Evaluating Grand Strategy

Session Submission Type: In-Person Full Paper Panel

Session Description

Scholarship in grand strategy is currently defined by big arguments with labels such as “Restraint,” “Offshore Balancing,” “Deep Engagement,” etc. While this is useful for setting the terms of the debate, there is less focus on testing the causal claims embedded within arguments for different grand strategies. Conducting such examinations are important because each grand strategy rests on a number of middle-range theories about how specific phenomena in international politics operates. To move scholarship on grand strategy forward, this panel brings together papers that evaluate the middle-range theories on which different grand strategies are based. The common theme among these papers is that evaluating underlying causal claims in the grand strategy leads to greater clarity in the debate and more effective policy recommendations.

The first paper by Tyler Bowen assesses the grand strategic options for the United States by focusing on the implications of nuclear weapons for the benefit of conventional military power. It argues that despite the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, there is a bargaining advantage to having conventional options for escalation. This means that forward-deployed troops can contribute to U.S. security in cases where the costs of maintaining them does not put too high of a burden on the domestic economy. The second paper by Carla Norrlof examines the specific question of whether there is a linkage between U.S. military power and financial primacy. This paper posits that U.S. military primacy provides the security foundation necessary for dollar hegemony and that this dollar hegemony is beneficial to the United States.

The third paper by Hillary Briffa and Brad Potter argues that constructing grand strategy by focusing on middle-range theories is better than doing so by starting with a grand theory. This is because grand theories can lead to blind spots that cause scholars to focus away from certain challenges that affect policymakers. Using middle-range theories as a theoretical foundation can lead to more tailored, flexible grand strategies that are more relevant to policymakers. The fourth paper by William Wohlforth, Stephen Brooks, and Benjamin Valentino argues that the main grand strategic options of restraint, offshore balancing, and deep engagement are all based on middle-range theories about balancing behavior, the effects of nuclear weapons, and interdependence. Restraint and deep engagement have the most coherent theoretical foundations, leaving the United States without a “Goldilocks” grand strategic option. Examining the causal claims of restraint and deep engagement leads to the conclusion that the benefits of engagement outweigh its costs. However, the costs of a great power war, should one occur, would swamp the purported benefits of any grand strategy.

These papers push the grand strategy debate forward by focusing on the middle-range theories on which grand strategic options are based. This focus allows them to bring greater clarity to the debate, evaluate the merit of different strategic choices, and provide concrete recommendations to policymakers. Below is a summary of the authors who will present in this panel and their affiliations along with the chair and discussant:
Author(s) of paper 1: Tyler Bowen, MIT
Author(s) of paper 2: Carla Norrlof, University of Toronto
Author(s) of paper 3: Hillary Briffa, King’s College London, and Brad Potter, Johns Hopkins University
Author(s) of paper 4: William Wohlforth, Stephen Brooks, and Benjamin Valentino, Dartmouth College
Chair and Discussant: Charles Glaser, George Washington University

Sub Unit

• Division 19: International Security 

Individual Presentations

• The Benefit of Forward-Deployed Conventional Forces and U.S. Grand Strategy - Tyler Bowen, Johns Hopkins SAIS

• The Links Between Security Provision and Reserve Currency Status - Carla Norrlof, University of Toronto

• Blind Spots: Grand Strategy, Grand Theory, and Middle-Range Alternatives - Hillary Victoria Briffa, King's College London; A. Bradley Potter, Johns Hopkins University, SAIS

Chair

• William C. Wohlforth Dartmouth College

Discussant

• Charles L. Glaser George Washington University