Customer Reviews

War and Change in World Politics

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For many years I have relied on War & Change in World Politics as a structural guide to examining international relations. Gilpin's classic work provides, both clear historical and theoretical support to augument his argument. His thoughts reside firmly in the realist tradition, but adds to the richness of that paradigm through focusing on transition. Gilpin correctly argued that,"Throughout history a principal objective of states has been the conquest of territory in order to advance economic, security, and other interests. Whether by means of imperialist subjugation of one people by another or by annexation of contiguous territory, states in all ages have sought to enlarge their control over territory and, by implication, their control over the international system. For this reason, a theory of international political change must of necessity also be a theory of imperialism and political integration.(23) The firm goal of Gilpin is to creat a theory of the transition of power relations. I believe that he has provided the initial steps through his courageous attempt to provide framework developing a theory of change. I first read War & Change while residing in Western and Central Europe, from 1989 to 1999. I was at the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, The Gulf War, and witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany. Gilpin's book provided structure to my studies and my personal search for understanding of the dynamics of these profound changes in societies. I evaluated theories of economism, based on American capitalism versus European and Japanese socialism and the belief in a new tri-polar order and found them theoretically broken down in War & Change. Gilpin argued that,"Although multipolar systems can become tripolar, the more usual occurrence is for bipolar systems to become tripolar, and as Waltz correctly observed, tripolar systems tend to be the most unstable os all....Thus the emergence of a powerful China, Japan, or united Europe would undoubtedly prove to be a destabilizing factor in contemporary world politics."(91) The explosion of the Internet changed for many the equation of power. However, the technological catch up tactics of Japan in the 1980s had many Americans worrying that it's comparative advantage was being lost. The Internet will decrease the curve and the trajectory of technological catchup policies. Take a read of pages 173-178 to fully appreciate Gilpin's analysis of pre-Internet military and technological trends. The ideas of democracy as the only legitimste form of government were dismayed by my real life experiences and I found support and faults in my analysis of this situation in Gilpin's work. In closing, I believe that Gilpin needed to concentrate his argument more on a particular structure of change. However, because of the wide range of issues that increase the factors of change and the trajectories of states an explanation of change that requires this drift was almost a necessity. For any student of international relations or history War & Change in World Politics is rich in references and advice for structuring an analysis. My belief is that this is a fundamental book in understanding the changes occurring now and that will be in the future.

Although somewhat dated, "War and Change" is one of the great books in International Relations Theory. Robert Gilpin puts forth the theory that would inspire Paul Kennedy to write his "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" years later. Gilpin's theory is basically this: powerful states in the international system tend to spend a lot to maintain its militar proeminance. But while it is wasting a lot of money to enforce the "rules" of the system, revisionist powers can compete with less costs. When there is a "de facto" balance between these powers, there's an hegemonic war that settles it straight. And then, there is a new cycle. "War and Change" is really worth reading and it shows a different position in the "neorealist" debate inaugurated by Kenneth Waltz in his "Theory of International Politics". A final advice: just read it if you're a bit aquainted with IR theory, or else it'll be pretty boring.

I had to read this book for class. The sections on the decline of empire/hegemony are essential to understanding why the United States is doomed to fail. The author explains that the cost of maintaining empire eventually bankrupt the empire and a new hegemony replaces the old one. Although this can be done peacefully (collapse of USSR), the historical norm is total war between the hegemony/empire and the new challengers.

The chances of U.S. citizens electing somebody like Ron Paul who will drastically scale back overseas forces and end preemtive wars is not good. More likely than not status quo politicians like Bush, Obama, Romney, etc will get elected and continue to maintain America's 900 military bases in 130 countries; start new wars and expand old ones; spend vast sums of money on expensive military research and projects. According to Gilpin's chapter on empire decline, this means that the U.S. will eventually bankrupt itself and there will be a change in the international system. Hopefully the change will be peaceful (U.S. voluntarily bringing forces home as Ron Paul advocates), and not violent (U.S. goes to war with China, Russia or another rising power that threatens U.S. hegemony).

This classic book from the early 1980's was written by Robert Gilpin from the Realist school of international relations. Seeing nation states as actors trying to maximize their own power, the realist school looked at nation states as the rough equivalent of rational actors in a theoretical economic paradigm.

At a theoretical level, this book is helpful for understanding inter-relationships between nation states and how changes which disrupt the balance of power between nation-states can create the potential for conflict and outright war. Written during the cold war, when nation-states were the primary actors in world affairs, it doesn't address the non-state actors and their role in international affairs and how they complicate what interests a nation-state seeks to maximize.

Gilpin puts a great deal of emphasis on the role nation-states play in gaining and maintaining hegemony over other nation-states. Gilpin provides the classical balance of power analysis of the cold-war years and codifies the paradigm in a well ordered fashion.

There has been alot of water under the bridge in foreign relations since Gilpin produced this monumental book. Despite it's limitations, much of his analysis is useful today.

Nice work. I used some of its insights in my own _Iraq 2003: Causes and Consequences of an Imperial Expedition_ (Editions Tour Blanche, 2007), and my _A History of the British Conquest of Afghanistan and Western India, 1838-49_ (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2009).

Gilpin has interesting theories, and has some good points about international relations, but is very dry and hard to read. Obviously written during the Cold War, but still has applicable theories. Great for Poli Sci and Int'l poli sci hobbyists.

Robert Gilpin's work is the best-known and most influential within the Hegemonic Realist paradigm. Hegemonic Realism is a school of thought which views International Relations as organized hierarchically, with each state vying for the top position in order to gain the benefits of being the number one state. In Gilpins' words "Throughout history a principal objective of states has been the conquest of territory in order to advance economic, security, and other interests". War occurs when a rising state challenges the current hegemon, and seeks to overtake the priviliged postion. On the other hand, when one state is firmly in control, they institute a stable economic system which tends to keep the peace. There are serious problems with Hegemonic Realist theory, however, as well as Gilpin's own version of it. The first is the deductive logic behind the theory. Surely Gilpin is correct when he asserts that states have always sought conquest and territorial expansion. However, he is wrong about the motive. States seek security above all. Economic interests are not a main motive. Wars generally cost more than they could possibly gain in monetary terms. Major wars are especially costly, and no state would seek a major war with huge losses in order to gain a top position. Rather, states start wars to protect themselves from potential destruction. There are also major empirical problems with this theory, in that there really hasn't been a case of a rising power starting a war with the current hegemon. Part of this is due to the fact that Hegemonic theory only looks at the two strongest states, factoring out all the other Great Powers. But in a Multipolar system, the other states matter as well. Hegemonic Realism, for all its flaws, has made one major contribution to scholarship: The concept of state power as changing rather than fixed, as well as the concept of future expectations of power trends. This concept has been incorporated by Dale Copeland in "The Origins of Major War." Other than that however, Gilpin and his colleagues have little to offer.