ABSTRACT
Thinking about balancing and bandwagoning during wars — periods when new information is revealed about intentions and capabilities — could be fruitful as behaviors after the onset of hostilities may be different from those during peaceful periods. However, states that balance or bandwagon during peacetime can have good reasons not to want to translate this policy into joining a war when it breaks out. Transforming a peacetime policy of balancing or bandwagoning into a wartime policy of balancing or bandwagoning requires states to take on additional costs and uncertainties. States can be thought of as joining for one of three reasons: balancing; bandwagoning for territorial spoils; and bandwagoning for non-territorial spoils. This excludes states which joined wars because they were attacked or invaded as such states would be engaged in defense rather than balancing. The striking result is that states that intervene during wars out of balancing motives do far better than those that join for the purpose of bandwagoning.
