To Balance or Bandwagon - Research Paper

Introduction

In international relation, countries face a dilemma on whether to balance or bandwagon when threatened by other challenging states. As a result, this paper will review the literature regarding whether countries tend to join in order to counter a threat or join with the threat to avoid it. The research question is important in identifying credible solutions that will enhance the balancing of power to keep peace among a large number of states. Notably, the review will explain why realism predicts that states can only bandwagon if there is no chance of building a balancing coalition or their geography is surrounded by enemies. Therefore, the importance of the research question in international relations is to maximize the security and advance the national interest of the countries in the subject.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Theoretical Developments in the Literature

Under different conditions when a country is threatened by challenging states, it can either adopt a balancing policy or a bandwagon policy to counter the threat (Hamilton &Rathbun, 2013). Different scholars have argued under different perspectives on how countries behave when faced with a rising power. Descriptively, a country can prefer to balance power alongside a rising power by seeking assistance from other states (Hamilton &Rathbun, 2013). On the other hand, Licht (2007) argue that a country can also join a rising power to get a share of their gains and avoid the threat.

The bandwagon effect refers to a psychological phenomenon whereby people undertake an action or do something basically because others are doing it. This is regardless of their individual beliefs which they may decide to override or ignore. The bandwagon effect has typically broad implications, but it is prone to consumer behavior and politics. Indeed, there is merit in the criticism that publication of poll results before an election influences the way voters to vote as most of them vote for the leader of the opinion polls. Researchers for a very long time have observed that many people conform to the opinion of the majority. During to the election, some people are affected by bandwagon and end up shifting their preference to the more popular policy or the leading candidate.

Much media coverage is focused on the horse race during elections. Giving reports on public opinion affects levels of engagement and support. These bandwagon effects influence both public participation and opinion. According to researchers, there are two psychological mechanisms to justify the existence of bandwagon effect. One of the mechanisms is that people assume that others have done thorough research, so their collective wisdom shows something about the candidate's quality (learning from "wisdom of crowds"). The other mechanism is that people admire to adopt the majority position so that they can feel accepted and liked. That is why there is merit in this criticism.

Revolving door laws are the laws that confine or restrict opportunities for post-government employment of workers in the public sector including regulators of public utility. These laws deny public officials from involving themselves in lobbying activities for one year after they have left office. However, this period is not sufficient enough to discourage these officials from making decisions while still holding office that may bring a future gain. Several aides have taken advantage and exploited the loophole in the law. In the United States, the law plays no act if the salary of the aide is below a specific cap. For example, in 2013, the cap stood at $130,000, and many aides made sure that their salaries were below this set margin to circumvent the ban. There were alleges that various congressional aides had started lobbying their previous congressional colleagues and bosses on new corporate employer's behalf. This happened within the set prescribed one year. These congressional aides took advantage of a loophole in the law to reach the targeted aim.

In the past, both schools of thoughts were defined by military capabilities. However, the threats are currently defined by aggressiveness intentions and their capabilities (Hamilton &Rathbun, 2013). As a result, being sensitive to both capabilities and aggressiveness of a challenging country are likely to prompt a state to prefer balancing policy to the bandwagon. Therefore, countries will prefer to adopt a balancing policy because its benefits outweigh the benefits of changing their global balance. On the other hand, countries that tend to adopt bandwagon policy consider its influence on the stability of their state (Hamilton&Rathbun, 2013). By valuing their interests, most countries dislike the distribution of powers when forming such alliances. SchmittBeck (2015) argues that countries with great powers form bandwagon alliances because of interests such as non-security issues and dispositions. Also, the policy develops strong systematic pacifying effects.

Irrefutably, bandwagon policy is essential to great nations because it enhances the achievement of lasting peace by pursuing a strategy of self-binding. However, the limitation of various studies on bandwagon policy is that they focus on the military capabilities of a state rather than also considering their aggressive intentions. Therefore, the shortcomings in both policies should be defined by their mutual capabilities and aggressive intentions as such will enable countries to adopt a policy that enhances lasting peace.

The Main Hypothesis in the Literature

The main hypothesis of this review is that countries tend to both balance powers and bandwagon with other states to maintain lasting peace. The review tries to prove the fact that countries will tend to balance powers when faced with a challenging state or rising power. It also aims at explaining why other countries tend to bandwagon in the quest to avoid the effects of a threat. In his analysis, Schmitt-beck (2015) argues that bandwagon policy is hypothesized as an impersonal influence that affects an individual's impressions outside their personal contact sphere. The hypothesis of the literature is supported by theories related to balancing power and bandwagon policies. However, there are implications of the balance of power theory derived from historical evidence (Wohlforth, 2004). Wohlforth claims that the version of bandwagon theory is universalistic that hegemony leads to balance. Undeniably, some realists such as William Wohlforth have pointed to cases in an international system where hegemon arose as a result of a failure in balancing policy. For instance, the Warring States failed to join together to counter the Qin dynasty, and Rome also failed to balance with the Hellenic successor states of Alexander the Great (Wohlforth, 2004). The findings of various literatures indicate that countries or states tend to opt for balancing policy because of the two reasons. The first reason is that they place the interest of their continued existence at risk by trying to counter the challenging state or before it becomes a threat (Dall'Agnol, 2018). The process is done by forming an alliance with the leading power the placing their trust in such great powers. The second reasons states choose to balance is that weaker sides of the alliance are likely to be influential and both countries can benefit and protect their interests.

Moreover, Hyde-Price (2006) study found out that different states choose to join with the threat because they prefer avoiding attacks by diverting elsewhere as the process may be a form of a defensive mechanism. Also, the findings the study shows that states can align with a dominant country, especially in the time of war with an offensive reason for sharing the rewards of victory (Hyde-Price, 2006). Conclusively, different studies argue that weaker states are likely to bandwagon because they have less effect on the results and so, they prefer the leading side. On the contrary, strong sides tend to balance power because they transform the weaker side into a winning side. According to the realism theory, states that choose to balance align against the threat resulting in a more secure world implying that bandwagon states' security is scarce due to the high rate of hegemons that are never kept in check (Kang, 2009). Therefore, the condition of the state determines whether to join together and counter a threat or to join with the threat to avoid it.

A unitary kind of government creates a uniform nation as everyone has a sense of belonging. The system thus promotes uniformity and patriotism. The other advantage of the unitary government is the ability to make change faster. With only one branch of the government, decision making is not lengthy. Managing the economy of the country is also simple since all the laws govern the entire country. The first disadvantage of the unitary government system is how easy such system can fall out of touch especially when the people do not get what they wanted. The response of this system is also slow as complains can take long before they are considered.

For the federal government, it provides the people with localized governance as the states or provinces are formed at the local people. Through local representations, the people can express their issues faster. The federal government system also provides the people with the freedom to form policies which may not be followed in other states. The system, also enhances utilization of resources as the central government concentrates on international affairs while the local governments cater for the local needs of the people. On the contrary, the federal government system can a create conflict of authority when delegating duties and authorities. The system can also lead to corruption because the system involves electing many people in the system. It also creates unnecessary competition between the different regions which may affect the country's integrity.

The Main Variables From the Literature

Since this study was interested in finding whether states can join in countering a threat or aligning with the threat to avoid it, they main study variable include strong states, rising powers, weak states, threats, hegemons, peace, and security. These variables were used to determine the likelihood of a state to balance or bandwagon.The variables enhance the identification of how states can choose the balance of power or balance of threat. The analysis shows the significant relationship between the condition of a state and independent variables such as the strength, weakness, economic condition, threats, and security.

Descriptively, there is a positive relationship between the states that tend to balance in order to counter a threat with weak states (Bloomfield, 2016). In so doing, states can align with a dominant country, especially in the time of war with an offensive reason for sharing the spoils of the victory. As a result, there exist significant relations between the states that choose to balance power in order to counter the threat with strong states to enhance lasting peace. Furthermore, Kaufman (2012) claims that since hegemons are not kept in continues check, states avoid to the bandwagon. However, those that choose to join threat in order to avoid it, are likely to have little impact of effect on the out of the process.Additionally, Sweeney and Fritz (2004) arguethat despite an impressive collection of classical works on the subject, little is known about the frequency or characteristics of Great Power alliance decisions to balance with the weak or bandwagon with the strong. Therefore, great powers choose to balance because of their interest and maintain their stability.

Conclusion

Since countries face a dilemma on whether to balance or bandwagon when threatened by other ch...