The Origins of Alliances

by Stephen M. Walt

"The Origins of Alliances offers a different way of thinking about our security and thus about our diplomacy. It ought to be read by anyone with a serious interest in understanding why our foreign policy is so often self-defeating."
― New Republic How are alliances made? In this book, Stephen M. Walt makes a significant contribution to this topic, surveying theories of the origins of international alliances and identifying the most important causes of security cooperation between states. In addition, he proposes a fundamental change in the present conceptions of alliance systems. Contrary to traditional balance-of-power theories, Walt shows that states form alliances not simply to balance power but in order to balance threats. Walt begins by outlining five general hypotheses about the causes of alliances. Drawing upon diplomatic history and a detailed study of alliance formation in the Middle East between 1955 and 1979, he demonstrates that states are more likely to join together against threats than they are to ally themselves with threatening powers. Walt also examines the impact of ideology on alliance preferences and the role of foreign aid and transnational penetration. His analysis show, however, that these motives for alignment are relatively less important. In his conclusion, he examines the implications of "balance of threat" for U.S. foreign policy.

Genres: International Relations, Politics, Political Science, War, Academic, History, Nonfiction

336 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1987

Reviews

[John DeRosa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Re-reading one of my first graduate degree books to answer (possibly) one of the more ignorant questions encountered at work. It’s amazing how the core writings still return value after time.

[Eleanore · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another classic from the tome of IR theory. Less rigorous on the theoretical side and more interesting for his historical observation and analytical insight. Using 25 years of diplomatic history in the Middle East, Stephen Walt tries to build a case for a "balance of threat" theory as distinguished from the traditional "balance of power" theory. As unconvincing as his argument proves to be, this book is nonetheless full of resonant and important observations about alliance dynamics.

[Arktos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first read of IR theory. The initial parts of the book actually explaining the broad IR hypotheses for how alliances form are quite questionable to me. They ignore historical context that determined behavior in different periods and assume that each state is basically an independent — as in, able to operate without assistance from others — actor.

But reading the actual "application" sections — he uses middle eastern interstate conflict history from ~1950 to ~1980 — the book's analysis becomes much more reasonable and grounded. Also, the concluding sections about the U.S.'s position in the Cold War have been decisively validated.

[William Olenick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is more oriented toward State Dept policy then Defense Dept. It gives an interesting background on Middle East history and alliance building. Overall not what I have expecting when it was recommended.

[Marius Ghincea]

A good refinement of the neorealist theory. It recognizes that constructivists are right

[Barbara]

Perspective with worthwhile parts to consider

[Nate Huston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Introduces balance of threat - "States balance against states that pose the greatest threat, and the latter need not be the most powerful states in the system." (263)

Walt says this is what the book is about - pitting BoT against BoP, but the balance of it actually examines the questions below and spends little time pitting the two theories against one another, something I'd like to have seen more of.

- How do states respond to threats? Balance or bandwagon? A: Balance more common.
- Are states w/ similar internal characteristics more likely to ally than states who are different? A: Ideology less powerful than BoT and certain ideologies extremely divisive (kinds that are focused on hierachicial government) - 5
- Can certain policy intruments cause other states to alter alliance preferences (e.g. economic and/or military aid)? - 4 A: Neither is powerful cause - 5

[Jeffrey Mervosh · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you buy into IR Theory (I don't), then this is a good attempt at creating a theory broad enough to actually account for world events. But it falls far short of offering any sort of predictive model.

The idea of balancing threat rather than power in the international system is a much-needed shift from other structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz, and the delineation between hard and soft balancing begins to make up for inconsistencies and oversights in other works in the realist field, but one comes away completely unconvinced about the predictive power of IR theory and annoyed at the complete disregard for non-state actors, idea of humanitarianism, or multilateral diplomacy.

A mediocre read.

[Roberto Carnier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen M Walt brakes the paradigm of Balance of Power of Kenneth Waltz and establish the Balance of Threat Theory.

He explains brilliantly and methodologically how States establishes alliances through the menace of threat, using as an example the Arab turmoil of the Cold War as a historical case.

Walt's Origins of Alliances is a must read for any International Relations and Historian that are interested on State Behavior and Military Strategies.

[Guilherme Casarões · Rating 3 out of 5]

Expands on what Ken Waltz had started some years before. The notion of 'balance of threat', although overlooked by many, is a key concept to the understanding of alliance formation and should be revisited in order to shed light on current world politics. If you're short of time though, Walt's 1985 article on alliance formation on International Security will do.

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unfortunately, Walt wouldn't recognize a good test of his theories if it hit him in the face. That said, his narrative of Middle Eastern history is useful. It's really the main reason I'm reading the book.