If Not Soft Balancing, Then What? Reconsidering Soft Balancing and U.S. Policy Toward China

Abstract Some scholars argue that soft balancing is a typical state behavior against the hegemon under unipolarity. Others contend that soft balancing against the hegemon is ineffective. We challenge both arguments and suggest that soft balancing is not only a product of specific configurations of the power distribution in the system, unipolarity, but also a rational behavior under another condition, economic dependence. We argue that the interplay between power disparity and economic dependence shapes a state's decision in choosing different balancing strategies. The higher the power disparity and economic dependence, the more likely a state chooses soft balancing to pursue its security. Using U.S. policy toward China after the Cold War as a crucial test, we suggest that the huge power gap and increasing economic interdependence between the United States and China shape U.S. soft balancing rather than hard balancing toward China. We conclude that future U.S.-China relations depend on whether the United States declines as a result of China's rise and on the degree of economic interdependence between the two countries. Kai He is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Spelman College. His research interests include Asian political economy and security and neoclassical realism. He has published articles in Asian Security and International Relations of the Asia Pacific. Huiyun Feng is an Assistant professor of Political Science at Utah State University. Her research interests include political psychology, conflict resolution, and foreign policy analysis. She is the author of Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Routledge, 2007) and a previous article in Security Studies. This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 102nd American Political Science Association Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, August 31-September 3, 2006. The authors owe special thanks to Stephen Walker, Sheldon Simon, Colin Elman, Miriam Elman, Dale Copeland, Galia Press-Barnathan, and the editors and anonymous reviewers at Security Studies for their valuable suggestions and assistance.