This week’s readings have a myriad methods for analyzing
power in a very traditional sense. Power as seen through the lens of military
spending and GDP. I think that these traditional metrics leave a lot to be
desired and are fundamentally changing. I have asserted in other writings that
technology is adjusting the fabric of international relations and leading to
changes requiring a major shift in the method of analysis.
Linear relationships are
often noted and the sum of power is a simple 2 part balance, Giddens, Mann, and
Wallerstein note, “It is normally true that if a Power's resource base
increases then its military power and geopolitical pretensions will also” pg
334. Economic power is harder to define with increased globalization.
If we add military alliances into the mix these are also more muddied and
difficult to separate as globalization often pulls most countries loyalty in
opposing directions with increased economic integration and ideological
conflict. Additionally how we define economic power is increasingly changing.
The world is increasingly cyber based with assets like bitcoin residing
completely on the internet. This is also adding a completely different metric
to military power with the ability to steal massive amounts of information VIA
the web as evident in Chinese and North Korean attacks in recent years. The
playing field has been fundamentally altered shifting the power balance but the
even more terrifying fact is that at this time we might not even fully
understand what power will mean in the new era.
It is clear though that the major world powers have adjusted their way of projecting power. The tightest control was always an official imperial empire. This method though is incredibly costly. In an official imperial status the country in charge has a responsibility to provide significant financial support and government services to solidify their legitimacy. If anything is happening negatively in a subbordinate country this leaves significant vulnerability, It is simply too difficult to maintain financial and moral superiority. There has obviously been a shift to hegemony with institutions like the U.N. that the U.S. can assert legitimate power. Power is exerted in different manners as well as having different metrics.
“Comments on Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” British Journal of Sociology 40:2 (1989).
John Ikenberry, “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,” Review of International Studies 30:4 (2004)
I agree that elements that create a hegemonic power are changing within the global sphere and that traditional determinants of power should be changing with them. We are far past the days of empires and the nation-state armies Thucydides wrote about. It’s unlikely that even the US could take it’s hegemonic position so far as empire and I think it’s also unlikely that anyone else would step in to an international system as established as it now an create an empire. Traditional views of power thrived when the international systems were still being built. Now, with the presence of international economic, judicial, and governance organizations held up by multilateral agreements, it would be harder for one actor to come in and influence them all singlehandedly. Governance of and by these organizations is becoming more and more nuanced, as you mention with your example of the global economy.
ReplyDeleteAs the past couple of decades have fostered globalization, I wonder if the indeterminate nature of the global economy we’ve created is one (of many) reason we’re seeing states pull back into themselves with nationalist and populist economic policies.