Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polarity and Threat Perception in Foreign Policy: A Dynamic Balancing Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Polarity in International Relations

Part of the book series: Governance, Security and Development ((GSD))

Abstract

Realism seemed to lose its explanatory power after the Cold War simply because no military alliance has been formed to countervail the US’ unprecedented level of power within a unipolar world. Scholars have tried to rescue realism in a unipolar world via two approaches. On the one hand, some traditional realists argue that we should keep faith in balancing because a military alliance against the US will emerge sooner or later. On the other hand, scholars introduce the soft balancing thesis to argue that secondary states have chosen non-military means to countervail US power and influence. In this paper, I explore a middle way between these two approaches by introducing a “dynamic balancing model” to account for a state’s military-driven balancing strategies. I argue that the interplay between polarity and threat perception shapes state behavior as either external balancing or internal balancing, or both. The dynamic balancing model is one of the applications of neoclassical realism, in which domestic variables are introduced as transmission belts to connect systemic effects and state behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Art, R., Brooks, S., Wohlforth, W., Lieber, K., & Alexander, G. (2006). Correspondence: Striking the balance. International Security, 30(3), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2005). Hard times for soft balancing. International Security, 30(1), 72–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., Waever, O., & De Wilde, J. (1997). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. J. (1996). Useful adversaries: Grand strategy, domestic mobilization, and Sino-American conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. J., & Snyder, J. (1990). Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization, 44(2), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. J. (2021, March 24). There will not be a new Cold War: The limits of U.S.-Chinese competition. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-03-24/there-will-not-be-new-cold-war

  • Davis, B., & Wei, L. (2020). Superpower showdown: How the battle between Trump and Xi threatens a new Cold War. HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, C. (1996). Horses for courses: Why not neorealist theories of foreign policy? Security Studies, 6(1), 7–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, C., & Elman, M. (1995). History vs. neo-realism: A second look. International Security, 20(1), 182–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, A. L. (2011). A contest for supremacy: China, America, and the struggle for mastery in Asia. W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R. (2020, April 7). The pandemic will accelerate history rather than reshape it not every crisis is a turning point. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-04-07/pandemic-will-accelerate-history-rather-reshape-it

  • Haass, R. (2021, January 11). Present at the destruction: Trump’s final act has accelerated the onset of a post-American world. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-01-11/present-destruction

  • Hansen, B. (2010). Unipolarity and world politics: A theory and its implications. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • He, K. (2009). Dynamic balancing: China’s balancing strategies towards the United States 1949–2005. Journal of Contemporary China, 18(58), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, K. (2012). Undermining adversaries: Unipolarity, threat perception, and negative balancing strategies after the Cold War. Security Studies, 21(2), 154–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(1), 167–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. I. (1999). Realism(s) and Chinese security policy in the post-Cold War period. In E. B. Kapstein & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), Unipolar politics: Realism and state strategies after the Cold War (pp. 261–318). Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. (1983). Theory of world politics: Structural realism and beyond. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline I (pp. 503–540). American Political Science Association. Reprinted in Keohane, R. (1986) Neorealism and its critics (pp. 158–203). Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (1993). The unipolar illusion: Why new great powers will rise. International Security, 17(4), 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (2006). The unipolar illusion revisited: The coming end of the United States unipolar moment. International Security, 31(2), 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, K. A., & Alexander, G. (2005). Waiting for balancing: Why the world is not pushing back. International Security, 30(1), 109–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). (2009). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macias, A. (2021, February 7). Biden says there will be ‘extreme competition’ with China, but won’t take Trump approach. CNBC News. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/07/biden-will-compete-with-china-but-wont-take-trump-approach.html

  • Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V. (2018). Restraining great powers: Soft balancing from empires to the global era. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft balancing in the age of US primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. R. (2006). European Union security and defense policy: Response to unipolarity? Security Studies, 15(2), 149–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachman, Gideon. (2020, October 5). A new Cold War: Trump, Xi and the escalating US-China. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/7b809c6a-f733-46f5-a312-9152aed28172

  • Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, P. (1994). Historical reality vs. neo-realist theory. International Security, 19(1), 108–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R. (1998). Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s strategy of world conquest. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J., & Elman, C. (2002). Realism and the balancing of power: A new debate. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. M. (2006). Taming American power: The global response to US primacy. W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1997). Evaluating theories. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 913–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. K. (2020). The durability of a unipolar system: Lessons from East Asian history. Security Studies, 29(5), 832–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim, S. (2019, June 8). Is it too late to stop a new Cold War with China? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/opinion/sunday/trump-china-cold-war.html

  • Westad, O. A. (2019). The sources of Chinese conduct: Are Washington and Beijing fighting a new Cold War. Foreign Affairs, 98(5), 86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A. (2008). Balancing against threats or bandwagoning with power? Europe and the transatlantic relationship after the Cold War. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security, 24(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, F. (2008). The future of American power: How America can survive the rise of the rest. Foreign Affairs, 87(3), 18–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, M. (2019). Is a new Cold War inevitable? Chinese perspectives on US–China strategic competition. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 12(3), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Kai He

Authors
  1. Kai He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai He .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Nina Græger

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Bertel Heurlin

  3. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ole Wæver

  4. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anders Wivel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

He, K. (2022). Polarity and Threat Perception in Foreign Policy: A Dynamic Balancing Model. In: Græger, N., Heurlin, B., Wæver, O., Wivel, A. (eds) Polarity in International Relations. Governance, Security and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05505-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation