This study examines the determinants that shaped the balancing behavior of Thailand from 1947 to 1991 by testing hypotheses developed from arguments on three competing theories of balancing behavior, namely the systemic balance of power and balance of threat theories, as well as Martin’s simple model of balancing behavior. We found that a combination of power, geographic distance, and perceived offensive intentions was the factor that prompted Thailand to balance against threatening states. The finding was found using quantitative data extracted from the Correlates of War (COW) Project and the Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions (ATOP) Project and those generated by Expected Utility Generation and Data Management Program (EUGene) software to test the hypotheses. The statistical evidence confirms the historical narrative of Thai diplomatic history: that is, Thailand did not try to balance against communist China, its giant neighbor, but rather against Vietnam and Cambodia, which were perceived as essentially dangerous to the country’s security and territorial integrity. In addition, we found that the major-power capability concentration of the Cold War international system had a mild effect on Thai behavior. However, it is difficult to generalize how such systemic attributes dictated directions in Thai foreign policy.

• Bennett, D. S., & Stam, A. C. (2000). EUGene: A conceptual manual. International Interactions, 26(2), 179-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620008434965

• Boulding, K. E. (1962). Conflict and defense: A general theory. Harper and Brothers.

• Bunyavejchewin, P. (2015). Revisiting Thailand’s aggression against Cambodia, 1953-1962: An expected utility theory of war initiation. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(2), 413-429.

• Busbarat, P. (2012). A review of Thailand’s foreign policy in mainland Southeast Asia: Exploring an Ideational Approach. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(1), 127-154. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700615-20120009

• Buszynski, L. (1980). Thailand and the Manila Pact. The World Today, 36(2), 45-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40395167

• Chaloemtiarana, T. (1978). Reflections on the Sarit regime and the process of political change in Thailand: Some conceptual and theoretical reassessments. Southeast Asian Studies, 16(3), 400-410.

• Chambers, M. R. (2005). ‘The Chinese and the Thais are brothers’: The evolution of the Sino–Thai friendship. Journal of Contemporary China, 14(45), 599-629. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560500205100

• Chambers, P. (2021). Khaki capital and coups in Thailand and Myanmar. Current History, 120(827), 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2021.120.827.221

• Chan, S. (2013). Geography and international relations theorizing: Their implications for China. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 54(4), 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2013.861749

• Charoenvattananukul, P. (2020). Ontological security and status-seeking: Thailand’s proactive behaviours during the Second World War. Routledge.

• Chinvanno, A. (1991). Brief encounter: Sino-Thai rapprochement after Bandung, 1955-1957. International Studies Centre, Institute of Foreign Affairs.

• Claude, I. L. (1989). The balance of power revisited. Review of International Studies, 15(2), 77-85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097172

• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Correlates of War Project. (2017). State system membership list, v2016 [Data set]. The Correlates of War (COW) Project. https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/state-system-membership

• de Mesquita, B. B. (1975). Measuring systemic polarity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(2), 187-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277501900201

• Dhiravegin, L. (1974). Thailand foreign policy determination. Warasan Sangkhomsat, 11(4), 37-65.

• Elman, C. (1996). Horses for courses: Why nor neorealist theories of foreign policy? Security Studies, 6(1), 7-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429297

• Ganesan, N. (2006). Thai-Myanmar-ASEAN relations: The politics of face and grace. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 33(3), 131-149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30173022

• Goldgeier, J. M., & McFaul, M. (1992). A tale of two worlds: Core and periphery in the post-Cold War era. International Organization, 46(2), 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027788

• Hewison, K. (2020). Black site: The Cold War and the shaping of Thailand’s politics. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 50(4), 551-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2020.1717115

• IBM Corporation. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. In SPSS Statistics (Version 20.0) [Statistical software]. IBM Corporation. https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-spss-statistics-200-release-notes

• Jaewook, C. (2020). Capability distribution between allies, geographical proximity and alliance duration. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 18(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2020.04.18.1.1

• Jha, G. (1978). Thailand’s China policy. China Report, 14(2), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/000944557801400202

• Khoman, T. (1982). National threat perceptions in East Asia-Pacific. In C. E. Morrison (Ed.), Threats to security in East Asia-Pacific: National and regional perspectives (pp. 19-22). D.C. Heath and Company.

• Kislenko, A. (2002). Bending with the wind: The continuity and flexibility of Thai foreign policy. International Journal, 57(4), 537-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070200205700403

• Kislenko, A. (2004). A not so silent partner: Thailand’s role in covert operations, counter-insurgency, and the wars in Indochina. Journal of Conflict Studies, 24(1), 65-96.

• Labs, E. J. (1992). Do weak states bandwagon? Security Studies, 1(3), 383-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419209347476

• Lawlor, E. F. (1996). Review works: The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, Frank Fischer, John Forester; Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice, Emery Roe; Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, Paul Sabatier, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(1), 110-121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3325199

• Leeds, B., Ritter, J., Mitchell, S., & Long, A. (2002). Alliance treaty obligations and provisions, 1815-1944. International Interactions, 28(3), 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620213653

• Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2005). Hegemonic threats and great-power balancing in Europe, 1495-1999. Security Studies, 14(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410591001465

• Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Balancing on land and at sea: Do states ally against the leading global power? International Security, 35(1), 7-43. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00001

• Martin, S. B. (2003). From balance of power to balancing behavior: The long and winding road. In A. K. Hanami (Ed.), Perspectives on structural realism (pp. 61-82). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403981707_4

• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton.

• Medeiros, E. S., Crane, K., Heginbotham, E., Levin, N. D., Lowell, J. F., Rabasa, A., & Seong, S. (2008). Pacific currents: The responses of US allies and security partners in East Asia to China’s rise. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/MG736

• na Thalang, C., Jayanama, S., & Poonkham, J. (Eds.). (2019). International relations as a discipline in Thailand: Theory and sub-fields. Routledge.

• Neher, C. D. (1990). The foreign policy of Thailand. In D. Wurfel & B. Burton (Eds.), The political economy of foreign policy in Southeast Asia (pp. 177-203). Palgrave Macmillan.

• Niyomsilpa, S. (1989). Thailand’s security relationship with China: Implications and prospects [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Australian National University.

• Parent, J. M., & Rosato, S. (2015). Balancing in neorealism. International Security, 40(2), 51-86. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00216

• Phuangkasem, C. (1980). Thailand in Southeast Asia: A study of foreign policy behavior (1964-1977) [Doctoral thesis]. University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

• Phuangkasem, C. (1984). Thailand’s foreign relations, 1964-80 (ISEAS Occasional Paper No. 74). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

• Prasirtsuk, K. (2008). Teaching international relations in Thailand: Status and prospects. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 9(1), 83-105. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcn018

• Quackenbush, S. L. (2015). International conflict: Logic and evidence. CQ Press/SAGE.

• Raymond, G. V. (2020). Strategic culture and Thailand’s response to Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia, 1979-1989: A Cold War epilogue. Journal of Cold War Studies, 22(1), 4-45. https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00924

• Raymond, G., & Blaxland, J. (2021). The US-Thai alliance and Asian international relations: History, memory and current developments. Routledge.

• Sabrosky, A. N. (Ed.). (1985). Polarity and war: The changing structure of international conflict. Westview Press.

• Sarkees, M. R., & Wayman, F. W. (2010). Resort to war: 1816-2007. CQ Press.

• Sawasdee, S. N. (2016). The development of political science in Thailand. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 1(1), 88-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057891115624019

• Singer, J. D. (1961). The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. World Politics, 14(1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009557

• Singer, J. D., Bremer, S., & Stuckey, J. (1972). Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965. In B. Russett (Ed.), Peace, war, and numbers (pp. 19-48). SAGE.

• Sirichote, T. (1986). Realism and Thailand’s foreign policy after the Second World War [Master’s thesis]. The Australian National University.

• Snyder, G. H. (1996). Process variables in neorealist theory. Security Studies, 5(3), 167-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429279

• Starr, H. (2005). Territory, proximity, and spatiality: The geography of international conflict. International Studies Review, 7(3), 387-406. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699756

• Starr, H., & Most, B. A. (1976). The substance and study of borders in international relations research. International Studies Quarterly, 20(4), 581-620. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600341

• Suporn, T., Bunyavejchewin, P., Faugchun, P., & Sukthungthong, N. (2021). The Cold War, old and new: A preliminary comparative study of polarity, polarisation, and elements of (in)stability. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(2), 903-922. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.2.09

• Suthiwart-Narueput, S. (1980). A strategy for survival of Thailand: Reappraisal and readjustment in her alliances (1969-1976) [Doctoral thesis]. University of Oklahoma.

• Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited. International Security, 25(3), 128-161. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626708

• Telbami, S. (2002). Kenneth Waltz, neorealism, and foreign policy. Security Studies, 11(3), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/714005344

• US Department of State. (1977, July 26). Deputy Secretary Christopher’s call on Prime Minister Thanin. [TE–Telegram (cable)]. WikiLeaks. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1977WELLIN03050_c.html

• Viraphol, S. (1982). National threat perceptions: Explaining the Thai case. In C. E. Morrison (Ed.), Threats to security in East Asia-Pacific: National and regional perspectives (pp. 145-153). D.C. Heath and Company.

• Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4), 3-43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538540

• Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliance. Cornell University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt32b5fc

• Walt, S. M. (1988). Testing theories of alliance formation: The case of Southwest Asia. International Organization, 42(2), 275-316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300032823

• Walt, S. M. (2002). Keeping the world “off-balance”: Self-restraint and U.S. foreign policy. In G. J. Ikenberry (Ed.), America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power (pp. 121-154). Cornell University Press.

• Waltz, K. N. (1971). Conflict in world politics. In S. L. Spiegel & K. N. Waltz (Eds.), Conflict in world politics (pp. 454-474). Winthrop Publishers.

• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.

• Yensabai, R. (2019). Competing narratives in Cold War Thailand: Identity politics and the construction of foreign others [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Leeds.