The Politicization of the Power Transition Theory Jun Usami

The Power Transition Theory A.F.K. Organski in 1958, Robert Gilpin associated with realism realism assumes anarchy in the international system, but power transition theory concludes that powerful nations rule the system

Hegemonic Wars Peloponnesian War UK-US (Huntington describes as kin) World War I World War II (US, Japan, Germany) Upcoming (?) US-China

Gilpin’s Law and Hegemonic War Five assumptions in the framework for understanding international political change An intnl system is stable if no state believes it profitable to attempt to change the system A state will attempt to change the intnl system if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs A state will seek to change the intnl system through territorial, political, and economic expansion until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal benefits Once an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further change and expansion is reached, the tendency is for the economic costs of maintaining the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support the status quo If the disequilibrium in the intnl system is not resolved, then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting the redistribution of power will be established

Disequilibrium to Hegemonic War Once a society reaches a certain level of expansion, it has difficulty in maintaining its position and arresting its eventual decline On the other hand, rising states enjoy lower costs, rising rates of return on their resources, and the advantages od backwardness Dominant power tries to restore equilibrium in the system Increase resources Reduce commitments If it fails in this attempt, the disequilibrium is resolved by war Successful example>> UK

Solutions for Dominant State Increased efficiency in the use of existing resources (innovation is key) Bring costs and resources into balance by reducing costs A. eliminate the source of the problem>> preventive war B. further expansion C. reduce foreign policy commitments>>retrenchment, alliances “Throughout history, the primary means of resolving the disequilibrium between the structure of the intnl system and the redistribution of power has been war, more particularly, what we shall call a hegemonic war.” (p197)

The “Psychological Effect” According to Gilpin Declining society’s vicious cycle Lack of social cooperation Emphasis on rights rather than emphasis on duty Decreasing productivity (especially with lack of innovation) Rising society’s virtuous cycle

The preconditions of hegemonic war 1. closing in of space and opportunities 2. Temporal and psychological>>preemptive war 3. out of human control The law of governing such conflicts would appear to favor rising states on the periphery of an international system rather than the contending states in the system itself. States engaging in the conflict weaken themselves, thus eliminating obstacles by peripheral power

The “Inevitability” of Hegemonic War Deterministic idea of hegemonic war? The failure of appeasement in the 1930s>>delegitimized as a policy “there do not appear to be any examples of a dominant power willingly conceding dominance over an international system to a rising power in order to avoid war.” Nuclear Weaponry Industrial Capitalism (Buzan) US’s own institutions

The realist cycle of IR Image credentials: Bacon, Paul. (Spring, 2017) Lecture on Introduction to International Relations. retrieved by https://paulbacon.wordpress. com/ir201-17/

Gilpin’s Diagram of international political change Due to differential growth of power System in State of Equilibrium Redistribution of Power in System Disequilibrium of System Resolution of Systemic Crisis

The Possibility of a China-US Hegemonic War Not kin (Huntington) Not democracy (Democratic Peace Theory) Middle class not willing to take risks (Kampfer)>>unlikely Even if China becomes a young democracy, the likelihood of war will be even greater (Democratic Peace) China knows more about the US than the US knows about China Overestimation of Chinese power Military gap Technology gap (Wohlforth)

Unipolarity and China On China US overestimated current power unwanted prediction of hegemonic war US US-led intnl order different? Is it still unipolar? why not defeat China while it can? Using the PTT as an excuse for American liberal imperialism or shutting down China/Russia Wohlforth “hegemons can use position to slow decline and mitigate effects” Mastanduno “grand bargains”>> intnl order is a result of bargains Cooperation in intnl relations relies on leadership of dominant state (Ik, Mas, W) Institutions can lock in hegemonic order and enable it to persist after hegemony Under unipolarity, less war prone because parity is beyond the reach of a would-be-challenger

Politicization of the Power Transition Theory Psychological effect Imagination that PTT is inevitable Manipulate this cyclical theory and treat it as if it is bound to happen “All policies are future oriented. A decision to reform , retrench, or go to war reflects expectations about future trends and assessments of the likely effect of today’s policies on tomorrow’s distribution of relative power.” (Wohlforth, Realism and the End of the Cold War) Who Why How Consequences