The Origins of Alliances (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) by Stephen M. Walt

Author:Stephen M. Walt [Walt, Stephen M.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780801469985
Publisher: Cornell University Press
Published: 2013-08-09T16:00:00+00:00

[5]

Balancing and Bandwagoning

Chapters 5 through 7 evaluate the propositions developed in chapter 2 in light of the events described in chapters 3 and 4. Specifically, chapter 5 examines the competing hypotheses on balancing and bandwagoning, chapter 6 explores the relationship between ideology and alignment, and chapter 7 assesses the impact of foreign aid and penetration.

This chapter considers first the overwhelming tendency for states to prefer balancing and then the rare cases of bandwagoning that do occur. The analysis addresses four broad questions. First, which of the two—balancing or bandwagoning—is more common? Second, do the responses of the superpowers differ from those of the regional states? Third, if balancing is the prevalent response, what is the relative importance of the different sources of threat (aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive power, and aggressive intentions) in producing balancing behavior? Finally, are the relatively rare examples of bandwagoning adequately explained by the hypotheses outlined earlier? In answering these questions, I am in effect testing the propositions on balancing and bandwagoning advanced in chapter 2. Before I undertake these tasks, however, I will briefly discuss hypothesis testing.

Three strategies are available to test the different hypotheses developed in chapter 2. The first strategy is to measure covariance. Does the dependent variable (in this case, international alignments) co-vary with the independent variables (level of threat, ideological agreement, etc.) specified in each hypothesis? We can also test the hypotheses indirectly by deducing other predictions (for which evidence may be more readily available) and testing them. The second strategy is to rely on direct evidence (such as the memoirs of a knowledgeable participant) for testimony as to why a particular alliance choice was made. The third strategy is to ask the experts—to compare the judgments of regional specialists with the predictions of each hypothesis, using the expertise of others to substitute for a lack of direct evidence on the perceptions of the relevant actors.1

Each of these strategies has been employed in the evaluation of the various hypotheses on alliance formation.2 None is uniformly feasible or reliable, but together they provide a satisfactory set of tests. A rough measure of the relative validity of the competing propositions is gained by comparing the number of alliances in the sample that fit the predictions of each general hypothesis with the number that do not. Direct evidence on elite perceptions, when available, is also examined. Throughout, expert testimony from secondary sources is used to make specific analytic judgments.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.