Waltz’s Epistemology of Balance-of-Power Theory

[Constructing systems theory of international politics, balance of power theory is a further development to
that theory. In subjecting a theory to test, we should consider seeking if the theory is internally consistent
and attempt to get the answer if it can tell us some things of interest that we would not know in its
absence.

Structural theories gain plausibility if similarities of behavior are observed across realms that are different
in substance but similar in structure, and if differences of behavior are observed where realms are similar
in substance but different in structure. This special advantage is won: international political theory gains
credibility from confirmation of certain theories in economics, sociology, and other such nonpolitical
fields.]1

[Two expectations arise in the discussion of structure and balance of power theory. Balances of power
recurrently form, and states tend to emulate the successful policies of others. Within a given arena and
over a number of years, we should find the military power of weaker and smaller states or groupings of
states growing more rapidly, or shrinking more slowly, than that of stronger and larger ones.

Two paramount problems:

Though balance-of-power theory offers some predictions, the predictions are indeterminate. Because only
a loosely defined and inconstant condition of balance is predicted, it is difficult to say that any given
distribution of power falsifies the theory.]2

“We find states forming balances whether or not they wish to- difficult to test: example Germany and
Austria Hungary forming dual alliances in 1879”3

The theory leads us to expect states to behave in ways that result in balances forming. To infer that
expectation from the theory is not impressive, if balancing is a universal pattern of political behavior as is
sometimes claimed4.

Bandwagoning and balancing behavior are in sharp contrast. Internally, loosing candidates throw in their
lots with the winner. Everyone wants someone to win; the members of a party want a leader established
even while they disagree on who it should be. In a competition for the position of leader, bandwagoning
is sensible behavior where gains are possible even for the losers and where losing does not place their
security in jeopardy.5
1
Waltz 1979, p.123
2
Waltz 1979, p..124
3
Waltz 1979, p.125
4
Waltz 1979, p.125
5
Waltz 1979, p.127
The theory leads to many expectations about behaviors and outcomes. From the theory, one predicts that
states will engage in balancing behavior, whether or not balanced power is the end of their acts. From the
theory, one predicts a strong tendency toward balance in the system. The expectation is not that a balance,
once achieved, will be maintained, but that a balance once disrupted will be restored in one way or
another6.

[In international relations, a balance of power exists when there is parity or stability between competing
forces. The concept "describes a state of affairs in the international system and explains the behaviour of
states in that system" (Fry, Goldstein & Langhorn, 2004). [1] As a term in international law for a 'just
equilibrium' between the members of the family of nations, it expresses the doctrine intended to prevent
any one nation from becoming sufficiently strong so as to enable it to enforce its will upon the rest.

"BoP" is a central concept in neorealist theory. Within a balance of power system, a state may choose to
engage in either balancing or bandwagoning behavior. In a time of war, the decision to balance or to
bandwagon may well determine the survival of the state.

Kenneth Waltz, a major contributor to neorealism, expressed in his book, "Theory of International
Politics" that "if there is any distinctively political theory of international politics, balance-of-power
theory is it.".[2] However, this assertion has come under criticism from other schools of thought within the
international relations field, such as the constructivists and the political economists[3][4]]7

[The basic principle involved in a balancing of political power, as Charles Davenant pointed out in

his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was familiar to the ancients both as political
theorists and as practical statesmen. In its essence it is no more than a precept of common sense, born
of experience and the instinct of self-preservation.

More precisely, the theory of Balance of Power has certain key aspects that have been agreed upon
throughout the literature on the subject. First of all, the main objective of states, according to the Balance
of Power theory is to secure their own safety, consistent with political realism or the realist world-view.
Secondly, states reach an equilibrium because of this objective of self-preservation. States, by trying to
avoid the dominance of one particular state, will ally themselves with other states until an equilibrium is
reached.[5] ]8

[Any discussion of how international systems operate must also address the concept of balance of power.
There are variations in the precise way that scholars use the term and there is broad disagreement about
the degree to which balance-of-power politics does and should affect world politics that relate to the
6
Waltz, 1979, p. 128
7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_in_international_relations
8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_in_international_relations
realist-idealist debate discussed in Chapter 1. In essence, realists believe that the practice of politics is
necessary and proper; idealists disagree on both counts.

Whatever one's views, though, it is important to look at the assumptions of balance-of-power theory and
their impact on world politics. Fundamentally, those who believe in the efficacy of balance-of-power
theory assume that:

1. There is a possibility, and perhaps a natural tendency, for some states to seek regional or even global
hegemony.

2. Other states will seek to prevent hegemony by strengthening themselves or entering antihegemonic
alliances with other threatened states.

3. A balance of power, therefore, is desirable because it (a) preserves the independence of countries and
(b) creates an equilibrium that promotes order and peace.

Balance-of-power theory is applicable to any of the polar configurations, but it is most often associated
with multipolar systems. Advocates of balance-of-power politics also believe that leaders will be well
advised to continue to practice its principles in the evolving power politics is outmoded because of such
factors as the growth of international organizations and independence and that power politics is a failed
and increasingly dangerous way of trying to achieve stability and peace.Henry Kissinger, for one,
counsels that "in the next century American leadership will have to articulate for their public a concept of
the national interest and explain how that interest is served--in Europe and in Asia--by the maintenance of
the balance of power."1

Notes

1. From Kissinger's 1994 book, Diplomacy, quoted in Newsweek, April 11, 1994, p. 42.]9

[The balance of power is one of the oldest and most enduring concepts of international relations. In a
world of powerful and threatening states, it is often the only dependable strategy. It is surprising,
therefore, that since the end of the Cold War, the dynamics of power balancing have been all but absent:
the great powers have not formed counterbalancing coalitions to guard against U.S. predominance and are
unlikely to anytime soon. This book, which brings together leading international security experts to assess
the current status of balance-of-power theory, confirms the peculiarity of today's international system.
The authors do not settle the debate about why this is so-whether the cause is nuclear weapons, economic
interdependence, democratic peace, or the relatively benign character of U.S. hegemony. Jack Levy
argues that balance-of-power theory emerged to explain European dynamics but never claimed universal
validity. Robert Ross argues that China is pursuing an indirect form of balancing through internal
9
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007248179x/student_view0/chapter3/a_further_note_2.html
mobilization but may never be in a position to build a true anti-U.S. coalition. The editors conclude that
states are pursuing an array of security strategies, including "soft balancing," in today's unipolar world.
But the logic and stability of this new situation remain unclear.] 10

[a distribution and opposition of forces among nations such that nosingle nation is strong enough to assert 
its will or dominate all the others.]11

[balance of power, in international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations
protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the
other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as
when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their
own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances.] 12

[As a theory, balance of power predicts that rapid changes in international power and status—especially
attempts by one state to conquer a region—will provoke counterbalancing actions. For this reason, the
balancing process helps to maintain the stability of relations between states. A balance of power system
functions most effectively when alliances are fluid, when they are easily formed or broken on the basis of
expediency, regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a single state
plays a balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever state or alliance is strongest. A weakness of
the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring power. (Extract from 'Balance of Power,'
Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.)]13

[Testing Balance of Power Theory-article] 14

10
Paul T.V., Whirtz J.J., Fortmann, M., Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21 st Century .Stanford
University Press, 2004 retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60299/g-john-ikenberry/balance-of-
power-theory-and-practice-in-the-21st-century
11
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/balance+of+power
12
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/473296/balance-of-power
13
http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm
14
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/Testing%20Balance-of-Power%20Theory%20in%20World
%20History.pdf
Bibliography:

Fry, Michael Graham; Goldstein, Erik; Langhorne, Richard (2004). Guide to International Relations and
Diplomacy. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 3. ISBN 9780826473011. Retrieved 30
September 2010.

Waltz, Kenneth N(1979). Theory of International Politics

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. "Game Theory, Political Economy, and the Evolving study of War".
American Political Science Review Vol. 100, No.4 Nov 2006. p 637-641

Nio, Ordeshook, and Rose. The Balance of Power, 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chatergee, Patricia "The Classical Balance of Power Theory" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 9, No. 1
(1972), p. 51. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/422972>

J. Pirenne, The Tides of History: From the Expansion of Islam to the Treaties of Westphalia: Volume
II (London: 1963), p. 429.

Michael Sheehan, The Balance of Power: History & Theory (Routledge, 2000), p. 35.

Sir Esme Howard, 'British Policy and the Balance of Power', The American Political Science Review,
Vol. 19, No. 2. (May, 1925), p. 261.