1.6 Balance of power theory

Balance of power theory is a cornerstone of international relations. It posits that states seek to prevent any single nation from dominating others by maintaining a relatively equal distribution of power. This concept has shaped global politics for centuries.

The theory assumes states act rationally in an anarchic system, prioritizing security and relative gains. It explains various balancing strategies like alliances, military buildups, and diplomacy. However, critics argue it oversimplifies state behavior and neglects domestic factors.

Definition of balance of power

• Balance of power refers to the concept in international relations where the distribution of power among states is relatively equal, preventing any single state from dominating others
• The theory suggests that states will take actions to prevent the rise of a hegemonic power that could threaten their security and interests
• Balance of power is a central concept in realist theories of international relations, which emphasize the role of power in shaping state behavior

Meaning in international relations

Top images from around the web for Meaning in international relations

• 

  The Congress of Vienna | History of Western Civilization II View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Shifting Balance of Power | Global Governance | Future Challenges | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Information asymmetry - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Congress of Vienna | History of Western Civilization II View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Shifting Balance of Power | Global Governance | Future Challenges | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Meaning in international relations

• 

  The Congress of Vienna | History of Western Civilization II View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Shifting Balance of Power | Global Governance | Future Challenges | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Information asymmetry - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Congress of Vienna | History of Western Civilization II View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Shifting Balance of Power | Global Governance | Future Challenges | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• In the context of international relations, balance of power implies a system where no single state or alliance of states can impose its will on others
• States are seen as constantly competing for power and influence, with the goal of maintaining a balance that preserves their security and autonomy
• Balance of power is often viewed as a mechanism for maintaining stability and preventing major wars in the international system

Historical origins

• The concept of balance of power has deep historical roots, dating back to ancient Greek and Roman political thought
• The modern understanding of balance of power emerged in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, as states sought to prevent the rise of a dominant power (Habsburg Empire, France)
• The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is often cited as a key moment in the development of the balance of power system in Europe, as it established the principle of state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs

Types of balance of power

• There are several distinct types of balance of power that states may pursue, depending on their capabilities, interests, and the nature of the international system
• The choice of balancing strategy can have significant implications for the stability and dynamics of the international system
• Different types of balancing may be more or less effective in different historical and regional contexts

Hard vs soft balancing

• Hard balancing refers to the use of military power and formal alliances to counter the power of a threatening state (NATO during the Cold War)
• Soft balancing involves the use of economic, diplomatic, and institutional tools to constrain the behavior of a powerful state without direct military confrontation (European Union's economic integration)
• States may choose soft balancing when they lack the military capabilities or political will to engage in hard balancing

Offshore balancing

• Offshore balancing is a strategy where a powerful state seeks to maintain the balance of power in a region by supporting local allies and partners, rather than through direct military intervention
• The goal is to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon that could threaten the offshore balancer's interests (US policy in the Middle East)
• Offshore balancing allows states to conserve their resources and avoid the costs and risks of direct military engagement

Buck-passing

• Buck-passing occurs when a state attempts to shift the burden of balancing against a threatening power onto other states in the system
• Rather than directly confronting the rising power, the buck-passer seeks to encourage other states to take on the costs and risks of balancing (Britain's appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany in the 1930s)
• Buck-passing can be an attractive strategy for states that wish to avoid the costs of balancing, but it can also lead to instability and miscalculation if other states fail to take up the burden

Mechanisms of balance of power

• States employ various mechanisms to maintain or restore the balance of power in the international system
• These mechanisms can involve both internal efforts to increase state power and external efforts to build alliances and shape the behavior of other states
• The effectiveness of different balancing mechanisms may vary depending on the specific historical and strategic context

Alliances and coalitions

• Alliances and coalitions are a key external balancing mechanism, where states join together to pool their resources and capabilities against a common threat
• Alliances can take the form of formal treaties (NATO) or informal alignments based on shared interests (US-Israel partnership)
• The formation and maintenance of alliances can be a complex process, involving bargaining, compromise, and the management of collective action problems

Internal balancing through military buildup

• Internal balancing refers to efforts by states to increase their own power and capabilities, often through military buildup and economic development
• States may invest in new weapons systems, expand their military forces, or pursue technological innovations to enhance their power projection abilities (China's modernization of its armed forces)
• Internal balancing can be a costly and time-consuming process, but it allows states to rely on their own resources rather than depending on external allies

External balancing through diplomacy

• External balancing through diplomacy involves the use of political and economic tools to shape the behavior of other states and maintain the balance of power
• States may use diplomacy to build coalitions, resolve disputes, or isolate and constrain potential adversaries (US efforts to build a coalition against Iran's nuclear program)
• Effective diplomacy requires skilled negotiation, the ability to build trust and relationships, and the strategic use of incentives and sanctions

Conditions for balance of power

• The operation of the balance of power in international relations depends on certain key conditions and assumptions
• These conditions shape the incentives and constraints facing states as they seek to maintain their security and influence in the international system
• The absence or weakening of these conditions can undermine the stability and effectiveness of the balance of power

Anarchy in international system

• The balance of power theory assumes that the international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning the absence of a central authority to enforce rules and resolve disputes
• In an anarchic system, states must rely on self-help to ensure their security, as there is no global government to protect them from threats
• The condition of anarchy creates incentives for states to compete for power and influence, as they cannot rely on external guarantees of their safety and interests

Rational state behavior

• Balance of power theory assumes that states are rational actors that seek to maximize their security and influence in the international system
• Rational states are assumed to carefully calculate the costs and benefits of different actions, and to respond to the actions of other states in ways that advance their own interests
• The assumption of rational state behavior is critical for the operation of the balance of power, as it suggests that states will take actions to prevent the rise of a dominant power that could threaten their security

Relative gains concerns

• Balance of power theory assumes that states are primarily concerned with relative gains, meaning their power and influence relative to other states in the system
• In an anarchic system, states may be reluctant to cooperate or engage in trade if they believe that the benefits will accrue disproportionately to their rivals
• The focus on relative gains can create incentives for states to engage in balancing behavior, as they seek to prevent other states from gaining a significant advantage in terms of power and influence

Challenges to balance of power

• While balance of power theory has been a dominant paradigm in international relations, it has also faced significant challenges and criticisms
• These challenges raise questions about the validity and relevance of balance of power in explaining state behavior and the dynamics of the international system
• The challenges to balance of power theory reflect the complexity and diversity of factors that shape international relations, beyond the narrow focus on power and security

Hegemonic stability theory

• Hegemonic stability theory suggests that the presence of a dominant power in the international system can actually promote stability and cooperation, rather than triggering balancing behavior
• A hegemonic power may use its preponderant capabilities to provide public goods (free trade, security) and enforce rules and norms that benefit the system as a whole (Pax Britannica, Pax Americana)
• The theory challenges the balance of power assumption that states will inevitably seek to prevent the rise of a dominant power, and suggests that hegemony can be a stabilizing force in international relations

Bandwagoning behavior

• Bandwagoning refers to the tendency of states to align with the strongest or most threatening power in the system, rather than balancing against it
• States may choose to bandwagon if they believe that the costs of balancing are too high, or if they seek to share in the benefits of the dominant power's success (Eastern European states joining the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War)
• Bandwagoning behavior challenges the balance of power assumption that states will always seek to prevent the rise of a dominant power, and suggests that other factors (ideology, economic ties) may shape alignment decisions

Globalization and interdependence

• The increasing globalization and interdependence of the international system has challenged traditional balance of power assumptions about the primacy of military power and the autonomy of states
• The growth of global trade, investment, and communication networks has created new forms of power and influence that cut across national borders and complicate traditional balancing dynamics (multinational corporations, global financial markets)
• The rise of non-state actors (NGOs, terrorist groups) and transnational challenges (climate change, pandemics) has also challenged the state-centric focus of balance of power theory, and highlighted the need for cooperative responses that transcend national boundaries

Historical examples of balance of power

• The history of international relations provides numerous examples of balance of power dynamics in action, across different regions and time periods
• These examples illustrate the ways in which states have sought to maintain the balance of power through alliances, military buildups, and diplomatic maneuvering
• The historical record also highlights the challenges and limitations of balance of power theory, as well as the ways in which the international system has evolved over time

European balance of power (1815-1914)

• The European balance of power system emerged in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, as the great powers sought to prevent the rise of a new hegemonic threat
• The Congress of Vienna (1815) established a system of regular diplomatic conferences and alliances designed to maintain the balance of power and prevent major wars
• The system helped to preserve stability in Europe for much of the 19th century, but ultimately broke down in the face of rising nationalism, imperial rivalries, and the formation of rigid alliance blocs (Triple Alliance, Triple Entente)

Cold War bipolar balance

• The Cold War era (1945-1991) was characterized by a bipolar balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union, with each superpower leading a bloc of allied states
• The balance of power was maintained through a combination of nuclear deterrence, proxy wars, and ideological competition, with both sides seeking to prevent the other from gaining a decisive advantage
• The bipolar balance helped to prevent a direct military confrontation between the superpowers, but also fueled regional conflicts and arms races that destabilized many parts of the world

Post-Cold War unipolar moment

• The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a brief period of American unipolarity, with the United States emerging as the sole superpower
• The unipolar moment posed challenges for traditional balance of power theory, as there was no clear balancer to constrain American power and influence
• However, the rise of new powers (China, India) and the challenges of globalization and non-state actors have led to a more complex and multipolar international system in the 21st century, with the United States facing new constraints on its ability to shape global events

Critiques of balance of power theory

• Balance of power theory has been subject to a range of critiques and challenges, both from within the realist tradition and from other theoretical perspectives
• These critiques raise questions about the validity and relevance of balance of power in explaining state behavior and the dynamics of the international system
• The critiques of balance of power theory reflect the ongoing debates and evolution of thinking about international relations, as scholars seek to develop more nuanced and comprehensive theories to explain a complex and changing world

Realist assumptions about state behavior

• Some critics argue that balance of power theory relies on overly simplistic and deterministic assumptions about state behavior, such as the primacy of security concerns and the rationality of decision-makers
• These assumptions may not fully capture the complexity of state motivations and the role of domestic politics, ideology, and other factors in shaping foreign policy decisions
• Critics argue that a more nuanced and contextual understanding of state behavior is needed, one that takes into account the specific historical, cultural, and political factors that shape decision-making in different countries and regions

Neglect of domestic politics

• Balance of power theory has been criticized for its neglect of domestic political factors, such as public opinion, interest groups, and the role of political institutions in shaping foreign policy
• Critics argue that the theory's focus on systemic factors (power distribution, anarchy) overlooks the ways in which domestic politics can constrain or enable state behavior in the international arena
• A more comprehensive theory of international relations, they argue, would need to integrate insights from comparative politics and foreign policy analysis to better understand the domestic sources of state behavior

Difficulty of measuring power

• Another critique of balance of power theory is the difficulty of measuring and comparing the power of different states in the international system
• Power is a complex and multidimensional concept that includes military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural factors, and there is no clear consensus on how to operationalize and measure these different dimensions
• The challenges of measuring power complicate efforts to assess the relative balance of power in the international system, and to make predictions about state behavior based on power considerations alone
• Critics argue that a more nuanced and contextual understanding of power is needed, one that takes into account the specific assets and liabilities of different states, as well as the ways in which power is perceived and wielded in different cultural and historical contexts