The patterns of alignment: 1954--1992

This dissertation tries to find out any generalized patterns of policy alignment between nations within dyad. For this purpose, I simply focus on the structural conditions---the relative power---constraining nations' choice of policy alignment with other nations. The argument that the change of relative power between nations within dyad drives the probability of conflict and war is logically synonymous with the argument that the change of relative power drives the level of policy alignment between them.; Two structural theories---Power Transition and Balance of Power theory---offer theoretical grounds for this study. Both theories agree that the change of relative power affects the change of policy alignment while they disagree about the amounts and direction of the change. Balance of Power theory argues policy alignment will shift greatly as parity approaches to re-establish balance but does not refer to the direction of alignment change. Power Transition theory argues they will remain stable particularly among satisfied allies and the level of alignment increases as the relative power decreases.; For the valid quasi-experiment, the old S-weighted score using alliance portfolio is replaced by newly created S-weighted score using both Event and alliance portfolio data. All dyads are sorted into three groups---allied dyads, non-allied dyads, and satisfied dyads---to check how the differences in attached value to the status quo affect the amounts of alignment change. The level of satisfaction is decided by dyads' level of attached value to the new status quo during the period of establishing new international order after global war or great events rearranging international order.; Empirical results show non-allied and satisfied dyads' level of alignment is negatively correlated with the relative power while allied dyads' level of alignment is positively correlated. Given Balance of Power theory does not refer to the direction of alignment change, the overall results can be said to support Power Transition's argument: A dyad's level of policy alignment increases as relative power within dyad decreases. Just as the parity condition is conducive to conflict and war, it is conducive to the policy disharmony, especially for non-allied and satisfied dyads. In terms of amounts of change, allied dyads show the biggest change of policy alignment due to more rooms for disharmony in adjusting policies than other dyads. The satisfied dyads show the least variance of policy alignment. The more attached value to the status quo during the period of establishing new international order, the less responsive to the change of relative power occurring thereafter. The non-allied dyads' amounts of change lie in somewhere between allied and satisfied dyads. Finally, ideology does not have significant effects on amounts and direction of alignment change since it is already reflected in the level of satisfaction.; In policy aspect, this dissertation stresses the importance of making neutrals and/or foes satisfied nations. The formally allied dyad without shared value is much inferior to the satisfied dyad without formal alliance in terms of potentials of conflict. As those findings imply, the new hegemon or dominant nation should not miss the chance of making potential opponents satisfied nations when enjoying preponderance than ever. The decreasing gap of relative power thereafter incurs more costs such as unnecessary concession or even war in order to maintain the previous level of policy alignment.