Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War

Abstract

Most scholars hold that the consequences of unipolarity for great power conflict are indeterminate and that a power shift resulting in a return to bipolarity or multipolarity will not raise the specter of great power war. This article calls into question the core assumptions underlying the consensus: (1) that people are mainly motivated by the instrumental pursuit of tangible ends such as physical security and material prosperity and (2) that major powers' satisfaction with the status quo is relatively independent of the distribution of capabilities. in fact, it is known that people are motivated powerfully by a noninstrumental concern for relative status, and there is strong empirical evidence linking the salience of those concerns to distributions of resources. If the status of states depends in some measure on their relative capabilities and if states derive utility from status, then different distributions of capabilities may affect levels of satisfaction, just as different income distributions may affect levels of status competition in domestic settings. Building on research in psychology and sociology, the author argues that even capabilities distributions among major powers foster ambiguous status hierarchies, which generate more dissatisfaction and clashes over the status quo. and the more stratified the distribution of capabilities, the less likely such status competition is. Unipolarity thus augurs for great power peace, and a shift back to bipolarity or multipolarity raises the probability of war even among great powers with little material cause to fight.

Social Intelligence and the Explanation of Workplace Abuse

“…People have a basic sensitivity to their relative standing in a group, which is a powerful motivator of their behavior (Wohlforth, 2009). When individuals lose friends and experience lowered status, the stress the zero-empathy employee wants to create is achieved.…”

UNASUR, Brazil, and the South American defence cooperation: A decade later

“…However, Wilkins (2012) points out that since the end of the Cold War, new security alignments in peaceful times have differed from the traditional alliance patterns suggested by realism. Wohlforth (1999;2009) and Diniz (2006) also hold that unipolar systems favor multilateral relationships.…”

Argentina con China: el riesgo de la bonanza

“…Por un lado, se sostuvo que desde la caída del muro de Berlín, en 1989, hubo unipolaridad, gracias a la cual el mundo disfrutó de estabilidad y paz, pues según este enfoque, de lo contrario las guerras hubiesen sido una constante (Wohlforth, 2009;Krauthammer, 1990). Igualmente, se señaló que en el siglo XXI el citado modelo de poder no fue del todo consistente porque Estados Unidos perdió primacía económica y financiera (Layne, 2012).…”