Deutsch and Singer: Multiple Power Systems and International Stability

Deutsch, K. & Singer, J., 1964. Multiple Power Systems and International Stability. World Politics, 16(3), 390-406.

“In the classical literature of diplomatic history, the balance-of-power concept occupies a central position.” (390) This article explores the IV of the number of independent actors in a system against the DV of system stability.

“Stability may, of course, be considered from the vantage point of both the total system and the individual states comprising it. From the broader, or systemic, point of view, we shall define stability as the probability that the system retains all of its essential characteristics; that no single nation becomes dominant; that most of its members continue to survive; and that large-scale war does not occur. And from the more limited perspective of the individual nations, stability would refer to the probability of their continued political independence and territorial integrity without any significant probability of becoming engaged in a ‘war for survival.” (390-1)

There is a comparison between probabilistic concepts of stability and classical notions of stability, specifically that of Richardson. “Richardson’s stability referred simply to any set of conditions under which the system would return to its equilibrium state” (391). Kaplan’s definition of equilibrium is slightly different. In Richardson’s formulation, systems can be stable even if there is transition, like, for example, the increase of armament spending as a percentage of GDP as long as it’s consistent across countries. Kaplan is interested in being consistent with the variable that is the focus of the study.

The authors explore the amount of interactions that can possibly take place between different countries as the amount of poles increase in the international system. This obviously takes the form of an exponential growth curve.

Next, they explore the “Share of Attention” that can be offered by countries that is, “available for conflict” (396).

“Thus, if some minimum percentage of a nation’s external attention is required for that nation to engage in behavior tending toward armed conflict, and the increase in number of independent t actors diminishes that share that any nation can allocate to any other single actor, such an increase is likely to have a stabilizing effect upon the system” (400).

“In the long run, according to this model, even multi-polar systems operating under the rules of balance-of-power policies are shown to be self-destroying, but both in the short and the long run the instability of tight bipolar systems appears to be substantially greater. It seems plausible that, if the spread of nuclear weapons could be slowed down or controlled, a transition from the bipolar international system of the early 1950’s to an increasingly multipolar system in the 1960’s might by mankind some valuable time to seek some more dependable bases for world order” (406).