(Page 3 of 38) - If Not Soft Balancing, Then What? --Reconsidering Soft Balancing and U.S. Policy towards China authored by Feng, Huiyun. and He, Kai.

Info/Citation	FAQ Research All Academic Inc.
Document

If Not Soft Balancing, Then What? --Reconsidering Soft Balancing and U.S. Policy towards China

Unformatted Document Text: In this paper we examine the validity of anti-soft-balancing arguments and refine the current soft-balancing theory. It posits that current criticisms of soft balancing are helpful intellectually, but to ignore and deny the existence of soft balancing is theoretically misleading and analytically problematic. First, if balancing (including soft balancing) is not a valid behavior under unipolarity, then should we expect all states to bandwagon? Apparently, critics of soft balancing agree that other states do not always follow the U.S. lead under the unipolar world. However, they fail to theoretically describe and explain these reoccurring and unfavorable behaviors towards the U.S. Second, some alternative explanations suggested by the critics to refute soft balancing, by renaming it as clashing economic interests, policy disputes, and diplomatic frictions, further confuse the concepts of strategies and tactics. Soft-balancing arguments can subsume most of the alternative arguments from a strategic perspective. In addition, we suggest that the current soft-balancing argument is ad hoc in nature and needs further conceptual and theoretical scrutiny. We argue that soft balancing is not a unique behavior under unipolarity as most soft-balancing theorists suggest. Rather, it is a rational state behavior shaped by two systemic variables—power disparity and economic dependence among states. While hard balancing aims at increasing the relative power of a state against a powerful and threatening state through domestic military buildups and external alignments, soft balancing focuses on undermining the relative power of the strong and threatening state through non-military coordination among other states in bilateral and multilateral arenas. While the anarchic international system inclines states toward choosing balancing for security, the deepening economic International Security vol. 30, no. 1 (2005), pp. 109-39. For an academic exchange over pros and cons of soft balancing arguments, see Robert Art, Stephen Brooks, William Wohlforth, Keir Lieber, and Gerard Alexander, “Correspondence: Striking the Balance,” International Security, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2006), pp. 177-96. 3

Authors: Feng, Huiyun. and He, Kai.

first

previous

Page 3 of 38

next

last

background image

In this paper we examine the validity of anti-soft-balancing arguments and refine

the current soft-balancing theory. It posits that current criticisms of soft balancing are

helpful intellectually, but to ignore and deny the existence of soft balancing is

theoretically misleading and analytically problematic. First, if balancing (including soft

balancing) is not a valid behavior under unipolarity, then should we expect all states to

bandwagon? Apparently, critics of soft balancing agree that other states do not always

follow the U.S. lead under the unipolar world. However, they fail to theoretically

describe and explain these reoccurring and unfavorable behaviors towards the U.S.

Second, some alternative explanations suggested by the critics to refute soft balancing, by

renaming it as clashing economic interests, policy disputes, and diplomatic frictions,

further confuse the concepts of strategies and tactics. Soft-balancing arguments can

subsume most of the alternative arguments from a strategic perspective.

In addition, we suggest that the current soft-balancing argument is ad hoc in

nature and needs further conceptual and theoretical scrutiny. We argue that soft balancing

is not a unique behavior under unipolarity as most soft-balancing theorists suggest.

Rather, it is a rational state behavior shaped by two systemic variables—power disparity

and economic dependence among states. While hard balancing aims at increasing the

relative power of a state against a powerful and threatening state through domestic

military buildups and external alignments, soft balancing focuses on undermining the

relative power of the strong and threatening state through non-military coordination

among other states in bilateral and multilateral arenas. While the anarchic international

system inclines states toward choosing balancing for security, the deepening economic

International Security vol. 30, no. 1 (2005), pp. 109-39. For an academic exchange over pros and cons of soft balancing
arguments, see Robert Art, Stephen Brooks, William Wohlforth, Keir Lieber, and Gerard Alexander, “Correspondence:
Striking the Balance,” International Security, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2006), pp. 177-96.

3

Convention

All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.

Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.

Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!

Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!

Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.

Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!

Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!

Click here for more information.

first

previous

Page 3 of 38

next

last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.