likely to choose hard balancing against one another because hostility and war are cheap.
During the cold war, the military capabilities between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were
close to each other while their economic interdependence was low. Therefore, the low
power disparity and economic interactions drove these two countries to deal with each
other in a hard way, i.e., with domestic military buildups and antagonistic external
alliances.
Although IR scholars normally use balancing to describe foreign policy behaviors
of weak states against strong states, balancing behavior is not exclusive for weak states.
Strong states also can use balancing to pursue their security and status in the system.
Literally, balancing refers to equilibrium between the two parties. However, in
international relations, equilibrium has different meanings for different states. For a
strong state, equilibrium means to keep the status quo while for a weak state equilibrium
refers to the equalization of power. Therefore, a strong state chooses balancing to
maintain its advantageous status in the system while a weak state uses balancing to try to
catch up with the strong.
The soft balancing model also applies to strong states versus weak but challenging
powers. For example, when both power disparity and economic dependence are high, a
strong state is also more likely to choose soft balancing rather than hard balancing to
keep its advantageous status in the system. The cost of hard balancing will be very high
due to economic interactions between these two countries. In addition, hard balancing is
not necessary for the strong to cope with the weak if there is no imminent threat from the
weak. Therefore, the best strategy for the strong power to maintain its advantageous
status is to undermine and constrain the rise of weak states, i.e., soft balancing against the
19
Convention