Balance of Threat Theory

From balance of power to balance of threat

Waltz's (1979) neorealist balance of power theory holds that states balance against the most powerful state in the system. Walt (1985, 1987), however, observed that during the Cold War many European and Asian states sided with the United States even though it was more powerful than the Soviet Union. He argued that states balance against threats rather than power as such, and he examined the claim through alliances among Middle Eastern states from 1955 to 1979. He reported that these states generally allied against the state they perceived as most threatening rather than the strongest.

Four sources of threat; balancing and bandwagoning

Walt divided threat into four components: aggregate power, combining population, economic and military resources; geographic proximity, with nearer states more threatening; offensive capabilities able to endanger others' sovereignty; and perceived offensive intentions. He argued that balancing, joining with others against a threatening state, is far more common than bandwagoning, aligning with the threat, and that bandwagoning occurs mainly among weak states or those unable to find allies. He concluded that ideological similarity, foreign aid and penetration have comparatively weak effects on alliance formation.

Critiques and later debate

Schweller (1994) criticized the theory as centered on status quo states, arguing that revisionist states bandwagon for profit. Christensen and Snyder (1990) highlighted chain-ganging and buck-passing under multipolarity, and Levy and Barnett (1991) argued that domestic political survival shapes alliance choices. Vasquez (1997) judged the addition of threat to be a degenerative modification of realism. After the Cold War, Pape (2005) and Walt (2005) argued that states engage in soft balancing against US unipolarity, while Brooks and Wohlforth (2005) disputed the claim.

FAQ

What is balance of threat theory in simple terms?

States do not simply guard against the most powerful country; they team up against countries that are close by and appear to have both the ability and the intention to attack.

How does it differ from balance of power theory?

Balance of power theory focuses on the distribution of power, while balance of threat theory adds geographic proximity, offensive capabilities and offensive intentions to explain what states ally against.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43.
2. Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
3. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.
5. Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19(1), 72–107.
6. Christensen, T. J., & Snyder, J. (1990). Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization, 44(2), 137–168.
7. Levy, J. S., & Barnett, M. N. (1991). Domestic sources of alliances and alignments: The case of Egypt, 1962–73. International Organization, 45(3), 369–395.
8. Vasquez, J. A. (1997). The realist paradigm and degenerative versus progressive research programs. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 899–912.
9. Walt, S. M. (2005). Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy. New York: W. W. Norton.
10. Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45.
11. Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2005). Hard times for soft balancing. International Security, 30(1), 72–108.
12. Snyder, G. H. (1997). Alliance Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
13. Kaufman, S. J., Little, R., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.). (2007). The Balance of Power in World History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.