Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polarity: The Emergence and Development of a Concept

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory

  • 2110 Accesses

Abstract

The emergence and development of polarity as a concept in IR theory results from changes in international relations after World War II. Bipolarity described the rise of two superpowers leading two opposite ideological, economic and military alliances or blocs. Neorealist argued that only the presence of two great powers was a structural element. This is called power polarity (power bipolarity). The bipolarization of the system into two clusters (cluster bipolarity) was not considered structural. Moreover, analysts often use different definitions of power polarity, some making a distinction between polar powers (superpowers), who define the polarity configuration and ordinary great powers (often the members of the Security Council) who do not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Oxford Dictionary of English. (2010). Oxford: Oxford University Press (online version).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, R. (1962). Paix et Guerre entre les Nations (3ime ed.). Paris: Calmann-Lévy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1975). Measuring systemic polarity. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19, 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1978). Systemic polarization and the occurrence and duration of war. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 241–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1981). Risk, power distributions and likelihood of war. International Studies Quarterly, 25, 541–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H. (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Originally published in 1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H., & Watson, A. (Eds.) (1984). The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B. (2004a). The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and Power: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. (1989). The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Correlates of War Project. (2008). State System Membership List: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://correlatesofwar.org

  • Deutsch, K., & Singer, J. D. (1964). Multipolar power systems and international stability. World Politics, 16(3), 390–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, W. T. R. (1944). The Super-Powers: The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union: Their Responsibility for Peace. Harcourt: Brace and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, Mark. L. (2005). The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics 1789–1989. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, Michael. (1970). International subsystems: Stability and polarity. American Political Science Review, 64(1), 98–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R. N. (2008). The age of nonpolarity. Foreign Affairs, 87(3), 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoag, M. W. (1969). Superpower Strategic Postures for a Multipolar World. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. (1991). Polarity, the offense defense balance, and war. American Political Science Review, 85(2), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G. J., Mastanduno, M., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2009). Introduction: Unipolarity, state behavior, and systemic consequences. World Politics, 61(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, W. D. (1978). Polarity in international systems: A conceptual note. International Interactions, 4(1), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (2009). Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics, 61(1), 188–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. A. (2005). System and Process in International Politics. (Originally published in 1957). Essex: ECPR, Reprint.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kegley, C. W., & Raymond, G. (1994). A Multipolar Peace? Great Power Politics in the 21st Century. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, G., Pfaltzgraff, R. L., & Ra’anan, U. (Eds.) (1974). The Superpowers in a Multinuclear World. Revised and Updated Papers from a Conference Sponsored by the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Held May 3–5, 1973, Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1945). World Politics Faces Economics: With Special Reference to the Future Relations of the United States and Russia. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The prospect of cooperation in a bipolar world. The University of Chicago Law Review, 15(4), 877–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (1993). The unipolar illusion: Why new great powers will rise? International Security, 17(4), 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (2009). The waning of U.S. hegemony, myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C., Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2012). US decline or primacy? A debate. In M. Cox & D. Stokes (Eds.), U.S. Foreign Policy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (1983). War in the Modern Great Power System 1495–1975. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (1984). Size and stability in the modern great power system. International Interactions, 10(3–4), 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. S. (1985). The polarity of the system and international stability: An empirical analysis. In A. N. Sabrosky (Ed.), The Changing Structure of International Conflict (pp. 41–66). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. (2007). The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D. (1993). Concentration, polarity, and the distribution of power. International Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 105–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modelski, G. (1987). Long Cycles in World Politics. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Modelski, G., & Thompson, W. R. (1988). Seapower in Global Politics, 1494–1993. Seattle: University of Washington.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, N. P. (2014). Theory of Unipolar Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Kindle edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau, H. J. (1960). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (3rd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moul, W. B. (1989). Measuring the ‘balances of power’: A look at some numbers. Review of International Studies, 15(2), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moul, W. B. (1993). Polarization, polynomials and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4), 735–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayar, B. R., & Paul, T. V. (2003). India in the World Order: Searching for Major-Power Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nogee, J. (1974). Polarity: An ambiguous concept. Orbis, 18, 1193–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J. S. (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1981). The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pape, R. A. (22-01-2009). Empire falls. National Interest. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/article/empire-falls-2952

  • Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft balancing in the age of U.S. primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V., Larson, D. W., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.) (2014). Status in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrov, V. (1971). Soviet Perception of the Sino-Soviet Conflict and the Emerging Multipolar World. Stanford: Stanford Research Institute, Strategic Studies Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapkin, D. P., Thompson, W. R., & Christopherson, J. A. (1979). Bipolarity and bipolarization in the Cold War era: Conceptualization, measurement, and validation. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(2), 261–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, J. L. (1993). The measurement of system structure. In J. D. Singer & P. F. Diehl (Eds.), Measuring the Correlates of War (pp. 99–114). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, G., & Kegley, C. W. (1990). Polarity, polarization and the transformation of alliance norms. The Western Political Quarterly, 43(1), 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosecrance, R. N. (1963). Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B. (1985). The mysterious case of vanishing hegemony. Or, is Mark Twain really dead? International Organization, 39(2), 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, B. C. (2005). Competing realist conceptions of power. Millennium, 33(3), 523–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, F. L. (1948). International Politics: The Destiny of the Western State System. New York: McGraw-Hill Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R. L. (1993). Tripolarity and the Second World War. International Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 73–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. (2013). Multipolarity, multilateralism and beyond…? EU-China understandings of the international system. International Relations, 27(1), 30–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. (2004). Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tammen, R. L., Kugler, J., Lemke, D., Stamm, A. C., Abdollahian, M., Alsharabia, C., et al. (2000). Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century. London/New York: Chatman House Publishers/Seven Bridges Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. R. (1986). Polarity, the long cycle, and global power warfare. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(4), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volgy, T. J., Corbetta, R., Grant, K. A., & Baird, R. G. (Eds.) (2011). Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics: Global and Regional Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. H. (1993). What was bipolarity? International Organization, 47(1), 77–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, M. D. (1973). Alliance polarization, cross-cutting, and international war, 1815–1964. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, 575–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1964). The stability of a bipolar world. Daedalus, 93(3), 881–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics. International Security, 18(2), 44–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, F. W. (1984). Bipolarity and war: The role of capability concentration and alliance patterns among major powers, 1816–1965. Journal of Peace Research, 21(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, F. W., & Morgan, T. C. (1993). Measuring polarity in the international system. In J. D. Singer & P. F. Diehl (Eds.), Measuring the Correlates of War (pp. 99–114). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock, K. A. (1978). The Role of Japan in a Multipolar World: The Economic and Security Aspects. Hattiesburg: University of Southern Mississippi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wight, M. (1986). Power Politics (H. Bull, & C. Holbraad, Eds., 2nd ed.). London/Harmondsworth: Royal Institute of International Affairs/Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security, 24(1), 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W. C. (2002). U.S. strategy in a unipolar world? In G. J. Ikenberry (Ed.), America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power (pp. 98–118). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, W. C. (2009). Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics, 61(1), 28–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Goedele De Keersmaeker

Authors
  1. Goedele De Keersmaeker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Keersmaeker, G. (2017). Polarity: The Emergence and Development of a Concept. In: Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42652-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation