Stephen M. Walt. The Origins of Alliances (Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning), 1987
This article by Walt is about the theories of how alliances are formed by various States as a response to a perceived threat or for purposes of domination. Towards this end, the author identifies two major hypotheses that are the most evident information of alliances by States; the balancing hypothesis and the bandwagoning hypothesis. Balancing is when States align themselves with other States that they perceive as having similar policies with theirs, while bandwagon is when States seek allies that would deter their perceived threats regardless of their policies.
The essence of this article is contained in the two hypotheses that the author describes at the onset of this discussion in which he lays the foundation that the rest of the theories are based on. Balancing is when States “ally with others against the prevailing threat” and is the most common form of the alliance for many States the world over. Bandwagoning, on the other hand, refers to “alignment with the source of danger” to imply that States for specific reasons would opt to seek ally with other States that appear very threatening and aggressive notwithstanding the paradox. The rest of the discussion on this paper is aimed at demonstrating these fundamental positions that the author identifies through examples, arguments, and evidence from historical happenings.
First, the author undertakes a general discussion on the concepts of balancing and bandwagoning and discusses in brief why balancing is the most desirable form of alliance, which also explains why it is the most common in the modern world. One of the positions that the paper takes is that bandwagoning would lead to instability in the world for various reasons. Finally, the author finishes by discussing three conditions that continue to make States consider bandwagoning alliances despite its inherent dangers, which are listed as strength of the State, availability of the allies, and circumstances under which alliance is sought. This article is very convincing because of the strength citation of historical evidence that the author uses, nevertheless, I think more examples would have cemented this argument more firmly.
Alexander Wendt. Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, 1992.
Wendt’s main argument in this paper is the need for a different perspective that would shed light on how the existing system is influenced by both State interests and identities under three different scenarios which he refers to as variables. The State is the system in which its interests and identities are shaped by these three variables; the institution of sovereignty, cooperation revolution, and transformation of identities.
To understand this Wendt proposes the application of two notable views; constructivism and neoliberalism. This is because, in his view, the constructivist theory is key to changing the identity which he refers to as role-specific understandings as well as the state interests which are both encompassed by the concept of self-help.
Two important concepts are at the center of Wendt’s article besides the variables, that of process and structure; from the foundations of these definitions, Wendt argues that process is what takes place because it is independent of the resulting outcome when various States get to interact with each other. This conclusion is based on Wendt’s analysis in which he posits that self-help is an institution that is not dependent on the existing system at the time and thus not subject to the anarchy influence.
It is notable to mention that this article by Wendt is a rejoinder to a previous article, by Kenneth Waltz, who was a realist, and it is for this reason that we see Wendt taking strong positions on neoliberalism and realism. Overall, this article undertakes a convincing argument of how the processes and structures of systems impact on the State’s interests and identities. Nevertheless, I find the article inconclusive based on the number of variables advanced in this case scenario, which are only three, but which on a closer look would appear to be more than that. Also, Wendt’s argument does not go back far enough to analyze the circumstances that would result in a hypothetical case where no priors exist for any State.