I. Introduction
A.There are many many definitions of and ways of thinking about the term "power" in world politics. Just google the term to get an idea of the various ways of looking at "power"...
- People look at power as control over resources, influence, strength, political control, energy/electricity etc.
- In this class though, lets forget about all of the different definitions and FOCUS on power being the capacity to exercise influence over others. Look below for the most common definition:
B. The most common definition of power in the field of IR is: “power is the ability to get someone to do something he or she would not otherwise do”
C. Today, we go beyond that relatively vague and simple definition and look more closely at the factors which make someone do something he or she/country or non-country actor would not otherwise do
D. In other words we will examine the elements of state power—or those things that give some countries the capacity to exercise “power”
II. Definitions
A. Power
- The Free Dictionary: "1. The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively; 2. A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration; 3. Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might. See Synonyms at strength; 4. The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority; 5. A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others: the western powers."
- Merriam-Webster: "1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right; 2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group"
- MSN Encarata: "control and influence: control and influence over other people and their actions...She made you stay behind just to show how much power she has over you."
- Robert Dahl (1957, 202): "power is the ability of A to get B to do something he or she would otherwise not do. In the case of authority, B’s behavior is driven by obligation, not force, but the operative condition is the same: B does something he or she would otherwise not do because of A’s will"
B. Hard v. Soft Power
- Joe Nye
- The Catapult
- Wikipedia Hard Power definition: "Hard power is a theory that describes using military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. It is used in contrast to soft power, which refers to power that comes from diplomacy, culture and history."
- Wikipedia Soft Power Definition: "Soft power is a term used in international relations theory to describe the ability of a political body, such as a state, to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means."
C. Sticky Power
III. Why Power is Difficult to Measure
A. Social Scientists have been struggling for years to define and measure power and to describe exactly how it works: Joseph Nye (Harvard Dean) writes that power “is like love…easier to experience than to define or measure.”
Why is it so difficult a concept to understand/measure?
1) Power is Dynamic—economies fall and rise, weapon systems are modernized or become outmoded, resources are discovered or depleted, and populations rally behind or lose faith in their govts
2) Power is Relative—a country’s power capacity only means something in comparison to another country’s power capacity.
a. That is, we can’t say China is powerful unless we specify in COMPARISON to WHOM
b. Whatever her power resources may be, China’s relative power compared to another major power, such as Great Britain or the USA, is less than is China’s relative power compared to, say Vietnam or North Korea--Always think about power therefore relatively or comparatively
3) Power is Situational—a country’s power also varies according to the situation, or context, in which it is being applied
a. That is, sometimes even a country with a tremendous array of power resources, like the USA, can’t use those its resources to exercise influence effectively
b. Example: US and Japan and trade—we think Japan has a closed market and have for years, but we haven’t made that much progress in prying open their market even though we are the lone superpower in the world.
c. We can’t use our milt. Capacity to help us in this situation and our political power and economic prowess haven’t helped much either. So in this situation our tremendous power resources haven’t helped solve this thorny pol./econ prob b/c in this situation, many of our resources can’t help us—like our nukes and missiles
4) Power is Multidimensional—to analyze power well it is important to realize that power is multidimensional…it isn’t just about size of economy or # of men under arms or how much a country spends on its military, etc
as K&W (p462) suggest, you can think of power as either hard or soft
a. Soft Power: “the capacity for a country to get what it wants through the attraction of its ideals and ideas rather than through the exercise of coercion by means of military force or economic sanctions”
b. Hard Power: “the ability to exercise influence in world politics through a state’s possession of tangible resources such as military capabilities”
III. The Elements of State Power
A. According to K&W (p457), to determine the comparative POWER of states, multiple factors—usually military and economic capabilities—have to be weighed. These multiple factors constitute what K&W call a states “Power Potential”
1. Power Potential (K&W, p457): “the relative capabilities or resources [military and economic] held by a state that are considered necessary to its asserting influence over others”
a. When looking at a states POWER POTENTIAL, therefore, we can then rank order various countries based on these factors
b. The problem of course is that different people think military strength is more impt while others think economic capabilities are the better measure of power potential while others think territorial size is crucial while others think population size is most crucial etc….in other words there isn’t a lot of consensus on which is the most impt factor—economic or milt capacity
2. there also isn’t a lot of agreement on which is the best measure of military or economic capability:
3. military capacity is generally measured as: # of men under arms, military expenditures, or technological advancement
4. economic capability is generally measured as: GNP, GDP, GNP p/cap, GDP p/cap, market share of world exports, or scientists and engineers in research the best measure
5. Realists generally argue that military capabilities are the most impt source of power in a chaotic, uncertain, anarchic world-àbut they don’t agree on which indicator of milt capacity is the most useful
6. Liberals tend to argue that in the post-CW world of globalization, that milt capacity is NOT as crucial as it once was and that economic aspects of power are more crucial—that factors like size of a country’s economy, how skilled its workforce, its degree of dependence on foreign sources of raw materials, its technological capacity and so on are more crucial to how influential a state is today than military capacity
a. in some areas, the US dominates (GNP, Milt expenditures), in others China (# men under arms, population) does, in still others Russia (territorial size) and Japan do (Scientists and Engineers in Research)
b. experts disagree about the best way to measure power so—in some quarters of the world--there are disagreements which country actually is most powerful
7. At the end of the day, always keep in mind that power is—in K&Ws term, RELATIONAL: a state can have power over some other actor ONLY when it can prevail over that actor
8. and both ACTUAL and PERCEIVED strength determines who wins the pol contest
a. in other words, knowing how large an adversary’s economy is, how much it allocates to defense, how technologically advanced its population is--is impt—ie knowing what their power potential is (power capacity)
9. BUT just as impt is knowledge of that adversary’s WILLINGNESS to mobilize them for coercive purposes
10. So both capacity AND willingness are impt to understand—and many people infer willingness from capacity—ie country X is arming itself to the teeth, hence it must be preparing for an attack on country Y…that leades to concern in country Y and so country Y begins to arm itself to the teeth as well…that counter-mobilization alarms leaders in country X and we have the potential for an arms race or worse—this problem is known as the security dilemma
11. Also keep in mind that history shows us that the country with the most power potential don’t always triumph in military or political conflicts with supposedly weaker adversaries—in other words the link b/n power resources and successful FP outcomes aren’t always very clear…
12. QUESTION: why do supposedly more powerful states not always have their way? Why was superior power potential NOT realized on the milt/pol battlefield
IV. Conclusion
A. On p. 460, K&W argue that military power is NOW LESS crucial to a state’s ntl security than factors such as technology, education, and economic growth
B. They make the point that the US has sacrificed economic and other opportunities b/c it has pored so much ntl treasure into the Pentagon—in other words, spending so much $$ on the milt has retarded our econ growth and led to a huge ntl debt (making the old butter versus guns argument)
C. My view:
1. SOME states CAN have GUNS and BUTTER—we’ve proved that the last 17 years
2. Our economy is great in some areas, not as good in others-Kevin Phillips USA Today The Economist
3. Milt. power is still crucial in many circumstances—ie Gulf Wars, Kosovo, Bosnia; Libya, Afghanistan, perhaps less so in Iraq...
4. Economic capacity and military might go hand in hand—one can lead to the other and both mutually reinforce each other
