本文比較「結構現實主義」、「權力轉移理論」、「權力動態差異理論」和「攻勢現實主義」等四個以「結構因素」(相對權力變化)來預測大國衝突的主流國際關係理論的假設，再根據中、美雙方在各種客觀權力指標上的相對權力變化來比對其與雙邊衝突模式的關聯性，結果發現:第一，若以「經購買力平價校正後的GDP」來測量中、美兩國的相對權力變化，則「攻勢現實主義」的預測最為接近今日中、美之間的衝突模式;第二，除了「經購買力平價校正後的GDP」這個指標之外，其他所有各種客觀權力指標的變化，都與這四個主流理論對於衝突模式的預測不相符。這些發現說明，雖然「結構因素」無疑是中、美之間出現衝突的大背景，但近年來中、美雙方快速增長的衝突更可能較多來自於「領導人」、「國內政治」或「區域地緣政治」因素的變化。

This study compares the hypotheses of four mainstream international relations theories that predict major power conflicts based on “structural factors” (relative power shifts) – structural realism, power transition theory, dynamic differentials theory, and offensive realism. It then examines the correlation between Sino-U.S. relative power changes across various objective power indicators and their bilateral conflict. The findings are as follows: First, when measuring their relative power changes using “purchasing power parity-adjusted GDP,” the predictions of offensive realism most closely match the current conflict pattern between China and the United States. Second, aside from this indicator, the changes in all other objective power indicators do not align with the predictions of any of these four mainstream theories regarding conflict patterns. These findings indicate that while “structural factors” undoubtedly form the backdrop for conflicts between China and the United States, the rapidly increasing conflict in recent years are more likely driven by changes in individual, state-level, and regional-geopolitical factors.

中美競爭;結構現實主義;權力轉移理論;權力動態差異理論;攻勢現實主義

Sino-.S. Competition; Structure Realism; Power Transition Theory; Dynamic Differentials Theory; Offensive Realism