Fateful Transitions. Daniel M. Kliman
and security studies. Without explicitly using the term, Randall Schweller notes the potential for strong states to “mix concessions with credible threats, to use sticks as well as carrots” when confronting a rising power.16 Rock similarly points to the possibility of “combining appeasement with deterrent threats in a mixed influence strategy.”17 Unsurprisingly, work on China’s ascendance features the most detailed definitions of hedging. Assessing relations between Washington and Beijing, Evan Medeiros defines hedging as “policies that, on one hand, stress engagement and integration mechanisms and, on the other, emphasize realist-style balancing.”18
Each of these scholars, though capturing aspects of hedging, falls short of an operational definition. When classified as a mixed strategy that harnesses threats and concessions, hedging blurs into coercive bargaining. The definition that Medeiros offers, on the other hand, combines two distinct approaches to a new power’s rise: hedging as well as integration. Resources and actions provide a more precise framework. Hedging is a strategy that demands considerable diplomatic attention and financial investment from democratic leaders. Its execution involves policies designed to establish diplomatic or military leverage against the rising state, such as the redeployment of existing military assets, the development of new military capabilities, and the pursuit of alliances.19
Containment
The term “containment” originated in 1947 with George Kennan’s efforts to devise a U.S. approach toward the Soviet Union.20 It initially meant checking Soviet expansion on the Eurasian landmass, and has since become synonymous with America’s strategy throughout the Cold War. Yet containment, as a strategy available to democratic leaders, existed long before the dawn of U.S.-Soviet rivalry. Its execution has always carried a steep cost, in time, in treasure, and potentially, in the lives of a nation’s citizens. Containment goes well beyond hedging; it is a strategy of arresting another power’s rise by imposing economic sanctions, using military capabilities and alliances to deter aggression, and if necessary, taking military action to roll back territorial conquest.
Regime Type and Power Transitions
During power transitions, democratic leaders should, in theory, always prefer integration over other approaches. Integration demands modest resources while holding out the hope of modifying behavior and reshaping interests. No other strategy for navigating a new power’s rise offers such a favorable tradeoff of resources to outcomes. Although less costly, appeasement cannot create enduring incentives for responsible international conduct. Nor can appeasement promote a convergence of interests where the rising state gradually takes on the preferences of the democratic power. Hedging delivers none of the benefits associated with integration and demands substantial resources. Even if democratic leaders try to rely mostly on alliances—to hedge on the cheap—they can only attract and retain partners by fielding some military capabilities.21 For a democracy, containment should hold negative appeal. Imposing economic sanctions against a rising state means forgoing trade and investment opportunities and terminating existing commercial ties. Additionally, deterring territorial expansion requires an expensive peacetime military, while rolling back aggression carries a steep human cost.
Yet from the late nineteenth century to the present, democratic leaders have tried every strategy in their toolkit. They have paired integration with hedging, appeased, contained, and sometimes alternated among strategies during the course of a new power’s emergence. In a world of complexity, no single factor explains this variation, but one factor does stand out: the regime type of the rising power.
Democracy and Power Transitions
Democracy functions as a source of reassurance on multiple levels. In a democracy, authority is dispersed across a number of decision-makers, either through constitutionally enshrined checks and balances, or through deeply respected traditions of rule of law. Either way, a diverse array of domestic actors plays a role in foreign policymaking. At the same time, an essential element of democratic government is transparency. Transparency describes the visibility of a state’s policymaking process. Under democratic rule, a government’s daily proceedings largely occur in the open. Debates about policy take place in the public eye. And, because democracy places a premium on transparency, the press enjoys legal safeguards.22
The combination of decentralized authority and transparency prevents a democracy from concealing its true intentions. With numerous domestic actors privy to foreign policy deliberations, information inevitably leaks, making secrecy about strategic level decisions virtually impossible. Moreover, because transparency operates as a domestic norm, “any embassy can subscribe to the major newspapers that provide day-to-day investigative services on the policymaking activities” of a democratic government.23 Outsiders may fail to predict every perturbation in a democracy’s foreign policy, but they will have a clear understanding of its broader objectives.24
Beyond clarifying intentions, the institutions underpinning democracy also generate opportunities for access—the shaping of strategic behavior by cultivating, lobbying, and manipulating influential groups in another state.25 By opening up the foreign policymaking process to a large number of domestic actors, decentralized authority creates conditions conducive to access. The diffusion of power under democratic rule increases the likelihood that outsiders can locate sympathetic groups who have a hand in foreign policy. In addition, enlarging the circle of decision-making virtually guarantees that internal disagreements will surface, a development that outsiders can exploit, for example, by promoting deadlock to prevent an undesired policy shift.26
In a democracy, transparency works in tandem with decentralized authority to create access opportunities. Publicly available information enables outsiders to locate sympathetic domestic groups to cultivate. Also, the activities of a free press lay bare foreign policy disagreements that would otherwise go unnoticed. Transparency thus allows outsiders to become intimately familiar with the contours of another country’s internal debates, a prerequisite for access. Last but not least, transparency at home extends to dealings with foreigners. Because a democracy accepts considerable information flows, its citizens can more or less freely engage with the representatives of other states. This high degree of latitude is essential for outsiders to leverage points of access.
During a power transition, democratic government in the rising state reduces mistrust. Outsiders can draw upon diverse sources speaking to the emerging power’s intentions. They need not conflate ambitions with military forces deployed, a formula guaranteed to generate mistrust because any ascendant state will eventually translate some of its newfound wealth into military power.27 Information about intentions is one source of reassurance; the other is the existence of access opportunities. The ability to shape strategic behavior constitutes the ultimate safeguard against the disruptions accompanying a new power’s emergence. A rising democracy may harbor expansionist ambitions, but leaders in the other democratic power can partner with sympathetic domestic actors and leverage internal divisions to moderate its external objectives over time. Table 2 summarizes how democracy in an ascendant state can function as a source of reassurance.
Table 2: Democracy and Power Transitions
| Institutions | Implications |
| Decentralized authority | Clear intentions |
| Transparency | Many access opportunities |
Autocracy and Power Transitions
A state under autocratic rule lacks the reassurance mechanisms outlined above. Autocracy centralizes power, confining foreign policy decisions to an elite few, or even to a single individual. In addition, to maintain control over the population, an autocracy limits the flow of information.28 Secrecy is pervasive. The government walls off its daily proceedings from public view: policy debates unfold behind closed doors. The need for information control renders a free press intolerable to an autocracy. Whatever media exist operate under state supervision and without meaningful legal protection.