Political Science

    The argument that balancing is the dominant tendency in international relations has found application in many different organs for different states in the international set up. Offensive realism observes nations and states as the core actors in international relations. However, the realism of offense amounts to several additional assumptions to the structure of organizational realism. The assumptions made here are that the international systems is a system of anarchy all states are fair and rational all nations and states have survival in a similar way to their primary goals all states have a bit of offensive capability in military and that states can never be sure of the plans and intentions of other nations (Clark, 2009). This essay seeks to compare and contrast the states of balancing to the bandwagoning effect in the international relations that exists in the states of the world.

    In internationalglobal relations, the defensive realism is an alternative of realism. In a similar way to realism, defense realism views the states as coherent players who in this case are the core actors in the international affairs. Defense realism expects that the anarchy at the international stage makes nations and states be obsessed with matters of security. This amounts to dilemmas in security where a states desire to increase its security measures can end up in a greater unsteadiness as the opponents of the state respond to the consequences of reduced security measures (Graham, 1989).

Balancing or Bandwagoning in International Relations
The offense-defensive explanation theory affirms that there is a natural balance experienced in technology or way of teaching that favors those attacking or those that are defending in the battle field. For its theoretical usefulness, this inherent balance must be applicable as well as measurable. The theory describes the First World War as a condition where all the sides were of the opinion that the balance of power was to the advantage of the offense, but were misguided. The balance of power in international relations is a central concept in the theory of realist (Clark, 2009). In the system of power balance, a nation may opt to engage in either bandwagon act or balancing behavior. In the period of war, the decision to bandwagon or balance may as well be a determinant of the chances of a nation or state survival.

A principle of equilibrium
    A steadiness of power occurs when there is stability that exists between the forces that are competing. This is a phrase used in the international law for equitable fair equilibrium between the affiliate members of the international body of states.  It expresses the policy purposed to deter any single state from being adequately strong so as to make possible for it to enforce its interests on the other states. The principle of balance denies the habit of allowing or giving great power to any person (Graham, 1989). This makes it easy for other people to dispute with them on equivalent terms as far as the rights of other people are concerned.

    The bandwagon effect states that if something has been good enough for many people of the same age, then it is expected to be the same for all in that bracket. In this scenario, a nation will either survive or be defeated. The balance of power that exists among nations at the international level needs to be maintained. It keeps many nations in a safe, secure and stable position. Equilibrium should exist between the given powers of the various members in the international body of relations. The bandwagon effect only exhibits the anarchical system and may not find application in many set ups. In the absence of any federal power, the probable sanction following the code of the set rules in the international law will not be able to hold each other in check (Clark, 2009).

Actions of Hegemon
    The USA was not able to sustain an effective economic competition against the block of Soviet during the times of cold war. This was made impossible despite the USAs strong aspiration to do so. It was easy for the UK to block the adequate measures desired by the US and the fact that the United States of America was not in a position to make provision for the goods on its own (Gilpin  Jean, 1987). Creating a diversified world economy needs the opening up of markets, the flow of money and capital in the economy and credit provision in times of crisis. Moreover, the management of rates of exchange and the degree of domestic fiscal policy coordination are also required for this diversification. However, some scholars put their emphasis on open system of trading entirely.

    Others believe that the world economic order that is open and liberal also needs the provision of strong rates of exchange or an economic regime (Gilpin  Jean, 1987). While several of these wants including international liquidity can greatly be offered by the hegemon acting all alone, other necessities need action done by other states for instance, the coordination of the fiscal policy. A hegemon has the capability of shaping the important rules that govern the international relations. Hegemony implies the ability to provide regimes of cooperation internationally with matters of international financial policy, trade as well as oil.

    In some cases, hegemony acting all alone can make supplies of significant quantities of the global public good (Clark, 2009). For example, in matters concerning climatic change, no matter how much the US could act solely and the fact that it has the largest emissions, very little achievement would be attained. Therefore, the failure of the leadership of hegemon cannot be grounded on the absence of its will but should refer to the interests of other states.

    In this case, the powerful countries in the international relations may be in a position to pick up the burden cost. However, they may also be in a position to coerce or bribe other states into making contribution. Therefore, the powerful countries or states will be seen to benefit in such a scenario. The hegemons will not only try to get organizations that suits them well but also will extract assistance from the rest offering coercive  leadership (Gilpin  Jean, 1987). The coercive leadership will be of combined benefit on the grounds of offering incentives for other countries to contribute in providing public good or be exploitative.     The need to depend on other states contribution gives an indication that the downfall of hegemonic leadership might also be depended on the ability of the larger states putting into considerations the contenders for the hegemon role, to block the attempts to make use of power that leads to the collective action of all.

Can US retain its primacy
    The national security strategy of the USA in the year 2006 indicates that the US must retain its primacy. Zakaria (2008) argues that the international community is currently experiencing the Rise of the Rest.  The global economy and climate politically is really shifting with the so called Rise of the Rest (Zakaria, 2008). There are developing nations that are emerging very fast in the international body. Countries like China and India are posing a great challenge to the United States. The US though having all along been a dominant player internationally is now subjected to competition in the international field that is equalizing as time goes by. The change that is seen here is motivated by the technology in information. It has become stylish enough in the recent past to term the United States hegemony as the describing feature of the international order coming after the Cold war (Clark, 2009). These claims hardly ever rest on anything much other than the consideration of the primacy of the United States of America.

    The system is now losing its popularity. The US has been enjoying an extraordinary predominance of material resources in its environs. There is a likelihood that the US will lose the will or the nerve to maintain this role that has existed for quite some time now. The US has been found to decline in the presence of the rest of the rest (Clark, 2009).  The furthest corners of the universe have been connected through networks of information. Information Technology (IT) has made it possible for employees to compete all over and the universal society where culture, ideas and trends have gone beyond borders (Zakaria, 2008).

    The confrontations that the United States of America has come across as it challenges the new global economy have been listed before as the globalization impact which has much influence on the competitive nature being experienced. This scenario is not that one of desperation for America it is only a chance for changing the opportunities present in the international relations (Zakaria, 2008). However, the rise of the rest is not centered on the fall of America. The point here is that no particular country has hegemony economically. This has seen many states come up in support of this trend of the rise of the rest.

    In fact, the US no longer has domination in the global landscape of economy. At the same time, the USA has no direct competition from other states and nations of the world as the power of its economy is found in several levels of the chain of supply. The sector of innovation of the economy of the United States has worked very hard to ensure that the economy in the US remains at the top of the rest in the entire world (Zakaria, 2008). Therefore through these efforts of innovation, the United States is found not to be losing its primacy. What has actually happened is the fact that many states and nations are in the process of attaining economic power. It is believed that the US has the most stable economy, the best education system, the leader in emerging technologies and usage of lean energy and thereby will retain its primacy.