War and Change in World Politics

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).

国際関係論においていわゆるリアリズムに属するとされるGilpinの代表作の一つです。 Waltzと並んで「ネオリアリズム」の代表格とされることもありますが、実際に読んで見ると、むしろWaltzとの違いを意識して読み比べるのがいいのではないかと思われます。その意味では、いわゆる覇権安定論との関係ばかりではなく、「伝統的リアリズム」との関係について、Waltzのそれに対する関係との比較で考えるながら読むというのも、一つの読み方かもしれません。 Gilpinの当時のもう一つの代表作であるThe Political Economy of International Relationsに比べて、（翻訳は出ていませんが）量的にも内容的にもとっつきやすいです。

国際関係の名著だが、 ミクロ経済学の概念がないと、 読解は難航するだろう。

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.

Outstanding

Gilpin is surprisingly easy to read and interpret, this book is a great size to carry around for school. Great seller and very great shipping!

I am reading the book for school. I am just not interested in the material.

nice product

Book was in good condition and it came quickly. It is boring but political science readings usually are.

This book is nicely written but it really beats to death a few basic ideas about structural change in international systems. (The main idea is that shifts in the distribution of power lead to changes in the international system.) The analysis is very abstract and is supported, for the most part, by examples semi-randomly drawn from world history. The upshot is a book that lacks a high level of rigor but is at least free of the regressions and faux-scientific modeling that blight contemporary IR literature. Bottom line: IR students should read this book, but I'm not sure whether anyone else would want to.

Good realism book. Preventive wars become less possible in contemporary world between great powers. However, proxy wars will become a mean for superpower to delay or reverse other powers' rising.

国際関係論においていわゆるリアリズムに属するとされるGilpinの代表作の一つです。 Waltzと並んで「ネオリアリズム」の代表格とされることもありますが、実際に読んで見ると、むしろWaltzとの違いを意識して読み比べるのがいいのではないかと思われます。その意味では、いわゆる覇権安定論との関係ばかりではなく、「伝統的リアリズム」との関係について、Waltzのそれに対する関係との比較で考えるながら読むというのも、一つの読み方かもしれません。 Gilpinの当時のもう一つの代表作であるThe Political Economy of International Relationsに比べて、（翻訳は出ていませんが）量的にも内容的にもとっつきやすいです。

国際関係の名著だが、 ミクロ経済学の概念がないと、 読解は難航するだろう。