Realism: Relative Vs Absolute Gains In Chinese Growth

4 Realism: relative Vs Absolute Gainsus Growth Chinese Growth

Realisms in international relations often emphasize the zero-sum nature of power and resource distribution among states, framing global interactions within the context of relative gains. This perspective contends that the state system is a competitive arena where the gains of one actor come at the expense of others, particularly in military and economic domains. At the heart of realism is the notion that states are rational, unitary actors primarily concerned with security and power, leading to system protection, neocolonialism, and a focus on relative advantage rather than absolute improvement. Consequently, measures like GDP growth are often seen through a comparative lens, assessing whether one nation’s increase in capacity diminishes or enhances another’s strategic position (Morgenthau, 1948). This mindset sustains a competitive, often confrontational, international environment that discourages cooperation unless mutually beneficial—yet even then, the focus remains on relative gains.

In contrast, debates around absolute versus relative gains have become central in understanding economic growth and development trends, particularly in the context of U.S. and Chinese economic trajectories. Absolute gains refer to overall increases in wealth, productivity, and well-being, regardless of other nations’ progress. For example, U.S. economic growth of 5% might be viewed positively, highlighting improvements in living standards or technological innovation. Conversely, relative gains compare the growth of two or more nations: if China’s economy grows at a faster rate than the U.S., China gains relative power even if the U.S. also experiences growth. Such differential growth underscores systemic competition, especially in hegemonic stability contexts, where potential shifts in dominance impact global stability (Krasner, 1978).

The Chinese economy has experienced rapid expansion in recent decades, with annual growth rates often surpassing those of the U.S., which raises questions about the relative decline of American dominance. Critics argue that the rise of the BRICS countries, especially China, signifies a decline in U.S. hegemony, leading to a fundamental shift from unipolarity to multipolarity (Kapstein, 2006). This shift aligns with realist views that systemic power is redistributed among peer competitors, affecting global governance structures and strategic stability. However, proponents of liberal internationalism argue that absolute gains—such as technological advancement, infrastructure development, and increased living standards—should take precedence, emphasizing that economic growth benefits all parties and promotes stability through interdependence (Ikenberry, 2011). Despite this, the tension persists: is the goal to maximize absolute wealth, or to maintain relative dominance?

There are notable manifestations of this debate in U.S.-China relations. The U.S. perceives China’s rapid growth as a challenge to its preeminent position, with concerns about relative gains prompting strategic countermeasures—tariffs, technology restrictions, and military patrols—to protect its core interests (Friedberg, 2011). China, on the other hand, views its development through an absolute lens, seeking to improve its economic and social conditions without necessarily undermining U.S. interests, though its policies often align with increasing relative power. This dynamic exemplifies the realist emphasis on relative gains and the zero-sum perception of power accumulation (Mearsheimer, 2014).

In conclusion, realism’s focus on relative gains and zero-sum competition still profoundly influences international economic and strategic interactions. The debate between prioritizing absolute gains, which promote overall prosperity, and relative gains, which concern power comparison, underpins current global dynamics. As China’s economic rise continues, the U.S. faces strategic recalibration—balancing cooperation and competition—highlighting the enduring relevance of realism’s assumptions about system stability and power politics in global affairs.

References

• Friedberg, A. L. (2011). A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press.
• Krasner, S. D. (1978). State Power and the Structure of International Trade. World Politics, 30(3), 317–347.
• Kapstein, E. B. (2006). The New Globalism: The Power Networks of Global Capitalism. Routledge.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf.