Balance of Power in International Relations - Balancing Versus Bandwagoning

Balancing Versus Bandwagoning

States choose to balance for two reasons. First, they place their survival at risk if they fail to curb a potential hegemon before it becomes too strong. To ally with the dominant power means placing one’s trust in its continued benevolence. And second, joining the weaker side increases the new member’s influence within the alliance. States choose bandwagoning for different reasons. First, bandwagoning may be a form of appeasement as the bandwagoner may hope to avoid an attack by diverting it elsewhere (defensive reason). Second, a state may align with the dominant side in wartime to share the spoils of victory (offensive reason).

Realists claim that balancing is when states ally against the prevailing threat and results in a more secure world whereas in a bandwagoning world security is scarce as rising hegemons are not kept in check. With bandwagoning, the threatened state abandons hope of preventing the aggressor from gaining power at its expense and instead joins forces with its dangerous foe to get at least some small portion of the spoils of war.

The weaker the state is the more likely it is to bandwagon than to balance as they do little to affect the outcome and thus must choose the winning side. Strong states may change a losing side into a winning side and thus are more likely to balance. States will be tempted to bandwagon when allies are unavailable, however excessive confidence in allied support encourages weak states to free ride relying on the efforts of others to provide security. Since balancing “requires placing trust in the aggressors continued forbearance” some realists believe balancing is preferred to bandwagoning. According to Stephen Walt, states are more likely to balance in peacetime but if they are on the losing side of a war they may defect and bandwagon in the hopes that they will “share the fruits of victory.”