The Balance of Power in International History: Theory and Reality

Many observers have recently noted that the international system is evolving into a multipolar world. At the same time, the notion of balance of power is being severely criticized for its vagueness and inconsistency. Seven empirically testable propositions which exemplify refined and narrowed notions of balance of power are reviewed and analyzed in this paper. These propositions, authored by A. L. Burns, M. Kaplan, D. Singer and M. Small, F. H. Hinsley, R. Rosecrance, and F. Harary concern one of four major approaches to the multipolar system: (1) the rules of a theoretical balance of power system, (2) the functioning of alliances, (3) historical systemic periodization, and (4) the application of structural balance theory to the international system. The Situational Analysis Project provided the data for testing these propositions over the first twelve years of the "Bismarckian system," 1870 through 1881. The propositions did not hold up well under detailed testing. The rules of the balance of power system were violated-in particular, an "ingratiation effect" was found in place of the balance-restoring mechanism; alliances led to a lessening of cooperation and attention between allies; and historical periodization was found to be inaccurate. The findings, however, did support the fundamental assumption underlying the structural balance theory. Since the future may be quite like the nineteenth century in terms of structure, a reevaluation of the Bismarckian system is not an irrelevant exercise but rather an inquiry into the functioning of a system we may actually have to operate.