Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:40:22.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the ‘balances of power’: a look at some numbers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

William B. Moul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Approximate parity in power capabilities between states creates uncertainty of victory if war were to occur. Whether, therefore, decisional uncertainty inhibits war between states or makes a breaking of the peace likely, is a central question in the host of ‘balance of power’ theories of interstate conflict. Some argue one way; others a different way; and some appear to argue one way, then the other. For along time each found support in armchair reflection—common sense bolstered with diplomatic anecdotes from ancient and modern state systems. Arguments could be made to command diverse historical examples because they rested upon the common assumption that calculations of power, security and conflicts of interest are essentially the same in any system of sovereign states. Anarchy, if you will, orders anachronisms. Now, however, each side can find support in quantitative evidence from far more systematic empirical analyses. The latter analyses are intended to bring some order and discipline to contrary insights by replacing anecdote with data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 15 , Special Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 101 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The elastic nature of the phrase ‘balance of power’ contributes to further confusions and disagreements. A. F. Pollard's lecture to the British Institute of International Affairs, and the discussion which followed provide a handy illustration of this. Pollard suggested that the number of uses of the phrase approaches many thousands. Martin Wight's discussion of nine meanings of the concept captures most of the variation in usage. Pollard, , ‘The Balance of Power’, Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs, xi (1923), pp. 51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 81–3; Wight, ‘The Balance of Power’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966).

2. Organski, A. F. K. and Kugler, J., The War Ledger (Chicago, 1980), pp. 51–53Google Scholar.

3. Ferris, W., The Power Capabilities of Nation-States (Lexington, Mass., 1973), p. 76Google Scholar.

4. Singer, J. D., Bremer, S. and Stuckey, J., ‘Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War 1820–1965’, in Russett, B. M. (ed.), Peace, War, and Numbers (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1972)Google Scholar

5. Maoz, Z., Paths to Conflict: International Disputes Initiation, 1816–1976 (Boulder, Col., 1982)Google Scholar.

6. Singer, J. D., ‘War and Other Problems in the Global System’, International Organization, x (1977), pp. 565–578Google Scholar; Kugler, J., ‘The Consequences of War: Fluctuations in National Capabilities Following Major Wars, 1880–1970’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973Google Scholar; Organski and Kugler, op. cit.

7. Dahl, R., ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioral Science, ii (1957), pp. 201–218Google Scholar.

8. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S., ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, lix (1962), pp. 947–952Google Scholar; Lukes, S., Power: A Radical View (London, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Wight, M., Power Politics (London, 1946), p. 19.Google Scholar

10. Baldwin, D. A., ‘Power Analysis and World Polities’, World Politics, xxxi (1979), pp. 161–194.Google Scholar

11. Dahl, op. cit.

12. Baldwin, op. cit., p. 166, emphasis in original.

13. Alexandroff, A., Rosecrance, R. and Stein, A., ‘History, Quantitative Analysis, and the Balance of Power’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, xxxiii (1977), pp. 35–56.Google Scholar

14. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago, 1966).Google Scholar

15. Przeworski, A. and Teune, H., The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York, 1970).Google Scholar

16. Aside from the usual (and essential) works of diplomatic and military history, there are studies such as those in Philip Towle's collection Estimating Foreign Military Strength (London, 1982) which explicitly compare assessments of various ‘balances of power’.

17. Ferris, op. cit., p. 58.

18. Ibid., p. 55.

19. Ibid., pp. 37, 39.

20. Ibid., p. 39.

21. Morgenstern, O., On the Accuracy of Economic Observations (Princeton, NJ, 1963, 2nd edn).Google Scholar

22. Armstrong, J. S., ‘Derivation of Theory by Means of Factor Analysis, or Tom Swift and his Electric Factor Analysis Machine’, The American Statistician, xxi (1967), pp. 17–21.Google Scholar

23. For example, Wallis, W. A. and Roberts, H. V., Statistics (New York, 1956), pp. 546–548.Google Scholar

24. Vanderbok, W. G., ‘On Improving the Analysis of Ratio Data’, Political Methodology, iv (1977), p. 181.Google Scholar

25. Not many of the index values are reported in Ferris's book or dissertation, and the volume which was to contain all of the scores has yet to appear. Although the numbers in the dissertation and the book differ, the differences are the results of small changes in his complicated procedures, and do not alter the substance of his findings. Ferris, op. cit.; Ferris, ‘A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Power Capabilities of Nation-States Relates to Involvement in International Conflict and War’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1972.

26. Ferris, The Power Capabilities of Nation-States, 1973, p. 58.

27. Ferris does not ignore geography in so far as he uses in his analyses a randomly generated list of contiguous pairs of states in which there was no conflict. Ibid., Appendix E.

28. Craig, G. A., The Battle of Königgrätz (Westport, Conn., 1975), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; Rothenberg, G. E., The Army of Francis Joseph (West Lafayette, Ind., 1976), pp. 64–72.Google Scholar

29. Alexandroff, Rosecrance and Stein, op. cit.

30. Schroeder, P. W., ‘Quantitative Studies in the Balance of Power: An Historian's Reaction, and a Final Rejoinder’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, xxi (1977), pp. 3–22, 57–74.Google Scholar

31. Mitchell, A., ‘“A Situation of Inferiority”: French Military Reorganization after the Defeat of 1870’, American Historical Review, lxxxvi (1981), pp. 49–62.Google Scholar

32. Ferris, The Power Capabilities of Nation-States and ‘A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis…’, both cited above.

33. Maddison, A., ‘Phases of Capitalist Development’, Banco Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, exxi (1977), pp. 103–137Google Scholar; Phases of Capitalist Development (Oxford, 1982), Appendix A.

34. Organski, A. F. K., Bueno de Mesquita, B. and Lamborn, A., ‘The Effective Population in International Polities’, in Keir Nash, A. E. (ed.), Governance and Population: the Governmental Implications of Population Change, vol. 4, Research Reports, Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (Washington, DC, 1972), p. 241.Google Scholar

35. Organski and Kugler, op. cit.

36. Ibid., p. 38.

37. Kugler, op. cit.

38. I could not use the GNP values which Organski and Kugler use. Kugler, op. cit., reports index numbers (1913 = 100.0) from the work of Angus Maddison, but I cannot find which absolute values were used to calculate percentage shares of GNP. Given Kugler's concern with the consequences of war for subsequent economic growth rates, such index numbers are sufficient. The references to Maddison's works which I found do not provide the necessary absolute values (Organski and Kugler, op. cit., p. 248). Therefore, I use the more recent estimates found in Maddison's Phases of Capitalist Development. The details of the adjustments for territorial changes can be found there (Appendix A) and in his 1977 article cited in note 33 above. These sources include Austria (which Organski and Kugler, op. cit., exclude) and exclude Russia/USSR (which they include).

39. Organski and Kugler, op. cit., pp. 30–4.

40. This variation cannot be seen in the oft-cited analysis of the perception of national power and GNP by Alcock, N. Z. and Newcombe, A. G., ‘Perception of National Power’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, xiv (1970), pp. 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar. That analysis is of a cross-section: perceptions of power by 38 Canadians and GNP at one time. Organski and Kugler, op. cit., p. 34, cite this analysis in support of the contention that GNP ‘reflects the realities of international polities’. Such brief reference does little justice t o Alcock's and Newcombe's carefully worded conclusion ‘that perceived national power is some function of GNP or military expenditure…’ (op. cit., p. 342). A footnote points out that ‘from a simple rank ordering it is impossible to say whether power is proportional to GNP, to GNP ½log GNP, or some intermediate function.’ The results for the Latin American states suggest a relationship more complicated than indicated by simple citation. Organski and Kugler also cite S. Rosen, ‘War Power and the Willingness to Suffer’, in B. M. Russett (ed.), Peace, War, and Numbers (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1972), in support of the use of GNP as the measure of power capabilities. Rosen, in turn has cited Organski in support of the use of GNP, but does not use it himself. On the practical grounds that estimates of GNP are not available for most cases prior to 1920, Rosen uses governmental revenue as a measure of wealth/power. This index neglects the variations in government spending: some spent much more on the military than did others, and spent much more on the military at some times than others.

41. Hitch, C. J. and McKean, R. N., The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 28–34.Google Scholar

42. Organski and Kugler, op. cit., p. 34.

43. Grew, R., ‘The Nineteenth-Century European State’, in Bright, C. and Harding, S. (eds.), Statemaking and Social Movements (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1984), p. 99.Google Scholar

44. For example, Small, M. and Singer, J. D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980 (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1982), Table 13.2.Google Scholar

45. For example, Tilly, C., Tilly, L. and Tilly, R., The Rebellious Century, 1830–1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Gerschenkron, A., Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, Mass., 1962)Google Scholar; Kurth, J. R., ‘The Political Consequences of the Product Cycle: Industrial History and Political Outcomes’, International Organization, xxxiii (1979), pp. 1—34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weaver, F. S., ‘Relative Backwardness and Cumulative Change: A Comparative Approach to European Industrialization’, Studies in Comparative International Development, ix (1974), pp. 70–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Davis, K., ‘The Demographic Foundations of National Power’, in Berger, M., Abel, T. and Page, C. (eds.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society (New York, 1954, reprint 1964), pp. 222–223.Google Scholar

48. Snyder, Jack, The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of 1914 (Ithaca, NY, 1984), pp. 166–167.Google Scholar

49. Treblecock, C., ‘War and the Failure of Industrial Mobilizations: 1899 and 1914’, in Winter, J. M. (ed.), War and Economic Development: Essays in Honour of David Joslin (Cambridge, 1975).Google Scholar

50. In a recent article Kugler, J. and Domke, W., ‘Comparing the Strength of Nations’, Comparative Political Studies, xix (1986), pp. 39–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, apply this measurement of political capacity to postdict the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War, World War I and World War II. Althoug h a close examination of the measurement procedure is beyond the scope of this article, three point s deserve attention here. First, the assessment of political capacity is an assessment of the capacity of the state to tax the society given ‘the level of government revenues predicted strictly by socioeconomic considerations’ (p. 47). This explains the apparent rise in Russia's ‘power’ from 1904 to 1905 while political events such as the widespread peasant revolts and army mutinies decreased the political capacity of the state. Second, the measurement of ‘power’ makes no allowance for the loss of strength with distance. The ioss-of-strength gradients across the Russian empire and around the Cape of Good Hope should enter into an accurate post-diction of the Japanese victory. Third, to declare the Russo-Japanese war to have been a ‘draw’ is to understate the extent of the Japanese victory and Russian defeat.

51. Organski and Kugler, op. cit., p. 38.

52. Maddison, Phases of Capitalist Development, Appendix A, 1982; Maddison, ‘Phases of Capitalist Development’, 1977.

53. Organski and Kugler, op. cit., p. 34.

54. Palmer, A., The Chancelleries of Europe (London, 1983), pp. 135–136.Google Scholar

55. Bremer, S., ‘National Capabilities and War Proneness’, in Singer, J. D. (ed.), The Correlates of War, v, II (New York, 1980), p. 60.Google Scholar

56. Wayman, F. W., Singer, J. D. and Goertz, G., ‘Capabilities, Allocations, and Success in Militarized Disputes and Wars, 1816–1976’, International Studies Quarterly, xxvii (1983), pp. 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. So also do the efforts to reduce the impact of population size in other variations used in Correlates of War studies. For example Singer and Small substitute the log of total population for the actual count. Singer, J. D. and Small, M., ‘Foreign Policy Indicators: Predictors in the State of the World Message’, Policy Science, v (1974), pp. 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58. Bushnell, J., ‘Peasants in Uniform: The Tsarist Army as a Peasant Society’, Journal of Social History, xiii (1980), pp. 565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bushnell, J., Mutiny and Repression: Russian Soldiers in the Revolution of 1905–1906 (Bloomington, Ind., 1985).Google Scholar

59. Fuller, W. C. Jr, Civil-Military Conflict in Imperial Russia, 1881–1914 (Princeton, NJ, 1985), pp. 470–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. Wainer, H., ‘Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models: It Don't Make No Nevermind’, Psychological Bulletin, Ixxxiii (1976), p. 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Wainer, H., ‘Predicting the Outcome of the Senate Trial of Richard M. Nixon’, Behavioral Science, xix (1974), pp. 404–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘On the Sensitivity of Regression and Regressors’, Psychological Bulletin, Ixxxv (1978), pp. 267–73.

62. Wainer, ‘Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models’, p. 217.

63. Sabrosky, A. N., ‘From Bosnia to Sarajevo: A Comparative Discussion of Interstate Crises’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, xix (1975), pp. 57–74.Google Scholar

64. Kennedy, P. M., ‘The First World War and the International Power System’, International Security, ix (1984), p. 28.Google Scholar

65. J. Snyder, op. cit.

66. Teitelbaum, M. S. and Winter, J. M., The Fear of Population Decline (Orlando, Fla., 1985), p. 18.Google Scholar

67. Bagehot, W., Physics and Politics (London, 1872), p. 51.Google Scholar

68. These are analyses of 58 serious conflicts ‘involving the explicit, overt, and government directed threat, display or use of force’ among European great powers. Maoz, Z., Paths to Conflict: International Disputes Initiation, 1816–1976 (Boulder, Col., 1982), p. 7Google Scholar. For some detail on the modifications to the power capabilities values see Moul, W. B., ‘Balances of Power and European Great Power War, 1815–1939: A Suggestion and Some Evidence’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, xliii (1985), pp. 481–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moul, ‘Balances of Power and the Escalation to War of Serious Disputes among the European Great Powers, 1815–1939: Some Evidence’, American Journal of Political Science, xxxii (1988), pp. 241–75.

69. Maoz, op. cit., p. 115.

70. Sources of figure and tables: Figure 1: Maddison, ‘Phases of Capitalist Development’; Maddison, Phases of Capitalist Development, Appendix A; Correlates of War Project, University of Michigan. Table 1: Ferris, Power Capabilities of Nation-States; Ferris, ‘A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis…’. Tables 2,3 and 4: Maddison, ‘Phases of Capitalist Development’; Maddison, Phases of Capitalist Development, Appendix A; Correlates of War Project, University of Michigan, Tables 5 and 6: Correlates of War Project, University of Michigan.