Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World History
| Author | William C. Wohlforth,Charles A. Jones,Daniel Deudney,David Kang,Arthur Eckstein,Victoria Tin-Bor Hui,William L. Brenner,Richard Little,Stuart J. Kaufman |
| Date | 01 June 2007 |
| Published date | 01 June 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066107076951 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in
World History
WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH1, RICHARD LITTLE2,
STUART J. KAUFMAN3, DAVID KANG1,
CHARLES A. JONES4, VICTORIA TIN-BOR HUI5,
ARTHUR ECKSTEIN6, DANIEL DEUDNEY7and
WILLIAM L. BRENNER7
1Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, USA 2Bristol University, UK
3University of Delaware, USA 4University of Cambridge, UK 5University of
Notre Dame, USA 6University of Maryland, USA 7Johns Hopkins University,
USA
The balance of power is one of the most influential theoretical ideas in
international relations, but it has not yet been tested systematically
in international systems other than modern Europe and its global suc-
cessor. This article is the product of a collective and multidisciplinary
research effort to redress this deficiency. We report findings from eight
new case studies on balancing and balancing failure in different inter-
national systems that comprise over 2000 years of inter national politics.
Our findings are inconsistent with any theory that predicts a tendency
of international systems toward balance. The factors that best account
for variation between balance and hegemony within and across inter-
national systems lie outside all recent renditions of balance-of-power the-
ory and indeed, international relations scholarship more generally. Our
findings suggest a potentially productive way to reframe research on both
the European and contemporary international systems.
KEY WORDS ♦ancient history ♦balance-of-power theory ♦systems
theory ♦unipolarity
The balance of power has attracted more scholarly effort than any other single
proposition about international politics. Its role in today’s scholarship is
arguably as central as it has been at any time since the Enlightenment, when
Rousseau and Hume transformed familiar lore about balancing diplomacy into
European Journal of International Relations Copyright © 2007
SAGE Publications and ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research, Vol. 13(2): 155–185
[DOI: 10.1177/1354066107076951]
155-186 EJT-076951.qxd 11/4/07 12:21 PM Page 155
coherent theoretical arguments.1Notwithstanding the many ways it has been
defined over the centuries, the concept has a core meaning: ‘that hegemonies
do not form in multistate systems because perceived threats of hegemony over
the system generate balancing behavior by other leading states in the system’
(Levy, 2004: 37). Even though the unipolar structure of the contemporary
international system is fundamentally different from the multipolar world in
which balancing theory emerged, many scholars and statesmen share Kenneth
Waltz’s (2000: 55–6) expectation that ‘both friends and foes will react as coun-
tries always have to threatened or real predominance of one among them: they
will work to right the balance’.
This fascination with the balance of power is understandable for it appears
not only to be central to contemporary policy debates but also to answer a
foundational question of the academic study of international relations:
whether and under what conditions the competitive behavior of states leads
to some sort of equilibrium. Notably missing from the formidable body of
balance-of-power scholarship, however, is a systematic effort to evaluate the
core balancing proposition in international systems other than modern Europe
and its global successor. This is surprising, given continuing scholarly contro-
versy over whether the European experience actually fits the theory and the
existence of many other multi-state systems to which its core propositions
apply (e.g. Vasquez and Elman, 2003).
This article is the product of a collective and multidisciplinary research ef fort
to redress this deficiency. Building on an emerging body of scholarship on
the international politics of non-European international systems (Buzan and
Little, 2000; Cioffi-Revilla, 1996; Cioffi-Revilla and Landman, 1999; Kaufman,
1997; Wilkinson, 1999, 2002), our research expands the domain in which
balance-of-power theory can be evaluated. We report findings from eight new
case studies on balancing and balancing failure in different international systems
that comprise over 2000 years of international politics in the Middle East, the
Mediterranean region, South and East Asia, and Central and South America.2
Our findings concerning both systemic outcomes and state behavior directly
contradict the core balance-of-power hypothesis that balancing behavior pre-
vents systemic hegemony. In fact, sustained hegemonies routinely form,
and balancing is relatively insignificant in explaining the emergence of non-
hegemonic outcomes. This evidence fatally undermines the widespread belief
that balancing is a universal empirical law in multi-state systems and the
equally pervasive tendency to assign explanatory precedence to balance-of-
power theory. It renders questionable the common practice in International
Relations scholarship of framing research around puzzles generated by the
failure of some systems to conform to the expected norm of balancing, as in
the case of the ‘puzzle’ of the missing balance against the United States
today (Ikenberry, 2002; Paul et al., 2004; Wohlforth, 1999).
European Journal of International Relations 13(2)
156
155-186 EJT-076951.qxd 11/4/07 12:21 PM Page 156
To continue reading
Request your trial