NeoRealism and the 20th Century

Waltz’s Neorealism
The argument in favor

Facts and Assumptions PSC272
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 hypotheses Balance of Power Structural Realism
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 PSC272
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 hypotheses Balance of Power Structural Realism

Balance of Power
Balances form recurrently
Balancing vs. Bandwagoning: States prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions
If one coalition weakens, the opposing one loosens
Anticipated balancing leads to restraint
PSC272 Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Structural Realism Balance of Power

PSC272 BoP as a Reaction to a Threat: Napoleon, 1802-1815 Major Powers: FRA , UK, RUS , PRUS , AUS 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 hypotheses Structural Realism Balance of Power
Russia

PSC272 BoP 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. Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Structural Realism Balance of Power
Russia

BoP 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.
Structural Realism Balance of Power Subsidiary hypotheses Bipolarity vs Multipolarity

BoP 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

BoP 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

BoP 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)

BoP 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)

Assessing Balance of Power Hypotheses
Balances form recurrently
Balancing vs. Bandwagoning: States prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions
If one coalition weakens, the opposing one loosens
Anticipated balancing leads to restraint
PSC272 Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Structural Realism Balance of Power

Subsidiary Hypotheses
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
PSC272 Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Balance of Power Subsidiary hypotheses Structural Realism

Subsidiary Hypotheses
Interdependence
Relative gains impede cooperation
Interdependence increases probability of war
Economic vulnerability leads to imperialism
PSC272 Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Balance of Power Subsidiary hypotheses Structural Realism

Bipolarity vs Multipolarity PSC272 1792 1815 1854 1866 1870 Napoleonic Wars Concert of Europe Crimean War Austro-Prussian War Franco-Prussian War WW I WW II 1914 1939 Multipolar loose, shifting alliances, Britain as balancer four or five Great Powers 1945 1990 Cold War—or “Long Peace” Bipolar (two Great Powers, tight blocs)‏ ? (“peaceful”)‏ Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Balance of Power
Structural Realism Bipolarity vs Multipolarity

Bipolarity vs Multipolarity
Bipolarity is more “stable.” Why?
Multipolar balancing breaks down because of uncertainty
PSC272 Bipolar  internal balancing Multipolar  external balancing States can maximize/accrue power in two ways: Cold War 19th Century Europe Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Balance of Power

Bipolarity 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
PSC272 Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Balance of Power

Structural Theories: WWI Multipolar 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
Allied Powers
France
Great Britain
Russia
Central Powers
Austria-Hungary
Germany

Structural Theories: WWI Balance 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
Allied Powers
France
Great Britain
Russia
Central Powers
Austria-Hungary
Germany

Structural Theories: WWI Alliance 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
Allied Powers
France
Great Britain
Russia
Central Powers
Austria-Hungary
Germany

Assessing hypotheses about 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
PSC272 Admittedly, an unfair test Bipolarity vs Multipolarity Subsidiary hypotheses Balance of Power

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

http://aphw.blogspot.com	68
http://www.slideshare.net	22
http://www.aphw.blogspot.com	1
http://66.102.9.104	1

NeoRealism and the 20th Century

by Scott Keatley

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

4 Embeds 92

Statistics

NeoRealism and the 20th Century Presentation Transcript