Question

Systemic approaches are often criticized for failing to explain why individual units, such as states, would behave in the manner that they expect. Consider a balance-of-power system. Imagine one state is increasing in power. Balance of power expects other states to constrain this rising power. What incentives would other states have to do so? Why might self-interested states fail to act against a rising power? What national interests may motivate a state to not take action? How does the issues of hard, soft and smart power come into play? Does subjective credibility and objective reality play a role? Can you identify a case currently in the international arena where this might be applied?

Answer 1

Other states are incentivised to limit other states as the state becomes more powerful and so does thr political party ruling it which tends to dominate other states and ask higher pie of state budget allocation from federal government.

However self interest states might fail as the ruling party lacks majority in both houses of Parliament.

National interest like rising GDP and lower inflation in ecahvstate may motivate some states to refrain from taking action against other states.

Hard power through Federal government support and soft piwer through people support may help parties gain popularity and regain lost States and subsequently dominate region entirely.

Subjective credibility like motto and manifesto of political parties and objectives reality like past achievements influence states and the individuals.

Like in India, Biggest of states are ruled by central government party due to domination, majority in both houses, political funding, strong manifesto and governance standards and publics trust.

PLEASE UPVOTE INCASE YOU LIKED THE ANSWER WILL BE ENCOURAGING FOR US THANKYOU VERY MUCH.