Power Transition Theory Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

In international politics, power transition theory is a theory about the causes of major interstate wars. It emphasizes shifts in relative power among the dominant states as a primary catalyst for conflict. First set out by A. F. K. Organski in a 1958 textbook, power transition theory uses the metaphor of a pyramid to describe the hierarchy of states within the international system. At the top of the pyramid is a hegemon or a dominant power, whose supremacy is defined not only by a preponderance of material resources but also by political stability. Hegemonic ascendance is impermanent, however, and beneath the hegemon are a roiling clutch of great powers, or states that represent potential rivals to the hegemon and play their own part in shaping the international system, ever eager to assume the top spot. Beneath those are the middle powers, which may possess some regional significance, followed by the small powers.

According to power transition theory, the likelihood of stability and therefore peace, is greatest when a hegemon has established a clear and credible dominance over the system. Hegemonic powers maintain global order; more precisely, they use their military and economic strength to set up global or regional regimes that increase their own security while promoting systemic stability. These regimes, which typically include a bundle of international political and economic institutions (but also, less formally, norms of global behavior), are designed to benefit both the dominant power and other states that agree to play by the rules of the hegemonic order. Such rule abiders are defined as status quo states, opposed to revisionist states that are dissatisfied with their place in the international order and wish to change the rules by which the international system functions.

Power transition theory emphasizes the dynamic and cyclical nature of international relations. Hegemons cannot stay on top for long—inescapable differences in rates of growth, institutional sclerosis brought on by the growth of vested interests at home, and the lure of imperial overstretch abroad all contribute to the eventual decline of the dominant power. According to power transition theory, the probability of war is greatest when a declining hegemon is being overtaken by a rising great power. Thus, if dominance keeps peace, a decline in dominance or confusion over the hegemon’s status leads to war. In the dangerous period of power transition, the impulse toward war may come from either the hegemon or the challenger. The hegemon may see a benefit in waging a preventive war to thwart the challenger’s imminent ascent; the challenger, meanwhile, may be eager to correct the perceived imbalance in the international system and give itself a place in the sun commensurate with its rising status. Either way, such hegemonic wars at the point of power transition usually create a new hegemonic power and a new order after the transition, leaving the hegemonic cycle to begin anew. Hegemonic wars alter the international system in accordance with the new distribution of power, eliminating the ambiguity that arises when a rising power challenges a dominant state.

Power transition theory is typically contrasted with balance of power theory, which arrives at fundamentally different conclusions despite starting with some common fundamental assumptions. Both theories emphasize the role of power and material interests in shaping international outcomes; both assume that states are the primary actors in global politics. Where the two theories fundamentally diverge, however, are on the consequences of power distribution. Power transition theory finds stability in the imbalance of power and argues that greater imbalances lead to greater stability. Balance of power theory, on the other hand, argues that stability is best achieved when power distribution is approximately symmetrical, precisely where power transition theory expects conflict to be greatest. While balance of power theory emphasizes the lack of order in the international system and the difficulty of hegemonic bids, power transition theory instead views international relations as episodes of stability within a hierarchical global system interrupted by bouts of hegemonic wars.

The two views may be usefully reconciled by noting that the likelihood of war may be greatest in times of transition between very imbalanced and very balanced systems—in other words, that both extreme inequality and extreme equality of power produce a degree of certainty, and thus decrease the likelihood of war, while systems between those two extremes are more prone to war. As a matter of historiography, balance of power theory traditionally focuses on European land-based military competition, while power transition theory often focuses on the international system as a whole, with a greater emphasis on naval superiority; this disjunction in scope may explain some of the disconnect between the two theories.

Bibliography:

Kugler, Jacek, and A. F. K. Organski. “The Power Transition: A Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation.” In Handbook of War Studies, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Levy, Jack S. “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace.” Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1998): 139–165.
Organski, A. F. K. World Politics. New York: Knopf, 1958.
Tammen, Ronald, ed. Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2000.

This example Power Transition Theory Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.