World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy

by Stephen G. Brooks, William C. Wohlforth

World Out of Balance is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the constraints on the United States' use of power in pursuit of its security interests. Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth overturn conventional wisdom by showing that in a unipolar system, where the United States is dominant in the scales of world power, the constraints featured in international relations theory are generally inapplicable. In fact, the authors argue that the U.S. will not soon lose its leadership position; rather, it stands before a twenty-year window of opportunity for reshaping the international system.


Although American primacy in the world is unprecedented, analysts routinely stress the limited utility of such preeminence. The authors examine arguments from each of the main international relations theories--realism, institutionalism, constructivism, and liberalism. They also cover the four established external constraints on U.S. security policy--international institutions, economic interdependence, legitimacy, and balancing. The prevailing view is that these external constraints conspire to undermine the value of U.S. primacy, greatly restricting the range of security policies the country can pursue. Brooks and Wohlforth show that, in actuality, the international environment does not tightly constrain U.S. security policy. World Out of Balance underscores the need for an entirely new research agenda to better understand the contours of international politics and the United States' place in the world order.

Genres: International Relations, Nonfiction

248 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2008

Reviews

[Ali Nazifpour · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, this book is very well written and argued. The structure is completely organized and it is very easy to read and understand the arguments. The book does a great job of providing its arguments in summary and then delving into evidence, giving the reader a fair chance to examine its arguments. Although the book sets out to challenge the theories in IR, it also does a great job of presenting those views and does not unfairly malign them. The book’s major strong point is its reliance on empirical evidence, hard data, and sound arguments, elevating it far beyond a book which merely focuses on theoretical conjectures. The passage of years have also provided more evidence to the arguments of the book, showing that even when the U.S.’s reputation has suffered (for example because of Trump’s presidency), its position in the unipolar system is unchallenged.

If one has to find some faults with the book, I’d number only three: (1) the book only focuses on main currents in IR, completely ignoring some theoretical traditions such as critical theory, Marxism, etc (2) In the last two chapters, especially the ones considering legitimacy, the book relies far less on empirical data and overall it’s less convincing than its previous cases on realism and liberalism, because it doesn’t seem to completely exhaust these issues, and (3) While the book defines quite a lofty project for American foreign policy, it shows no way or reasons why this project might be successful, or why it might be desirable, and this comes more as afterthought than a real argument.

Overall, a fantastic and exemplary academic work, challenging many assumptions by correct methodology.