Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers.

The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar world. Although it may not be as pronounced as it was in past times the US is still the greatest military power in the world and it is the architect of most of the international institutions that exist. And while this is the case, the world had experienced relative peace compared to more violent episodes in history for quite a long time. Therefore, the reality of the world as it is today especially concerning the US negates the balance of theory.

One consistency throughout history is the rise and fall of great powers. Time and again mankind has seen empires fall and new ones emerge. Why would it be any different for the current hegemony, which is the US? Unless it could truly understand the mistakes of past empires that have fallen and accept that a turning point in its history is inevitable, and prepare for change in a way that would ensure its safety and credibility without risking everything, then the US is in danger of collapsing as a great power. Kenneth Waltz claims, “the present unipolar system is unlikely to last and that we are seeing the early phases of an ‘all-but-inevitable movement from uni-polarity to multi-polarity. (Nexon 337)” If this is the case, which I find very plausible, then the U.S. should attempt to create strong bonds with allies and other partners as a form of safety, in order to prevent total collapse. And the reason why this is a concern is because there is a feeling that other great powers are becoming a real threat to the US’s hegemonic status in the world (ie. China). If Waltz is correct in his assumptions, I believe the U.S. may be putting itself in danger by harming its relationship with close allies and worsening them with challengers and actors considered dangerous threats (ie. Iran).

The balance of power theory does not account for the current state of affairs in the global arena. However, if we are moving towards a safer and more stable multi-polar world then maybe the theory won't have to be adjusted. Rather than being an all-encompassing theory it may simply be one that accounts for some occasions and circumstances but not all international political events.

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 14, 2018 at 12:38 PM

    I think the balance of powers theory works well in a vacuum where humanistic aspects are removed. My thought process would be a country like Venezuela, or now Turkey, on the brink of collapse and facing increased pressure by its population. The US doesn't need to remain the hegemonic power that we are used to for the people to be happy, it just needs to provide for its citizens and make sure revolt isn't desirable. Should the US lose its power, fail to maintain its economy, and thus, fail to keep the citizens happy, massive revolt in the US could be catastrophic. Empires can be torn apart from the seams not just by other powers, but by a populace at the breaking point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousAugust 15, 2018 at 9:23 AM

    I've come to notice that there isn't really a "one size fits all" theory in this field. Certain theories work better than others depending on the scenario. Balance of Power theory can explain the creation of the EU but to your point it doesn't really fit the current international system where the U.S. has been allowed to assume a global hegemony. It's a bit frustrating because it would be nice to have "correct answers" when we evaluate global events, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more

The Biggest Threat to the US

           The largest threat to the US depends on how you define threat. It also depends on how you define our current situation as a hegemonic power. Does a threat to the US mean that we lose influence or that our country completely implodes? Does the US need hegemonic power to stay relevant, or would a lessening of responsibilities as the "world police" lead us to a more prosperous future in the long run? I believe the greatest threat to the current status of the US is a loss of sovereignty that will ultimately benefit us.             The European Union went through a transformation decades ago much like I envision the US needing to succumb to. Great powers like Germany, the UK and France realized that they needed a stronger network to keep themselves relevant and guard their interests. The US could be close to this same deferral of sovereignty in order to combat stronger interests on the international stage. Our current pr...
Read more