Waltz first explains how hierarchic and anarchic orders are different. In hierarchic orders (within states) government has monopoly over legitimate force, while in anarchic orders, states are in a self-help system. He also says that domestic politics is hierarchically ordered while International politics is anarchically ordered. Within states, groups can specialize and benefit from trade. Among states, nations wish to remain loosely connected and not overly dependent on other states. Also, within a global system, each state, acting in their own interest, can lead to outcomes that none wanted – similar to a run on the bank in economics.
Balance of power theory is a theory about the results produced by the uncoordinated actions of states. Assumptions are made about the interests and motives of states (it does not explain them). It explains the constraints that confine all states. Balance-of-power theory can explain why a certain similarity of behavior is expected from similarly situated states. The theory leads us to suspect that states behave in ways that result in balances forming. (This is in contrast to behavior such as band-wagoning – all jumping to the winners side.) It predicts that states will engage in balancing behavior, whether or not balancing is the end of their acts. The theory predicts a strong tendency of balance in the system – not that balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that balance, once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another. Suggests that states will be competitive and will imitate each other to become more successful.
However, I contradict with what Waltz says about the hierarchic system. There is hierarchy in International politics when we divide countries into first world, third world or developed and developing countries. This division of countries in these different categories indicates some form of hierarchy as the developing countries seek help from the developed ones which shows that the developed countries are on a senior hierarchical level.
Balance of power theory is a theory about the results produced by the uncoordinated actions of states. Assumptions are made about the interests and motives of states (it does not explain them). It explains the constraints that confine all states. Balance-of-power theory can explain why a certain similarity of behavior is expected from similarly situated states. The theory leads us to suspect that states behave in ways that result in balances forming. (This is in contrast to behavior such as band-wagoning – all jumping to the winners side.) It predicts that states will engage in balancing behavior, whether or not balancing is the end of their acts. The theory predicts a strong tendency of balance in the system – not that balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that balance, once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another. Suggests that states will be competitive and will imitate each other to become more successful.
However, I contradict with what Waltz says about the hierarchic system. There is hierarchy in International politics when we divide countries into first world, third world or developed and developing countries. This division of countries in these different categories indicates some form of hierarchy as the developing countries seek help from the developed ones which shows that the developed countries are on a senior hierarchical level.
Very good summary and critique. I agree that there definitely is a hierarchy of states within the international system, hence why some powers are stronger than others. This is why its easier to compare the U.S. and China, rather than the U.S. and Somalia.
ReplyDelete