Anarchy and balancing
Waltz (1979), the leading figure of neorealism, argued that the international system is anarchic, lacking any central authority above states, so states must secure their own survival. When one state's power grows too great, others feel threatened and seek to balance it. Balancing can be internal, through increasing armaments and economic strength, or external, through forming alliances with other states. Waltz contended that balances of power recur because of the system's structure, even when leaders do not intend them. The nineteenth-century Concert of Europe and the bipolar U.S.–Soviet system of the Cold War are often cited as examples.
Balance of threat and bandwagoning
Walt (1985, 1987) revised the theory, arguing that states balance not simply against the strongest state but against the most threatening one. Threat is judged by aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive capabilities and offensive intentions together. When a weaker state sides with a stronger one instead, this is called bandwagoning, and Walt found balancing far more common. Schweller (1994) countered that revisionist states often bandwagon with the strong in pursuit of gain. Christensen and Snyder (1990) showed that in multipolar systems balancing does not always work smoothly, because states may be dragged into war by allies (chain-ganging) or shift the burden of balancing onto others (buck-passing).
Post-Cold War debates
After the Cold War, the fact that other great powers did not form military alliances against the overwhelmingly powerful United States became a major puzzle for balance of power theory. Pape (2005) and Paul (2005) argued that states were engaging in soft balancing, indirectly constraining the United States through international institutions, diplomatic cooperation and economic tools. Levy and Thompson (2010) reported that states balance against land-based continental powers but rarely against maritime powers, showing that the nature of threats matters. Balance of power theory continues to be discussed, alongside power transition theory and hegemonic stability theory, as a core theory of great power relations and war.
FAQ
- What is balance of power theory in simple terms?
- When one country becomes too strong, others build up their militaries or join forces to check it, producing a balance in which no side can dominate.
- How do balancing and bandwagoning differ?
- Balancing means joining forces against a strong or threatening state; bandwagoning means siding with it. Walt found balancing more common, while Schweller argued that bandwagoning for gain is also frequent.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. The neorealist classic on why balances recur under anarchy.
- Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43. Introduces balance of threat as a refinement.
- Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Tests balance of threat on Middle East alliances.
- Christensen, T. J., & Snyder, J. (1990). Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization, 44(2), 137–168. Chain-ganging and buck-passing in multipolar systems.
- Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19(1), 72–107. Argues states often bandwagon for gain rather than balance.
- Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45. Soft balancing against U.S. primacy after the Cold War.
- Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft balancing in the age of U.S. primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–71. A systematic account of soft balancing; read alongside Pape.
- Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Balancing on land and at sea: Do states ally against the leading global power? International Security, 35(1), 7–43. Evidence that states balance land powers more than sea powers.