• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  -->
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
  • 
  • 
  • 
• 
• 
• 

Chapter 4: Two Structural Theories of War

Study

Summary

This chapter examines central hypotheses of two major structural theories of war: neorealism and the power transition theory (PTT).

Both theories assume that states are the main players in international relations and ignore domestic politics. Also, both focus on power as the central explanatory variable. They diverge on several assumptions and arrive at different predictions about what explains wars and under what conditions wars are more likely to break out.

Neorealists claim that bipolarity promotes stability and that uncertainty provokes instability. However, as this chapter shows, these claims are problematic both from a logical and an empirical perspective. Logically, some neorealist claims do not follow from its assumptions. When additional assumptions are added, they contradict the original assumptions. An empirical test of neorealist hypotheses also does not find support for the neorealist arguments.

The PTT, in contrast, claims that balance of power does not promote stability and that wars are more likely to break when the dominant state and a challenger have roughly the same power. The PTT is more logically consistent than neorealism and is also more consistent with the historical facts.

The first rule of wing walking compels us to abandon the neorealist balance of power theory and adopt an alternative. The PTT, with refinements and game theoretic treatments, provides a good alternative to build on.

Study Questions

1. What does neorealism predict about balance of power and war?
   



2. What is the neorealist explanation of war and its relation to uncertainty?
   



3. What are the logical problems with regard to the neorealist argument about war and uncertainty?
   



4. Are the neorealist arguments consistent with history? Give examples.
   



5. What is the neorealist prediction about acquiescence?
   



6. According to neorealism, should both sides believe that their chances of winning are better than 50 percent for war to happen? Is this a necessary, a sufficient, or both necessary and sufficient condition? Is this hypothesis correct in light of the historical evidence?
   



7. What are the points of agreement between neorealism and the PTT?
   



8. How does the PTT diverge from neorealism?
   



9. Following the first principle of wing walking, which theory (neorealism or the PTT) should be abandoned?