Waltz’s Neorealism

The argument in favor

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Balance ofPower

Structural Realism PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Facts and Assumptions• Assumptions need not be true; what is

important is whether they are useful• Useful assumptions lead to powerful

theories:– Parsimonious– Testable

• The test of structural realism is whether it generates hypotheses that can be supported by evidence

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Balance ofPower

Structural Realism PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Waltz in Review• Social systems impose constraints; all

actors are compelled to behave similarly• Analogy to a competitive market• The international system is anarchic

– Self-help– Defensive balancing

• The number of important states and the distribution of power among them determines the constraints

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Balance of Power

1. Balances form recurrently

2. Balancing vs. Bandwagoning: States prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions

3. If one coalition weakens, the opposing one loosens

4. Anticipated balancing leads to restraint

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

BoP as a Reaction to a Threat: Napoleon, 1802-1815BoP as a Reaction to a Threat: Napoleon, 1802-1815

Major Powers: FRA, UK, RUS, PRUS, AUS

Russia

After French Revolution (1789), Napoleon Bonaparte rises to power. -- Consul (1802) -- Emperor of France (1804)

Continues military campaigns to build empire and feed war machine. -- Poses major threat to Europe

UK, RUS, PRUS, AUS form “coalitions” against FRA -- Napoleon defeated (1814) -- Congress of Vienna (1814) -- Napoleon returns (1815) -- Waterloo (1815)

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: Concert of Europe, 1815-1848BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: Concert of Europe, 1815-1848

After Napoleonic Wars, Congress of Vienna continues (1815)

Defeated France let back into “club”

Quadruple Alliance: Austria, Britain, Prussia, Russia

Congresses held to attempt to resolve issues.

Buffer states/territory traded.

Russia

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: League of Nations, 1919-1946BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: League of Nations, 1919-1946

Major Powers: FRA, UK, USSR, GER, ITA, JAP

After World War I (1919) -- Major players can withdraw -- USA was not a member

Coalitions form to fight off aggressors.

The League is generally considered to have failed in its mission to achieve disarmament, prevent war, settle disputes through diplomacy, and improve global welfare. However, it achieved significant successes in a number of areas.

-Åland Islands- Albania-Greece and Bulgaria- combat the international trade in opium and sexual slavery

BoP Failure: Most powerful nations were not involved: USA, Japan (Wd), USSR (Wd), gave power to colonies.

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: United Nations, 1949-PresentBoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: United Nations, 1949-Present

Major Powers: FRA, UK, USSR, CHINA

After World War II (1945) -- Major players are still around -- All countries with clout are on the Security Council.

Coalitions form to fight off aggressors.- USA and it's allies vs. USSR and

it's Allies

No major conflict since WWII

Failed smaller states: Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia-Herzegovina

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: NATO/Warsaw Pact, 1955BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: NATO/Warsaw Pact, 1955

Major Powers: USA and USSR

After World War II (1955) -- Bi-polar world -- Major players use third world states to balance power around the globe..

Coalitions form to fight off aggressors.- USA and it's allies vs. USSR and

it's Allies

No global conflicts

Failed smaller states: Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia-Herzegovina

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: OPEC, 1965-PresentBoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: OPEC, 1965-Present

Major Powers: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela

After Decolonization (1965) -- Bi-polar world w/ a need for OIL

Coalitions form to fight off aggressors.- USA/USSR vs OPEC

No global conflicts

Aggressive towards non-Muslim nations (Israel)

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

BoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: Arab League, 1949-PresentBoP as a Peaceful Equilibrium: Arab League, 1949-Present

Major Powers: Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria

Ater WWII (1949) -- Bi-polar world w/ a need for OIL

Coalitions form to fight off colonization/aggressors

- Europe/USA/USSR vs AL

No global conflicts

Aggressive towards non-Muslim nations (Israel)

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Structural Realism

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Assessing Balance of Power Hypotheses

1. Balances form recurrently

2. Balancing vs. Bandwagoning: States prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions

3. If one coalition weakens, the opposing one loosens

4. Anticipated balancing leads to restraint

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Structural Realism PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Subsidiary HypothesesSubsidiary Hypotheses1. Socialization

– States emulate successful competitors• Military advances:

– Agincourt– French Revolution and mass mobilization– German general staff model

• Organization:– Market economy

– Nonconformist states gradually adapt• Bolshevik Russia

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Balance ofPower

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Structural Realism PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Subsidiary HypothesesSubsidiary Hypotheses

1. Interdependence• Relative gains impede cooperation• Interdependence increases probability of

war• Economic vulnerability leads to

imperialism

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Bipolarity vs Bipolarity vs MultipolarityMultipolarity

1792 1815 1854 1866 1870Napoleonic Wars

Concert of EuropeCrimean War

Austro-Prussian WarFranco-Prussian War WW I WW II

1914 1939

Multipolarloose, shifting alliances, Britain as balancer

four or five Great Powers

1945 1990Cold War—or “Long Peace”

Bipolar(two Great Powers, tight blocs)

?

(“peaceful”)

Structural Realism

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Bipolarity vs MultipolarityBipolarity vs Multipolarity

• Bipolarity is more “stable.” Why?

• Multipolar balancing breaks down because of uncertainty

Structural Realism

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Bipolar internal balancing

Multipolar external balancing

States can maximize/accrue power in two ways:

Cold War

19th Century Europe

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Bipolarity vs MultipolarityBipolarity vs Multipolarity• Internal balancing is more reliable• External balancing can give rise to

miscalculations that lead to general war– Large influence of small allies– Deterrence fails because there is an

incentive to defect from commitments– As numbers grow, strategic complexity

grows geometrically

• Uncertainty is the leading cause of war

Structural Realism

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Structural Theories: WWIStructural Theories: WWI

Allied PowersAllied Powers

• France

• Great Britain

• Russia

Central PowersCentral Powers

• Austria-Hungary

• Germany

Multipolar SystemMultipolar System

• Abandoning an ally invites one’s own destruction

• In a moment of crisis, the weaker or more adventurous party (Austria) is likely to determine its side’s policy

• Its partners (Germany) can afford neither to let the weaker member be defeated nor to advertise their disunity by failing to back a venture even while deploring its risks

Structural Theories: WWIStructural Theories: WWI

Allied PowersAllied Powers

• France

• Great Britain

• Russia

Central PowersCentral Powers

• Austria-Hungary

• Germany

Balance of PowerBalance of Power

• The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were approximately balanced

• The defeat of any great power would give the opposing coalition a decisive advantage in the overall European balance of power

• Britain entered the war to prevent Germany from upsetting the balance of power on the continent

Structural Theories: WWIStructural Theories: WWI

Allied PowersAllied Powers

• France

• Great Britain

• Russia

Central PowersCentral Powers

• Austria-Hungary

• Germany

Alliance SystemAlliance System

• The establishment of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance divided the European powers into two camps

• While seen as a form of self-protection, the alliances also had the potential to escalate small crises into major wars

• When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, this brought Serbia’s ally Russia into the war, which brought Germany, France, and Britain into the war

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Subsidiary hypothese

s

Balance ofPower PSC272

• N E O R E A L I S M, S T R U C T U R A L T H E O R I E S

Assessing hypotheses Assessing hypotheses about multipolarity in WWIabout multipolarity in WWI

External balancing can give rise to miscalculations that lead to general war– Large influence of small allies– Deterrence fails because there is an

incentive to defect from commitments

Structural Realism

Bipolarity vs

Multipolarity

Admittedly, an unfair test

Strengths of Structural Realism

• Parsimony• Focus on systemic effects• Power is defined as capabilities (non-

tautological)• Explanatory power is in the constraints,

not in the preferences• Collective action• Probabilistic predictions