Reconfigurations of power
Women soldiers during a military parade in North Korea, September 9, 2013
Credit: Uri Tours / CC BY SA
Summary
Power has long been based on a limited set of factors, with military capability among them. This traditional view of power has been refined by the introduction of the concept of soft power, emphasizing the existence of persuasive capacity that is not linked to coercion. With the increase in interdependence due to globalization, the notion of structural power has taken hold, stressing the importance of defining the framework of action in which the actors of the global space operate.
Power is the ability to impose one’s will on others or, according to Max Weber (Economy and Society, 1921), “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.” In other words, it means being able to force others to act against their own wishes and prevent them from acting in accordance with their wishes. A much-debated concept, power is relative and always fits within a dynamic, intersubjective relationship between actors and within a specific historical context, hence the difficulty of ranking actors by the power they exercise.
From hard to soft power
There is considerable variance among authors when it comes to identifying the bases of power, i.e. the factors from which it is derived. Size of territory and population, abundance of natural resources, military or industrial capability, wealth, level of development, and national morale are often highlighted, though without establishing any clear consensus on the matter. On the one hand, some indicators are impossible to quantify; on the other, some factors are relative – a large population can be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on levels of development, education, etc. Above all, a state ’s power derives not from objective data but from a combination of these various elements and the desire to utilize them.
Factors of state power: from hard to soft power, 2018
Comment: The chart seeks to compare seven countries or group of countries (the EU) according to different power criteria. The EU is atypical because it has no common policy for most of the criteria; the figures for member states therefore have to be added up. The United States, the EU and China dominate according to various indicators. The greatest contrasts are the absence of a rival to the United States in terms of military spending and stock market capitalization; the attractiveness of EU countries for foreign students and an impressive total of medals at the Olympic Games; the demographic weight of China and India; Japan’s huge investment in R&D; and perhaps the immensity of Russian territory.
For many actors, military force has long been the priority, as it is seen to guarantee a state’s security and independence. However, in a world where interdependency (whether economic, financial, cultural, etc.) is increasingly significant, it is becoming impossible for one actor to fully impose its will on others by means of force. Thus, despite the martial rhetoric and posturing of some leaders (Trump, Putin, etc.), power based solely on coercion seems increasingly less effective and relevant – this is the “powerlessness of power” (Bertrand Badie, 2013). True power today is asserted less by aggressive means or threats than through influence, persuasion and bargaining. What matters now is the management of interdependency, and this translates into less clear-cut processes of domination: it is no longer about imposing and conquering, but about negotiating, persuading and controlling.
Change in military expenditure, 1988-2016
Comment: SIPRI data on military spending form something of a benchmark, but this think tank has to calculate estimates for countries with little transparency (China especially, but also Russia, Israel and Pakistan). The logarithmic curves show how military spending evolved between 1988 and 2016: expenditure by “early industrialized” countries stagnated, or even decreased, while still maintaining high levels (especially the United States); while that of Southern states grew, sometimes considerably (China x 11 in 28 years, India, and Saudi Arabia). Russia is a case apart: after the 1991 collapse, spending has not regained the supposed level of the 1980s, despite strong and constant growth.
The key factors in this context, then, are no longer exclusively those relating to traditional power, based on coercion (hard power, which uses the traditional instruments of power – mainly military and economic in nature), but also relate to soft power. Soft power, defined by Joseph Nye in 1990, is one actor’s ability to exert influence and persuasion (cultural, ideological or normative), non-coercively, over others. It implies an ability to steer the global political agenda and to mobilize others around this agenda through appeal and attraction, the construction of a positive image and the dissemination of values they endorse.
Power and globalization
Power was long theorized exclusively in the context of inter-state relations, based on the assumption that these actors were necessarily similar in nature, that they related directly to one another and that they were acting in the global arena following identical rules of conduct. Power was thus necessarily based on easily identifiable attributes linked to the statist character of the actors involved (territory, military might, etc.). This traditional view of power came into question during the 1980s, with a growing awareness of the emergence of transnational actors. Because these actors are organized in a networked, non-territorialized way, their influence cannot be understood through the prism of state power. Nor can this influence be denied, given the obvious ability of these actors – multinational corporations and major NGOs in particular – to impose their will on other actors, including state actors, or to constrain their activities.
In a world of global interdependence, the concept of structural power proposed by Susan Strange describes the ability of an actor, of whatever kind, to influence the way the global space is structured and how relations between actors are formed, and to shape the rules in force in key areas of international competition.
Susan Strange defines structural power as “the power to shape and determine the structures of the global political economy within which other states, their political institutions, their economic enterprises and (not least) their scientists and other professional people have to operate.” In contrast to relational power (exerted by one actor over another actor in a direct relationship), structural power takes account of worldwide interdependency arising from globalization : it is used to establish rules of behavior that are imposed on all actors. It impacts four areas in particular: security (who guarantees security?), production (who decides what is produced, and the methods and locations of production?), finance (who can create credit?) and knowledge (who controls the production and teaching of knowledge?). Today, what matters is no longer being the strongest at a given game – but being the one who makes the game’s rules.
Military expenditure, 2016
Comment: The two maps on state military spending show two distinct geographies. The amounts spent (circles) reflect the dynamics of power: The United States is a clear leader, and after it comes China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and the countries of Europe and Northeast Asia. However, spending in relation to GDP (color shading) more clearly shows the political importance given to military spending: while it is a low priority in Europe and on the American continent (the United States and Colombia excepted), it is high in Russia and the Middle East (with the Gulf leading); the African countries reveal a very different situation, depending on each case.
- Power
- Ability of political actors to impose their will on others. Comparable to the notion of authority within a nation, power is never absolute but has its existence in a relationship, since power relations are a matter of each actor’s perception of the other. Power is key to the realist approach to international relations, where it is understood in geostrategic terms (hard power is based on force and coercion, especially of a military nature). The transnationalist approach offers a more diversified vision including factors of influence (Joseph Nye’s soft power exerted in economic, cultural and other terms) and emphasizing the importance of controlling different orders of power, from hard to soft (Susan Strange’s “structural power”).
- actor > Actor
- An individual, group, or organization whose actions affect the distribution of assets and resources on a global scale. The state has long been considered as the main actor on the international scene, but the number of non-state actors has increased and diversified (businesses, non-governmental organizations, special interest groups, mafias, religious actors, etc.) over the past few decades. Contemporary globalization has made the relationships between these actors more complex.
- territory > Territory
- Surface area occupied by a human group. This term has different meanings in different social science disciplines. For geographers it is a socialized, constructed space in which distance is continuous, with more or less defined borders, such as, but not confined to, states. For sociologists and political scientists, a territory is a socially constructed space confined by borders which provide the structuring principle for a political community and enable a state to impose its authority and control on the population. It is linked to the context, history and actors of its construction. For Max Weber, the modern, rational and legal state is closely linked to territoriality.
- development > Development
- Definitions of development and its opposite – underdevelopment – have varied considerably according to the political objectives and ideological positions of those using these words. In the 1970s, Walt Whitman Rostow conceived of it as an almost mechanical process involving successive stages of economic growth and social improvement, whereas Samir Amin analyzed the relationships between center and peripheries, seeing the development of the former as founded on the exploitation of the latter. In Latin America, the dependency theory condemned the ethnocentrism of the universal view that the “periphery” of underdeveloped states could simply catch up through modernization. Talking of poor or developing “countries” masks the inequalities that also exist within societies (in both Northern and Southern hemispheres) and individuals’ connections to globalization processes.
- state > State
- The state is a political system that is centralized (unlike the feudal system), differentiated (from civil society, public/private space), institutionalized (institutions are depersonalized), territorialized (a territory whose borders mark the absolute limit of its jurisdiction), that claims sovereignty (holding ultimate power) and that bears responsibility for ensuring its population’s security. In public international law, the state is defined as a population living on a territory defined by borders subject to a political authority (the national territorial state).
- security > Security
- A set of representations and strategies developed by an individual or collectivity to reduce the threats to which they feel exposed. At the international level, security may consist of: 1) an unstable, precarious balance between the security of different nations, underpinned by their degree of power; 2) the concerted organization of this balance (international security); 3) the establishment of a security regime imposed on all states that have signed up to it (collective security). Above and beyond any tangible threat, the language of security tends to represent objects or groups of people as dangers for the security of states, notably in order to justify particular security policies (state of emergency, military action, closing of borders, etc.).
- interdependency > Interdependency
- Mode of relationship based on dense, continuous interaction between social and political entities, leading to reduced autonomy for each of them individually as they are partially reconfigured in relation to each other. Used of states primarily in the context of globalization, implying a reduction or modulation of sovereignty as well as a relativization of power: after all, interdependence goes both ways, implying a reliance of the strong on the weak just as much as of the weak on the strong.
- transnational actors > Transnational actor
- Transnational actors function across the world space, either alone or in networks, outside the framework of nation-states. They partly escape state control and intervention.
- networked > Network
- Classical geography tended to place too much importance on surface areas, territories, countries and soil, but network analysis has now become central to its approach. Networks are defined as spaces in which distance is discontinuous and consists of nodes linked by lines. Some are physical (networks for the transportation of people, goods and energy, IT cables and information super highways), others not. When they are partly virtual (such as the internet), they also involve individuals and organizations. Philosophers (Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari), sociologists (Manuel Castells), political scientists (James Rosenau), and economists use this concept to analyze the interconnected functioning of individuals.
- multinational corporations > Multinational corporation
- Company that has undertaken foreign direct investment (FDI) giving it access to facilities that it owns fully or in part (subsidiaries). The first MNCs date from the late 19th century; corporations of this kind have become widespread in the early 21st century. The majority of FDI takes place between industrialized nations. Such companies are now transnational rather than multinational, the largest among them tending to evolve into global corporate networks.
- NGOs > Nongovernmental Organization
- Use of this expression became more widespread following its inclusion in Article 71 of the United Nations Charter. NGOs do not have an international legal status and the acronym is used in different contexts to refer to very different kinds of actors. It generally designates associations formed by individuals over the long term in relation to not-for-profit goals, often linked to values and beliefs (ideological, humanist, ecological, religious, etc.) rather than financial interests. Active on a wide range of issues at both the local and global levels, NGOs now number tens of thousands, but vary greatly in the scale of their budgets, staff and development.
- globalization > Globalization
- The term globalization refers to a set of multidimensional processes (economic, cultural, political, financial, social, etc.) that are reconfiguring the global arena. These processes do not exclusively involve a generalized scale shift toward the global because they do not necessarily converge, do not impact all individuals, and do not impact everyone in the same way. Contemporary globalization means more than just an increase in trade and exchanges, an internationalization of economies and an upsurge in connectivity: it is radically transforming the spatial organization of economic, political, social and cultural relationships.
- security > Security
- A set of representations and strategies developed by an individual or collectivity to reduce the threats to which they feel exposed. At the international level, security may consist of: 1) an unstable, precarious balance between the security of different nations, underpinned by their degree of power; 2) the concerted organization of this balance (international security); 3) the establishment of a security regime imposed on all states that have signed up to it (collective security). Above and beyond any tangible threat, the language of security tends to represent objects or groups of people as dangers for the security of states, notably in order to justify particular security policies (state of emergency, military action, closing of borders, etc.).