocation. The theory enjoys support from the results of these tests. If the research relaxes some of the parameters of the theory, the investigator can derive a series of corollaries to it. For example, the initial variant of the theory keeps a number of parameters constant to determine the effect of changes in capability. If, however, the investigator allows preferences to vary in a systematic and justifiable manner (consistent with the theory but not established by the theory), she can see how leaders in a range of situations can be expected to behave. The research strategy proposed, in other words, is to utilize the general nature of the two-good theory to investigate a number of interesting and surprising implications. For example, what may one expect to see if the United States supplies a recipient state with military aid to counter a rebellion? Under reasonable circumstances, the two-good theory can predict that the recipient would increase its change-seeking behavior by, for instance, engaging in negotiations to lower trade barriers.

  PublisherDOI

• The secret ingredient on Iron Chef—road kill!

  Conflict Management and Peace Science · 2013-02-01 · 3 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• The Effect of US Troop Deployment on Host States’ Foreign Policy

  Armed Forces & Society · 2012-04-30 · 52 citations

  articleSenior author

  Major powers often deploy troops abroad with the consent of host states. The stated aim of these deployments is often both to protect the host state and to foster stability in the region. Drawing from an extension of Palmer and Morgan’s two-good theory of foreign policy, the authors explore some of the (perhaps unintended) effects of troop deployments abroad on the foreign policies of the host states. In particular, the authors focus on the effects of US deployments. The authors argue that as the number of US troops deployed to a host state increases, we should expect the host state to reduce its own troop levels, be more likely to initiate militarized interstate disputes, and be less likely to be the target of interstate disputes. The authors test these hypotheses using data on US troop deployments abroad from 1950 to 2005 and discuss implications that their findings may have for US foreign policy.

  PublisherDOI

• Deterring Rebellion

  Foreign Policy Analysis · 2011-07-01 · 9 citations

  article

  Journal Article Deterring Rebellion Get access Carla Martinez Machain, Carla Martinez Machain Rice University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar T. Clifton Morgan, T. Clifton Morgan Rice University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Patrick M. Regan Patrick M. Regan Binghamton University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Foreign Policy Analysis, Volume 7, Issue 3, July 2011, Pages 295–316, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00139.x Published: 04 July 2011

  PublisherDOI

• A Theory of Foreign Policy

  Princeton University Press eBooks · 2011-10-30 · 98 citations

  bookSenior author

  List of Figures ix List of Tables x Preface: A Theory of Foreign Policy xi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: The Two-Good Theory Presented 14 Chapter 3: American Foreign Policy since World War II from the Two-Good Perspective 43 Chapter 4: Three Applications of the Two-Good Theory 69 Chapter 5: The Two-Good Theory Formalized 96 Chapter 6: Tests of the Two-Good Theory 114 Conflict, Foreign Aid, and Military Spending Chapter 7: Substitutability and Alliances 137 Chapter 8: Conclusion 173 What We Have Learned Appendix 183 Bibliography 191 Index 207

  PublisherDOI

• The Quest for Security: Alliances and Arms

  Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies · 2010-03-01 · 1 citations

  reference-entrySenior author

  Security issues have long been linked to the study of international relations. The crucial issue which scholars and decision makers have sought to understand is how states can avoid being victimized by war while also being prepared for any eventuality of war. Particular attention has been devoted to alliances and armaments as the policy instruments that should have the greatest effect on state war experiences. Scholars have attempted to use balance of power theories to explain the interrelationships between arms, alliances, and international conflict, but the overwhelming lack of empirical support for such theories led the field to look for alternatives. This gave rise to new theorizing that recognized variance in national goals and an enhanced role for domestic politics, which in turn encouraged empirical tests at the nation state or dyadic level of analysis. Drawing from existing theoretical perspectives, more specific formal models and empirical tests were invoked to tackle particular questions about alliances and arms acquisitions. Despite significant advances in individual “islands of theory,” however, integrated explanations of the pursuit and effects of security policies have remained elusive. An important consideration for the future is to develop of theories of security policy that take into account the substitutability and complementarity of varying components. There have been two promising attempts at such integrated theorizing: the first explains the steps to war and the second is based on the assumption that states pursue two composite goods through foreign policy.

  PublisherDOI

• A Theory of Foreign Policy

  2010-01-01 · 37 citations

  book1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Power Transition, the Two-Good Theory, and Neorealism: A Comparison with Comments on Recent U.S. Foreign Policy

  International Interactions · 2007-07-28 · 5 citations

  articleSenior author

  This paper compares the assumptions of three approaches to the study of international relations—neorealism, power transition, and the “two-good theory.” We show that neorealism is an underspecified theory that has limited empirical support. While there are significant differences between them, power transition and the two-good theory have much in common. The paper illustrates the differences between power transition and the two-good theory by applying the later to the recent American foreign policy. Generally, the two-good theory predicts an activist US attempting to impose its preferences in the international arena – are consistent with what we observe.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Glenn Palmer

  Duke University

  11 shared

• Jack S. Levy

  Rutgers Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights

  2 shared

• Carla Martínez Machain

  University at Buffalo, State University of New York

  2 shared

• Valerie L. Schwebach

  Rice University

  2 shared

• Sally Howard Campbell

  Concord University

  1 shared

• Kenneth N. Bickers

  1 shared

• Martha Gruelle

  1 shared

• Christopher J. Anderson

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  1 shared