Hubbry Logo
Power (international relations)Power (international relations)Main
Open search
Power (international relations)
Community hub
Power (international relations)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Power (international relations)
Power (international relations)
Power (international relations)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
List of forms · List of countries
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)
Oligarchy (rule by few)
Autocracy (rule by one)
Anarchy (rule by none)
Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)
(socio-economic ideologies)
  • Religious
  • Secular
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism
Client state
Federalism
International relations
Related
icon Politics portal

In international relations, power is defined in several different ways.[1] Material definitions of state power emphasize economic and military power.[2][3][4] Other definitions of power emphasize the ability to structure and constitute the nature of social relations between actors.[1][4] Power is an attribute of particular actors in their interactions, as well as a social process that constitutes the social identities and capacities of actors.[1]

International relations scholars use the term polarity to describe the distribution of power in the international system.[2] Unipolarity refers to an international system characterized by one hegemon (e.g. the United States in the post–Cold War era), bipolarity to an order with two great powers or blocs of states (e.g. the Cold War), and multipolarity refers to the presence of three or more great powers.[2] Those states that have significant amounts of power within the international system are referred to as small powers, middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or hegemons, although there is no commonly accepted standard for what defines a powerful state.[citation needed]

Entities other than states can have power in international relations. Such entities can include multilateral international organizations, military alliance organizations like NATO, multinational corporations like Walmart,[5] non-governmental organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church, or other institutions such as the Hanseatic League and technology companies like Facebook and Google.[citation needed]

Concepts of political power

[edit]

Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall define power as "the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate".[1] They reject definitions of power that conflate power as any and all effects because doing so makes power synonymous with causality.[1] They also reject persuasion as part of the definition of power, as it revolves around actors freely and voluntarily changing their minds once presented with new information.[1]

Political scientists, historians, and practitioners of international relations (diplomats) have used the following concepts of political power:[citation needed]

  • Power as a goal of states or leaders;
  • Power as a measure of influence or control over outcomes, events, actors and issues;
  • Power as victory in conflict and the attainment of security;
  • Power as control over resources and capabilities;
  • Power as status, which some states or actors possess and others do not.

Power as a goal

[edit]

The view that hegemony is a goal in international relations has long been discussed by political theorists. Philosophers such as Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau are thought to have provided a realistic portrait of this political aim.[6] Especially among Classical Realist thinkers, political dominance is the aim of nation states.[7] The German military thinker Carl von Clausewitz[8] is considered to be the quintessential projection of European growth across the continent. In more modern times, Claus Moser has elucidated theories centre of distribution of power in Europe after the Holocaust, and the power of universal learning as its counterpoint.[9] Jean Monnet[10] was a French left-wing social theorist, stimulating expansive Eurocommunism, who followed on the creator of modern European community, the diplomat and statesman Robert Schuman.[11]

Power as influence

[edit]
NATO accounts for 55% of global military expenditure, with the United States alone accounting for 37% of global military expenditure in 2023.[12]

Political scientists principally use "power" in terms of an actor's ability to exercise influence over other actors within the international system.[citation needed] This influence can be coercive, attractive, cooperative, or competitive. Mechanisms of influence can include the threat or use of force, economic interaction or pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.[citation needed]

Under certain circumstances, states can organize a sphere of influence or a bloc within which they exercise predominant influence. Historical examples include the spheres of influence recognized under the Concert of Europe, or the recognition of spheres during the Cold War following the Yalta Conference. The Eastern Bloc, the Western Bloc, and the Non-Aligned Movement were the blocs that arose out of the Cold War contest. Military alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact are another forum through which influence is exercised. However, "realist" theory attempted to maintain the balance of power from the development of meaningful diplomatic relations that can create a hegemony within the region. British foreign policy, for example, dominated Europe through the Congress of Vienna after the defeat of France. They continued the balancing act with the Congress of Berlin in 1878, to appease Russia and Germany from attacking Turkey. Britain has sided against the aggressors on the European continent—i.e. the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France or the Austrian Empire, known during World War I as the Central Powers and, in World War II as the Axis powers.[13][14]

International orders have both a material and social component.[15] Martha Finnemore argues that unipolarity does not just entail a material superiority by the unipole, but also a social structure whereby the unipole maintains its status through legitimation, and institutionalization. In trying to obtain legitimacy from the other actors in the international system, the unipole necessarily gives those actors a degree of power. The unipole also obtains legitimacy and wards off challenges to its power through the creation of institutions, but these institutions also entail a diffusion of power away from the unipole.[16] David Lake has argued along similar lines that legitimacy and authority are key components of international order.[17][18]

Susan Strange made a key contribution to International Political Economy on the issue of power, which she considered essential to the character and dynamics of the global economy.[19] Strange was skeptical of static indicators of power, arguing that it was structural power that mattered.[20] In particular, interactions between states and markets mattered.[21] She pointed to the superiority of the American technology sector, dominance in services, and the position of the U.S. dollar as the top international currency as real indicators of lasting power.[22] She distinguished between relational power (the power to compel A to get B to do something B does not want to do) and structural power (the power to shape and determine the structure of the global political economy).[19] Political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman argue that state power is in part derived from control over important nodes in global networks of informational and financial exchange, which means that states can "weaponize interdependence" by fighting over control of these nodes.[23]

Power as capability

[edit]

American author Charles W. Freeman, Jr. described power as the following:

Power is the capacity to direct the decisions and actions of others. Power derives from strength and will. Strength comes from the transformation of resources into capabilities. Will infuses objectives with resolve. Strategy marshals capabilities and brings them to bear with precision. Statecraft seeks through strategy to magnify the mass, relevance, impact, and irresistibility of power. It guides the ways the state deploys and applies its power abroad. These ways embrace the arts of war, espionage, and diplomacy. The practitioners of these three arts are the paladins of statecraft.[24]

Power is also used to describe the resources and capabilities of a state. This definition is quantitative and is most often[dubious – discuss] used by geopoliticians and the military. Capabilities are thought of in tangible terms—they are measurable, weighable, quantifiable assets. A good example for this kind of measurement is the Composite Indicator on Aggregate Power, which involves 54 indicators and covers the capabilities of 44 states in Asia-Pacific from 1992 to 2012.[25] Hard power can be treated as a potential and is not often enforced on the international stage.

Chinese strategists have such a concept of national power that can be measured quantitatively using an index known as Comprehensive National Power.

Michael Beckley argues that gross domestic product and military spending are imprecise indicators of power. He argues that better measurements of power should take into account "net" indicators of powers: "[Gross] indicators systematically exaggerate the wealth and military capabilities of poor, populous countries, because they tally countries' resources without deducting the costs countries pay to police, protect, and serve their people. A country with a big population might produce vast output and field a large army, but it also may bear massive welfare and security burdens that drain its wealth and bog down its military, leaving it with few resources for power projection abroad."[26]

Power as status

[edit]

Definitions

[edit]

Much effort in academic and popular writing is devoted to deciding which countries have the status of "power", and how this can be measured. If a country has "power" (as influence) in military, diplomatic, cultural, and economic spheres, it might be called a "power" (as status). There are several and inclusion of a state in one category or another is fraught with difficulty and controversy. In his famous 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, British historian Paul Kennedy charts the relative status of the various powers from AD 1500 to 2000. He does not begin the book with a theoretical definition of "great power"; however, he lists them, separately, for many different eras. Moreover, he uses different working definitions of "great power" for different eras. For example:

France was not strong enough to oppose Germany in a one-to-one struggle... If the mark of a Great Power is country which is willing to take on any other, then France (like Austria-Hungary) had slipped to a lower position. But that definition seemed too abstract in 1914 to a nation geared up for war, militarily stronger than ever, wealthy, and, above all, endowed with powerful allies.[27]

Neorealist scholars frequently define power as entailing military capabilities and economic strength.[2][3][28] Classical realists recognized that the ability to influence depended on psychological relationships that touched on ethical principles, legitimacy and justice,[28] as well as emotions, leaders' skill and power over opinion.[29][28][30]

Categories of power

[edit]

In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of powers, which include the following:

  • Hegemony: a state that has the power to shape the international system and "control the external behavior of all other states."[31] Hegemony can be regional or global.[32] Unlike unipolarity, which is a power preponderance within an anarchic international system of nominally equal states, hegemony assumes a hierarchy where the most powerful can control other states.[31]
  • Unipole: a state that enjoys a preponderance of power and faces no competitor states.[31][33] According to William Wohlforth, "a unipolar system is one in which a counterbalance is impossible. When a counterbalance becomes possible, the system is not unipolar."[33] A unipolar state is not the same as an empire or a hegemon that can control the behavior of all other states.[31][34][35]
  • Superpower: In 1944, William T. R. Fox defined superpower as "great power plus great mobility of power" and identified three states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States.[36] With the decolonisation of the British Empire following World War II, and then the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has remained to be the sole superpower.[37] China is now considered an emerging global superpower by many scholars.[38][39][40]
  • Great power: In historical mentions, the term great power refers to the states that have strong political, cultural and economical influence over nations around them and across the world.[41][42][43]
  • Middle power: A subjective description of influential second-tier states that could not quite be described as great or small powers. A middle power has sufficient strength and authority to stand on its own without the need of help from others (particularly in the realm of security) and takes diplomatic leads in regional and global affairs.[44] Clearly not all middle powers are of equal status; some are members of forums such as the G20 and play important roles in the United Nations and other international organisations such as the WTO.[45]
  • Small power: The International System is for the most part made up by small powers. They are instruments of the other powers and may at times be dominated; but they cannot be ignored.[46]

Other categories

[edit]

Hard, soft and smart power

[edit]
Main articles: Hard power, Soft power, and Smart power

Some political scientists distinguish between two types of power: Hard and Soft.[84] The former is coercive (example: military invasion) while the latter is attractive (example: broadcast media or cultural invasion).[85]

Hard power refers to coercive tactics: the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure or sanctions, assassination and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation. Hard power is generally associated to the stronger of nations, as the ability to change the domestic affairs of other nations through military threats. Realists and neorealists, such as John Mearsheimer, are advocates of the use of such power for the balancing of the international system.[citation needed]

Joseph Nye is the leading proponent and theorist of soft power.[86][87] Instruments of soft power include debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through good example, and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural programming to achieve political ends.[citation needed]

Others have synthesized soft and hard power, including through the field of smart power. This is often a call to use a holistic spectrum of statecraft tools, ranging from soft to hard.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Power (international relations)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In international relations, power is the capacity of states and other actors to influence or coerce the behavior of others to achieve desired outcomes, often through the control of material and immaterial resources amid systemic anarchy. This concept, central to realist theories, posits international politics as an enduring struggle for power, where states pursue it as both an end in itself for security and a means to advance national interests. Power operates through distinct yet interconnected forms: , relying on tangible coercive tools like force and to compel compliance; soft power, which attracts and persuades via cultural appeal, ideological values, and diplomatic prestige; and smart power, a pragmatic blend of the two to maximize effectiveness in varied contexts. Realists emphasize that power's measurement—via indices of capability, economic output, or territorial control—remains inherently relational and contextual, as absolute aggregates fail to capture strategic deployment or alliances that amplify relative strength. In practice, imbalances in power distribution have precipitated major conflicts, from ancient hegemonies to modern great-power rivalries, underscoring its role in shaping stability or instability without supranational enforcement mechanisms. Controversies persist over power's , with critics of narrow materialist views arguing that ideational factors, though secondary, can decisively tip balances in prolonged contests.

Conceptual Foundations

Core Definitions

In international relations, power denotes the capacity of states or other actors to shape outcomes in the global arena by influencing the decisions and behaviors of others, often through coercion, incentives, or persuasion. This concept underpins much of the field's analysis, as power asymmetries drive state interactions, alliances, and conflicts, with empirical evidence from historical events like the balance-of-power dynamics preceding illustrating how perceived power distributions precipitate wars. A foundational relational definition, originating in but extensively applied to , comes from Robert A. Dahl, who characterized power as existing when actor A can get actor B to do something B would not otherwise do, emphasizing observable behavioral changes rather than latent potential. This formulation highlights power's relational nature, measurable through specific instances of influence, such as a hegemon compelling smaller states to align policies via threats or promises, as seen in U.S. interventions during the where compliance was extracted from allies on military basing. Realist scholars like Hans J. Morgenthau reframed power as the core interest of states in international , defining it as the control over the minds and actions of others, pursued as both means and end in to ensure and dominance. 's view, rooted in human nature's drive for power, posits that states rationally prioritize accumulating power resources—military, economic, and diplomatic—to navigate , evidenced by the arms races and territorial expansions characterizing great-power rivalries since the . Despite such definitions, power's exact contours remain contested, with critics noting that resource possession does not invariably translate to influence, as structural constraints or miscalculations can undermine even superior capabilities.

Historical Evolution

The concept of power in international relations traces its roots to ancient Greek historiography, particularly Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE), where power is depicted as the capacity for military dominance and coercion, with ' expansion driven by fear of Sparta's rising strength leading to inevitable conflict. Thucydides emphasized that states pursue power to ensure survival in an anarchic system, famously attributing the war's cause to Sparta's apprehension of Athenian growth rather than ideological disputes, establishing an early realist framework that prioritizes material capabilities over moral considerations. This view influenced subsequent analyses by portraying power as relational and zero-sum, where one state's gain necessitates another's loss. In the , (1469–1527) formalized power as the indispensable instrument of statecraft in works like (1532), arguing that rulers must prioritize —decisive action to acquire and maintain dominion—over ethical constraints to navigate interstate rivalries. Machiavelli's rejected idealistic governance, asserting that fortune favors the bold in power struggles, a perspective that resonated in fragmented and foreshadowed modern interstate competition by decoupling domestic morality from imperatives. The balance-of-power doctrine emerged in 17th-century Europe amid the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), evolving into a systemic mechanism by the 18th century, as articulated by thinkers like , who viewed it as a natural equilibrium preventing through alliances and counterweights. Formalized post-Napoleonic Wars via the (1815), it guided the until , positing that aggregated military and economic capabilities deter aggression by distributing power to avoid dominance, though empirical failures—such as unchecked German unification in 1871—highlighted its reactive, not preventive, nature. Twentieth-century classical realism, crystallized in Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations (1948), redefined power as "man's control over the minds and actions of other men," integrating psychological drives with tangible elements like armed forces and resources, amid the ashes of two world wars that underscored power's role in state survival. Morgenthau critiqued Wilsonian idealism for ignoring immutable , advocating prudence in balancing interests, a view empirically validated by interwar appeasement's collapse. Neorealism, advanced by in Theory of International Politics (1979), shifted focus to structural determinants, where power manifests in capability distributions under , explaining bipolar stability during the (1947–1991) via mutual U.S.-Soviet deterrence. Post-Cold War expansions broadened power beyond coercion: Susan Strange's structural power in States and Markets (1988) emphasized the ability to shape global rules in domains like and production, attributing U.S. hegemony to credit dominance rather than mere might. Concurrently, coined "soft power" in 1990, defining it as co-optive attraction via culture and , contrasting hard power's commands and enabling multifaceted influence, as seen in post-1991 American cultural exports amid declining relative primacy. These evolutions reflect empirical adaptations to , where relational power yields to diffuse, agenda-setting capacities, though realists caution that material bases remain foundational, evidenced by Russia's 2022 invasion prioritizing territorial control over ideational appeal.

Dimensions of Power

Relational Power

Relational power denotes the capacity of one actor to alter the behavior of another actor in direct interactions, typically through the deployment of material or ideational resources to compel, induce, or deter actions that the influenced party would not otherwise undertake. This conception traces to foundational definitions in , such as Dahl's 1957 formulation that power exists where A affects B's actions contrary to B's preferences, adapted in to dyadic or multilateral encounters among states, organizations, or non-state entities. Unlike structural power, which operates indirectly by shaping systemic rules or constraints, relational power manifests in observable , , or , emphasizing outcomes over resource possession alone. Key features include its relationality—power emerges from asymmetries in capabilities mobilized within specific contexts—and its sharability, as alliances or coalitions can amplify influence through pooled resources. , in her 1988 work States and Markets, contrasted relational power with structural power by portraying the former as the "power over" others in direct contests, such as negotiations or conflicts, where one agent's leverage derives from superior , economic, or diplomatic tools. Empirical indicators often involve measurable asymmetries, like spending differentials (e.g., the ' 2023 defense budget of $877 billion versus China's $292 billion, enabling coercive leverage in regional disputes) or trade dependencies that facilitate sanctions. Examples abound in interstate diplomacy and coercion. The ' imposition of sanctions on following the 2022 invasion of exemplifies relational power, as economic restrictions aimed to compel policy shifts by targeting energy exports and financial access, reducing 's GDP by an estimated 2.1% in 2022 despite circumvention efforts. Similarly, China's Belt and Road Initiative loans have granted relational leverage over debtor nations; for instance, Sri Lanka's 2017 handover of Port operations to Chinese firms after debt default illustrates inducement through financial dependency, securing strategic port access without direct military action. In alliances, relational power operates via burden-sharing dynamics, as seen in where the U.S. influences European members' defense postures through troop deployments and aid commitments totaling $3.5 billion in 2023 security assistance to . Critiques highlight limitations: relational power's effectiveness hinges on the target's and resolve, often proving transient without sustained resources, and it may provoke backlash, as in failed deterrence cases like North Korea's nuclear advancements despite U.S. sanctions since 2006. Relational approaches in IR theory, including those by Yaqing Qin, extend this by viewing power as embedded in ongoing relations rather than zero-sum dominance, allowing for mutual influence in interdependent networks like global supply chains. Measurement challenges persist, relying on proxies like treaty obligations or sanction compliance rates, but causal attribution remains contested due to confounding structural factors.

Structural Power

Structural power refers to the capacity of actors, particularly states, to shape the fundamental organization of by determining the rules, norms, and frameworks within which other actors must operate, rather than exerting direct relational influence over specific decisions. This concept, distinct from coercive or , enables the powerful actor to define "how things shall be done" and the parameters of political and economic interactions, often invisibly embedding advantages into systemic structures. British political economist formalized this idea in her 1988 book States and Markets, arguing that structural power underpins by governing the broader environment in which relational power functions. Strange's framework critiques state-centric views dominant in realism, emphasizing instead the interplay of and authority in . Strange identified four key structures through which structural power manifests: security, production, finance, and knowledge. The security structure involves control over the provision and threat of protection, allowing a dominant state to guarantee or withhold stability, as seen in the United States' post-World War II alliances like , which extended American military umbrella to and shaped collective defense norms. In the production structure, power derives from influencing what goods and services are produced, where, and by whom; the U.S. exemplified this through its dominance in manufacturing and innovation hubs post-1945, setting global supply chain standards via institutions like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), predecessor to the WTO. The financial structure centers on credit creation and monetary systems, where the U.S. dollar's role as the world's —established at the 1944 —permits deficit financing without equivalent inflationary pressures faced by others, underpinning American economic leverage as of 2023 when dollars comprised over 58% of global . Finally, the knowledge structure encompasses control over , and intellectual credibility, with the U.S. exerting influence through dominance in scientific research, patent systems, and media narratives, such as its lead in semiconductor technology that shaped global tech standards by the 1980s. Empirical applications of structural power highlight its role in sustaining hegemony amid relational fluctuations. For instance, U.S. influence over the (IMF) and World Bank—created in 1944—allows veto power on major decisions via (17.4% share as of 2023), embedding American preferences in global lending conditions and development policies. This structural embedding persisted despite military setbacks like (ending 1975), enabling sustained influence through financial sanctions, as in the 2022 freezing of Russian central bank assets post-Ukraine invasion, which reinforced dollar . Critics, including extensions of Strange's work, note shifts toward non-state actors like multinational corporations holding production and knowledge power, evident in firms like Apple dictating global supply chains with $394 billion revenue in 2022, potentially diluting state-centric structural dominance. However, states retain primacy in and , where challengers like face barriers in internationalizing the yuan (only 2.3% of reserves in 2023). Debates on structural power's measurement underscore its indirect nature, complicating quantification compared to relational metrics like military spending ($877 billion U.S. defense budget in ). Strange argued it is observable through outcomes like unequal bargaining in international regimes, where dominant actors set agendas; for example, U.S. resistance to yuan inclusion in IMF's until 2016 delayed China's financial structural gains. While academic sources affirm Strange's framework's enduring relevance in analyzing power asymmetries, some IR scholars caution against overemphasizing structures without causal links to agent behavior, advocating integration with relational dynamics for fuller causal realism. This approach reveals structural power's resilience, as U.S. endures via interlocking structures despite relative economic decline (GDP share from 50% in 1945 to 24% in 2023).

Hard Power

Hard power denotes the capacity of states to compel others through tangible coercive instruments, chiefly military force and economic pressure. Political scientist distinguishes it from by emphasizing coercion via threats and inducements such as payments, contrasting with attraction-based influence. This form of power relies on quantifiable resources, enabling direct imposition of costs on adversaries to alter their actions. The military facet of hard power encompasses armed forces size, technological sophistication, and deployability. In 2024, the United States allocated $997 billion to defense expenditures, surpassing China's estimated $314 billion and accounting for roughly 37% of global military spending. Such disparities underpin capabilities for interventions, as evidenced by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, which toppled Saddam Hussein's regime through overwhelming force despite subsequent insurgencies. Similarly, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, illustrated hard power's deployment to seize territory, though met with resistance and international backlash. Economic hard power manifests in sanctions, trade restrictions, and financial controls to inflict harm or withhold benefits. The U.S. embargo against , initiated in 1960 and intensified over decades, exemplifies sustained economic coercion aimed at , yet has not achieved that objective. Post-2022, Western sanctions on , including asset freezes and energy curbs, reduced its GDP by an estimated 2-3% in 2022 while disrupting , though evasion via third parties limited full impact. Empirical assessments indicate sanctions succeed in about one-third of cases, often in constraining targets rather than compelling behavioral reversal, particularly when senders hold leverage in key exports. Alliances amplify by pooling resources; NATO's collective defense, invoked after Russia's 2014 annexation, bolsters members' deterrence through integrated command and shared expenditures exceeding $1.3 trillion annually. However, overreliance on risks escalation and domestic costs, as U.S. post-9/11 wars exceeded $8 trillion with limited strategic gains. Measurement challenges persist, with resource aggregates like GDP and spending proxies for latent power but overlooking mobilization efficiency or geographic factors.

Soft Power

Soft power refers to a nation's capacity to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction, rather than through coercion, payments, or the threat of force. The concept was introduced by Harvard political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr. in 1990, initially in the context of analyzing U.S. influence during the post-Cold War era, where military dominance alone proved insufficient for achieving foreign policy goals. Nye defined it as the ability to get others "to want the outcomes that you want" by leveraging intangible resources, contrasting it with hard power's reliance on tangible assets like military and economic might. The primary sources of soft power, according to Nye, are a country's (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when they are perceived as legitimate and adhered to domestically), and its foreign policies (particularly when they align with universal principles like ). These elements generate attraction by fostering voluntary alignment with a nation's agenda, often through mechanisms such as cultural exports, educational exchanges, and . For instance, the global appeal of American universities, which enrolled over 1 million international students in the 2019-2020 , exemplifies how soft power builds long-term influence by shaping elite opinions and networks. Similarly, widespread consumption of Hollywood films and music has historically amplified U.S. cultural narratives, contributing to policy preferences in areas like without direct intervention. Efforts to quantify soft power have produced indices that aggregate metrics across dimensions like government quality, , , and engagement. The Brand Finance Global Soft Power Index, for example, ranks 193 countries based on surveys of over 170,000 respondents across 100+ nations, evaluating familiarity, reputation, and influence in 2025; the topped the index with a score reflecting strengths in , media, and perceptions, while advanced in economic and digital familiarity but lagged in . An IMF-developed Global Soft Power Index (GSPI), introduced in 2024, uses 29 indicators spanning 1980-2022 to track components like , , and foreign aid, revealing that soft power correlates with but does not fully substitute for economic size. These tools, however, face challenges in isolating causal effects, as attraction metrics often confound with resources. Critics contend that soft power's efficacy is overstated, particularly in crises where attraction yields to immediate security needs; for example, argued it is "too soft" to secure core national interests against determined adversaries. Empirical analyses suggest it functions best as a complement to —Nye himself later advocated "" combining both—rather than an independent force, with failures like Europe's limited influence on post-2014 annexation of highlighting its vulnerability to policy inconsistencies. Moreover, indices rely heavily on subjective perceptions, which can be manipulated through , undermining claims of objective assessment. Despite these limitations, soft power remains relevant in multipolar dynamics, where sustaining alliances and countering rivals like China's Belt and Road cultural initiatives demands attraction alongside compulsion.

Theoretical Frameworks

Realist Perspectives

Realism in international relations posits that power constitutes the fundamental currency of state interactions within an anarchic global system, where no overarching authority enforces cooperation, compelling states to prioritize survival through self-help mechanisms. Classical realists, drawing from thinkers like and Machiavelli, emphasize human nature's inherent drive for power, viewing as a perpetual struggle among self-interested actors seeking to maximize control over others. , in his 1948 work , defined national interest in terms of power, arguing that foreign policy aims to acquire and maintain influence through tangible capabilities, with moral considerations subordinated to pragmatic necessities. This perspective treats power not merely as a means but as an end, rooted in the observation that states pursue relative gains to deter threats, as evidenced by historical balances like the post-1815, which realists interpret as pragmatic power equilibria rather than ideological harmony. Neorealism, or structural realism, shifts focus from unit-level to systemic constraints, as articulated by in Theory of International Politics (1979). Waltz contended that the distribution of material capabilities—primarily military and economic—among states shapes behavior, with anarchy generating a where one state's defensive buildup appears offensive to others, incentivizing power accumulation for relative security. Under this framework, bipolar systems, such as the U.S.-Soviet standoff from 1947 to 1991, prove more stable than multipolar ones due to clearer power delineations reducing miscalculation risks, supported by empirical data on fewer great-power wars in bipolar eras compared to multipolar periods like pre-1914 . Defensive realists like Waltz advocate balancing against threats rather than expansion, positing that states seek sufficient power for survival, not dominance, as overextension invites counterbalancing coalitions. In contrast, , advanced by in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), asserts that uncertainty in drives states to maximize relative power aggressively, aiming for as the optimal security strategy. Mearsheimer's five assumptions—, offensive military capabilities, uncertainty about intentions, survival primacy, and rational agency—logically entail power maximization, explaining behaviors like imperial expansions (e.g., Napoleonic France's conquests) as rational bids for buffers against rivals. Unlike defensive variants, this view predicts buck-passing or balancing only when hegemony proves unattainable, critiquing liberal optimism about institutions by noting their ineffectiveness absent power asymmetries, as seen in the League of Nations' failure to deter Axis aggression in . Realists across strands concur that power metrics—aggregate resources like GDP, , and armed forces—best gauge influence, dismissing ideational factors as epiphenomenal to material bases. Empirical validations include post-Cold War U.S. primacy, where unmatched capabilities (e.g., defense spending exceeding the next 10 nations combined by 2023) enabled unchallenged operations like the 2003 , underscoring realism's causal emphasis on capabilities over cooperation.

Liberal Perspectives

Liberal theorists in international relations contend that power is diffused and constrained through international institutions, economic interdependence, and democratic governance, enabling cooperation even in an anarchic system. Unlike realists, who prioritize relative gains and military coercion, liberals emphasize absolute gains from mutual interactions, arguing that states can overcome security dilemmas via regimes that facilitate information exchange, monitor compliance, and enforce rules. This perspective holds that institutions redistribute power by empowering weaker actors through collective decision-making and reducing transaction costs of cooperation. Central to liberal views is the concept of , articulated by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye in Power and Interdependence (1977). In scenarios of high interdependence, such as among advanced economies, military force becomes less effective as a tool of influence due to multiple transnational channels of interaction—including non-state actors and economic ties—that blur traditional hierarchies. Power manifests as asymmetrical sensitivity (responsive costs from policy changes) and (long-term exposure to disruptions), shifting focus from to bargaining leverage in issue-specific arenas like or finance. For instance, U.S.-European relations post-1945 exemplify how economic linkages diminished unilateral , fostering stability through shared vulnerabilities. Democratic peace theory further illustrates liberal constraints on power, positing that liberal democracies rarely wage against one another due to domestic accountability mechanisms, transparent signaling, and norms of peaceful resolution derived from representative institutions. Empirical analysis of conflicts from 1816 to 2007 shows zero instances of interstate between established , with explanations rooted in audience costs for leaders (higher in ) and selection effects where resolve disputes via . This dynamic creates "zones of peace" among liberal states, as seen in the absence of in since 1945 despite historical rivalries. Liberals extend this to argue that spreading enhances global power diffusion, as autocracies face normative and institutional isolation. Liberal institutionalism underscores how organizations like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), evolved into the in 1995, constrain state power by binding commitments that prevent defection and promote reciprocity. These regimes alter power balances by empowering multilateral oversight; for example, dispute settlement mechanisms have resolved over 600 cases since 1995, often favoring smaller states against larger ones through legalistic processes rather than raw capability. Critics within acknowledge that institutions reflect underlying power distributions but maintain they evolve to mitigate coercion, as evidenced by the European Union's integration reducing French-German antagonism from 1870-1945 levels to by 2020.

Other Approaches

Constructivist approaches conceptualize power in as socially constructed through intersubjective meanings, identities, and norms rather than as an objective, material attribute inherent to states or resources. Unlike realism's emphasis on fixed capabilities or liberalism's focus on institutional constraints, constructivists argue that power emerges from shared understandings that define what actors value and how they perceive threats or opportunities; for instance, Alexander Wendt's assertion that "anarchy is what states make of it" implies that power dynamics depend on constructed identities, such as alliances formed through mutual recognition rather than brute force. This perspective highlights non-material elements like and legitimacy, where a state's power to influence others stems from ideational factors, evidenced in cases like the evolution of norms shaping member states' preferences beyond economic incentives. Marxist theories frame power as rooted in economic structures and class relations, positing that international power disparities arise from capitalist exploitation extended globally through and . Drawing from Karl Marx's analysis of extraction, these approaches view dominant states' power as deriving from control over global production and trade, enabling wealth transfer from periphery to core economies; Vladimir Lenin's 1917 work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism described this as monopolistic finance capital driving colonial expansion to secure markets and resources, a dynamic observable in historical patterns like European powers' division of in the late , which concentrated extraction in metropoles. Contemporary Marxist variants, such as , extend this to critique how multinational corporations perpetuate underdevelopment, with empirical indicators like the persistent trade imbalances between developed and developing nations—e.g., sub-Saharan 's net resource outflows exceeding $85 billion annually in the 2010s—sustaining hegemonic power without direct coercion. Critical theory, influenced by the Frankfurt School, examines power as embedded in knowledge production and discursive practices that legitimize domination, advocating emancipation from oppressive structures in . It critiques how international institutions and norms reproduce inequalities by naturalizing the interests of powerful actors, as seen in Robert Cox's distinction between "problem-solving" theories that accept the and "critical" ones that historicize power to reveal alternatives; for example, analyses of World Bank policies in the 1980s-1990s programs highlight how imposed measures reinforced debtor nations' subordination, prioritizing creditor power over local . This approach emphasizes transformative potential, arguing that power's causal efficacy lies in its ability to shape subjectivities, though it has been faulted for underemphasizing empirical verification of alternative orders in favor of normative critique.

Measurement and Empirical Indicators

Key Metrics

Scholars in international relations frequently operationalize state power through material capabilities, aggregating quantifiable indicators into composite indices to enable cross-national and temporal comparisons. The (CINC), developed by the project, is a widely used metric that calculates a state's share of global totals across six components: total , urban population, , military expenditure, iron and steel production, and energy consumption. This index, spanning 1816 to the present, emphasizes resources convertible to military potential, with higher scores indicating greater relative capability; for instance, the held the top CINC score of approximately 0.23 in 2020, reflecting its dominance in these domains. Military expenditure serves as a core hard power indicator, capturing a state's fiscal commitment to defense forces and procurement. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) maintains the primary database, providing consistent time-series data from 1949 to 2024 in constant prices, adjusted for and exchange rates; global military spending reached $2.443 trillion in 2023, with the accounting for 37% at $916 billion. These figures correlate with power projections, as higher spending enables advanced weaponry and force projection, though effectiveness depends on efficiency and absorption. Economic metrics, particularly (GDP) and volume, proxy structural power by measuring capacity. GDP, sourced from institutions like the World Bank and IMF, reflects productive output; in 2023, the U.S. GDP exceeded $27 trillion, underpinning its ability to sustain alliances and sanctions. as a of GDP indicates interdependence leverage, with open economies like Germany's (over 80% in recent years) wielding influence via supply chains, though vulnerability to disruptions tempers this. Composite assessments, such as those from RAND, integrate GDP, , and defense spending to rank overall power, prioritizing latent potential over immediate outcomes.
MetricComponentsSourceTime Coverage
CINCPopulation (total/urban), military personnel/expenditure, industrial output (iron/steel, energy)1816–present
Military ExpenditureAnnual defense budgets in constant USDSIPRI1949–2024
Economic PowerGDP, trade volume (% GDP)World Bank/IMFAnnual, post-1960
These metrics favor observable, relational power but overlook intangible factors like or , necessitating supplementary qualitative analysis for comprehensive evaluation.

Limitations of Measurement

Measurements of state power in international relations often rely on aggregate indicators such as (GDP), military expenditures, and the (CINC), but these approaches systematically overestimate capabilities by focusing on gross rather than net resources, failing to account for domestic burdens like welfare, production costs, and commitments that reduce disposable power. For instance, CINC and similar metrics portrayed as a in the 19th century based on and , yet the country suffered defeats in major conflicts like the due to inefficiencies revealed only in net assessments. Net resource calculations, which multiply GDP by GDP per capita to approximate surplus after basic needs, predict war outcomes with 78% accuracy from 1816 to 2010, outperforming gross measures at 68-70%. This discrepancy has influenced over 1,000 studies, leading to misleading narratives such as an imminent Chinese overtake of U.S. power, when net assessments indicate persistent American superiority through technological efficiency and alliances. Soft power, encompassing cultural appeal and diplomatic influence, presents even greater quantification challenges due to its intangible and long-term nature, lacking standardized metrics comparable to hard power's countable resources like troops or budgets. Efforts to gauge it through opinion polls or indices like the Soft Power 30 capture perceptions but struggle with causality, as attitudinal shifts (e.g., pro-U.S. sentiments from exchanges) require years to manifest and are difficult to attribute directly to specific policies. Empirical tracking is hampered by delayed feedback loops and qualitative outcomes, such as cultural exchanges' subtle effects on foreign elites, which resist aggregation into reliable scores without confounding variables like economic incentives. Power's relational and situational character further undermines absolute measurements, as capabilities translate into influence only relative to specific opponents, contexts, and unobserved "silent power" where compliance occurs without overt . Indices assuming fixed hierarchies ignore how power dynamics shift across issue areas—e.g., military dominance may not yield economic concessions—leading to arbitrary weightings in composite scores that prioritize certain dimensions over others. Moreover, data limitations, including incomplete reporting from authoritarian regimes and lagged indicators, exacerbate inaccuracies, while perceptions of power by decision-makers often diverge from objective tallies, affecting formation and deterrence more than raw aggregates.

Dynamics and Applications

Power Balances and Polarity

In , power balances describe the mechanisms through which states maintain equilibrium by countering potential hegemons, often via alliances, arms buildups, or diplomatic maneuvers to prevent any single actor from achieving dominance. This concept underpins realist theories, positing that compels states to prioritize survival by aligning against rising threats rather than allowing unchecked power concentration. Empirical instances include European concert systems post-Napoleonic Wars (1815–1914), where great powers periodically adjusted coalitions to preserve stability amid multipolar competition. Polarity classifies the international system's structure by the number of poles—states with capabilities to project power globally—typically unipolar (one hegemon), bipolar (two rivals), or multipolar (three or more). Unipolarity features a single preponderant power exercising systemic influence with limited balancing needs, as seen post-Cold War (1991 onward) when the held unmatched military and economic primacy, enabling operations like the 1991 and 1999 intervention without peer competition. Bipolarity, by contrast, involves two powers sharing most capabilities, fostering intense but enforced restraint; the U.S.-Soviet standoff from 1947 to 1991 exemplified this, with no direct great-power despite proxy conflicts in Korea (1950–1953) and (1955–1975). Multipolarity entails diffused power among several actors, increasing alliance fluidity but also miscalculation risks, as in pre-World War I (circa 1900–1914) where ententes failed to avert escalation. Structural realist contended in his 1979 work that bipolar systems enhance stability by minimizing actors, thus reducing uncertainty and buck-passing temptations inherent in multipolarity, where shifting coalitions amplify error probabilities. Waltz's earlier analysis of bipolarity's "stability" highlighted how dueling superpowers concentrate responsibility, deterring adventurism absent third-party distractions, a dynamic credited for nuclear parity without . Defensive realists extend this to argue balances form reactively against threats, while offensive variants predict aggressive balancing or with dominants in asymmetric cases. Yet empirical critiques note balances' imperfections, such as Britain's failed of Wilhelmine Germany pre-1914 or appeasement toward Nazi expansion (1933–1939), underscoring that perceived threats, not raw power, drive responses. Contemporary debates on polarity reflect post-unipolar transitions, with China's GDP surpassing the U.S. in terms by 2014 and military modernization accelerating since, prompting arguments for a U.S.-China bipolar axis amid Russia's 2022 invasion and EU fragmentation. Proponents of renewed bipolarity cite Sino-American rivalry in domains like the (escalating since 2013) and technology decoupling, transforming systemic dynamics akin to blocs. Counterviews maintain lingering U.S. unipolarity, evidenced by its 2023 alliances encompassing 60% of global GDP via and , versus China's regionally confined influence despite loans exceeding $1 trillion since 2013. Multipolar advocates invoke additional poles like (projected third-largest economy by 2030) and a cohesive EU, yet data on power concentration—U.S. defense spending at 3.5% of GDP versus peers' averages under 2%—suggests no full diffusion, with academic assessments often understating U.S. resilience due to institutional preferences for multipolar narratives.

Power in Conflict and Cooperation

In international conflicts, power manifests primarily as coercive capacity, often modeled as zero-sum, where one actor's relative gains in military or economic resources directly erode the security of others, incentivizing preemptive actions or arms races. Realist theorists, such as , contend that states pursue power maximization to ensure survival in an anarchic system, as evidenced by historical escalations like the Anglo-German naval rivalry preceding , where Britain's perception of Germany's fleet expansion from 13 battleships in 1900 to 40 by 1914 prompted countermeasures that heightened tensions. Empirical analyses of interstate wars from 1816 to 2007 show that material power asymmetries, measured by composite indices of army size, industrial output, and technological edge, predict victory probabilities, with the stronger side winning approximately 70% of cases due to superior and . Balance of power dynamics further illustrate power's role in mitigating or provoking conflict through strategic responses, where states engage in internal balancing (e.g., military buildups) or external balancing (s) to counter hegemons, thereby preserving equilibrium but risking miscalculation-induced wars. Kenneth Waltz's neorealist framework posits that bipolar systems, like the U.S.-Soviet standoff from to , foster stability via mutual deterrence, as each superpower's nuclear arsenal—peaking at over 70,000 warheads combined by the 1980s—discouraged direct confrontation, though proxy wars in Korea (1950-1953) and (1955-1975) consumed millions of lives. This theory holds empirically in datasets of great power conflicts, where balancing behaviors reduced hegemony risks but correlated with alliance entanglements leading to 60% of wars from 1495 to . In cooperative settings, power operates as variable-sum, enabling mutual enhancements through interdependence and institution-building, though underlying asymmetries often shape bargaining outcomes. and Joseph Nye's model highlights how economic linkages, such as global supply chains post-1990, allow states to pool resources for collective gains, exemplified by the European Coal and Steel Community's formation in 1951, which integrated French and German production capacities to prevent rivalry-fueled wars. Alliances like , established on April 4, 1949, aggregate defensive power among 12 founding members (expanding to 32 by 2024), deterring aggression via Article 5's collective defense clause, which has underpinned transatlantic security without invoking full-scale invocation until potential post-2022 responses to Russian actions in . However, power imbalances within cooperatives can lead to exploitation, as seen in U.S. dominance in post-World War II institutions, where its economic leverage—controlling 50% of global GDP in 1945—dictated terms in Bretton Woods agreements, fostering growth but entrenching dependency for weaker partners. Power transitions during cooperation-to-conflict shifts underscore causal mechanisms, where rising powers challenge incumbents, as in observed between and circa 431 BCE or contemporary U.S.-China frictions, with 's GDP surpassing Japan's in 2010 and military spending rising 7.2% annually from 2013 to 2023. While liberals emphasize institutional constraints mitigating such risks—e.g., WTO dispute settlements resolving over 600 cases since 1995—realist critiques, supported by war onset data, argue that absolute gains matter less than perceptions of threat, rendering cooperation fragile absent credible enforcement. Thus, power's exercise in mixed-motive arenas demands contextual assessment, privileging hard capabilities in high-stakes conflicts over softer inducements in routine .

Criticisms and Debates

Realist Critiques of Non-Coercive Power

Realist scholars, particularly those in the structural and offensive traditions, argue that non-coercive power—encompassing concepts like , normative influence, and institutional persuasion—lacks the reliability and autonomy to shape state behavior in an anarchic international system. Without a foundation in coercive capabilities, such as military force or backed by credible threats, non-coercive mechanisms fail to compel adversaries or ensure compliance when vital interests clash, as states prioritize and relative gains over voluntary alignment. This critique stems from the realist premise that power resides in tangible material resources that enable domination, not in ephemeral attractions like cultural appeal or diplomatic rhetoric. John Mearsheimer, an offensive realist, dismisses as ancillary to , asserting that great powers pursue primarily through military buildup and deterrence, as alone cannot mitigate the inherent in . In his analysis, attempts to rely on non-coercive tools, such as U.S. cultural exports or multilateral institutions, have proven ineffective against revisionist states like or , which advance through assertive territorial claims and arms modernization rather than yielding to persuasion—evidenced by 's rejection of U.S.-led norms in the despite decades of engagement efforts. Mearsheimer contends that 's "successes," such as alliance cohesion, depend on underlying coercive guarantees, rendering it derivative rather than independent. Defensive realists like echo this by emphasizing systemic pressures that favor observable capabilities over subjective influences; in bipolar or multipolar structures, states balance against threats via arms races, not ideational appeals, as non-coercive power dissipates amid power transitions—illustrated by the Soviet Union's collapse in , where ideological failed to offset overextension. Critics like further argue that overreliance on invites exploitation, as adversaries interpret restraint as weakness, citing Britain's interwar policies, which normative diplomacy undermined against Nazi Germany's coercive advances. Empirical studies reinforce this, showing that (a liberal non-coercive proxy) correlates weakly with conflict avoidance absent deterrence, as in the 2014 despite Europe's energy ties to . These critiques highlight measurement challenges for non-coercive power, often proxied by polls on favorability (e.g., Pew Research data showing U.S. dips post-Iraq War in 2003 without altering behavioral outcomes), underscoring realists' insistence on prioritizing verifiable coercive metrics like defense spending—U.S. at $877 billion in 2022 versus China's $292 billion—for assessing true influence. While acknowledging 's utility in amplifying (e.g., NATO's Article 5 backed by U.S. nuclear arsenal), realists warn that elevating it risks strategic myopia, as seen in liberal optimism preceding authoritarian assertiveness in the .

Debates on Power Diffusion

In , debates on power diffusion center on the contention that traditional state-centric power is increasingly dispersing to non-state actors, networks, and transnational forces, challenging the efficacy of state-based governance. This view, articulated by Joseph S. Nye Jr., posits that power diffusion—distinct from power transition among states—involves the shift of influence from governments to entities such as multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), terrorist groups, and digital networks, facilitated by , , and the information revolution. Nye argues that this diffusion, rather than a rival state's rise like China's, poses a more profound long-term threat to established powers like the , as non-state actors evade traditional coercion and military dominance. Empirical drivers include the proliferation of transnational actors since the 1990s, with NGOs influencing global agendas—such as environmental NGOs shaping the 1997 negotiations—and terrorist networks like demonstrating asymmetric power through the , 2001, attacks, which bypassed state militaries. Critics, often drawing from realist perspectives, contend that power diffusion is overstated and partial, with states retaining primacy through control over resources and . For instance, while non-state actors wield influence in issue-specific domains like cybersecurity—evidenced by non-state hacks disrupting state infrastructure, such as the 2016 U.S. interference attributed to state-linked but diffused networks—states frequently co-opt or proxy these actors, as seen in Iran's use of since the 1980s. Realists like argue that anarchy compels states to prioritize , limiting true diffusion; data on military spending underscores this, with the U.S. allocating $877 billion in 2023 compared to China's $292 billion, maintaining state concentration in coercive capabilities. Moreover, diffusion's implications for are ambivalent: it enables joint problem-solving in multilateral settings but fosters deadlocks due to veto points from diverse actors, as observed in stalled WTO negotiations post-2008 Doha Round amid NGO and corporate . Empirical assessments reveal mixed outcomes, with diffusion eroding unified state action on transnational issues like —where NGOs and firms drove the 2015 Paris Agreement's non-binding elements—yet failing to supplant state hierarchies in security realms. Scholars debate whether this leads to "interpolarity," a fragmented order beyond traditional polarity, or reinforces hierarchies through state adaptation, such as U.S. cyber commands countering diffused threats since 2010. Liberal institutionalists highlight diffusion's democratizing potential via networks, but evidence from failed global responses to pandemics, like coordination breakdowns in 2020 attributable to state-non-state frictions, suggests governance decline without corresponding power equalization. These debates underscore causal tensions: while technology diffuses capabilities—evidenced by widespread drone access post-2010—states' regulatory monopolies often reconcentrate effective power, questioning diffusion's transformative claims.

References

  1. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-theory/
  2. http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps240/04%2520Conflict%2520with%2520States%2520as%2520Unitary%2520Actors/Morgenthau%2520-%2520Politics%2520among%2520nations%2520%28selected%2520chapters%29.pdf
  3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  4. http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/2015-12_annual/Power-In-Ir-By-Raimzhanova%2C-A.pdf
  5. https://www.e-ir.info/2022/05/21/power-and-development-in-global-politics/
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41371577
  7. https://www.diis.dk/en/research/analysing-power-through-morgenthaus-theory
  8. https://internationalrelations.org/history-of-international-relations/power-international-relations/
  9. http://dbaldwin.scholar.princeton.edu/document/22
  10. https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/Dahl_Power_1957.pdf
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/relational-theory-of-world-politics/power-and-relation/A3EF2BF17056B80375AA949D609798A0
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328791287_Hans_J_Morgenthau_and_the_three_purposes_of_power
  13. https://ondisc.nd.edu/news-media/news/an-introduction-to-realism-in-international-relations/
  14. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/in-defence-of-thucydides-the-realist/
  15. https://philarchive.org/archive/KORHIR
  16. https://gjis.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/gjis/article/download/35136/31881/37560
  17. http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/pdf/Sheehan%20-%20Balance%20of%20Power.pdf
  18. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0202.xml
  19. https://dbaldwin.scholar.princeton.edu/document/22
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13600829608443105
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms20178
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879573
  23. https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/09/what-is-power-in-global-politics-and-international-relations/
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2158379X.2018.1433757
  25. https://glopoib.wordpress.com/power-in-global-politics/
  26. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-118
  27. https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-681
  28. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/183545/1/wp-191.pdf
  29. https://www.bisa.ac.uk/articles/susan-strange-meets-everyday-mundane-sources-structural-power
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/susan-strange-meets-the-everyday-the-mundane-sources-of-structural-power/1D23361D622C523F7EB785EA54105858
  31. https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/content/revisiting-structural-power-global-economy-its-multinationals-not-states
  32. https://uva.theopenscholar.com/files/hermanschwartz/files/strange-print.pdf
  33. https://www.sepad.org.uk/announcement/social-theory-susan-strange
  34. https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/ncert-notes/hegemony-hard-structural-and-soft-power/
  35. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100967/1/Power_StructuralPower_accepted.pdf
  36. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2158379X.2019.1618486
  37. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/14/the-effectiveness-of-soft-hard-power-in-contemporary-international-relations/
  38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20699631
  39. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/43/2/7/12211/The-Power-of-Nations-Measuring-What-Matters
  40. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2504_fs_milex_2024.pdf
  41. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/soft-and-hard-power
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382440680_The_Utility_of_Both_Hard_and_Soft_Power_in_Modern_International_Relations
  43. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-economic-sanctions
  44. https://now.tufts.edu/2024/07/08/are-economic-sanctions-effective-foreign-policy-tools
  45. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/707398
  46. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/soft-power-and-public-diplomacy-revisited
  47. https://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternal_Document.cfm?contenttype_id=5&ContentID=8393
  48. https://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/08/joseph-nye-on-soft-power/
  49. https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/soft-power-the-means-to-success-in-world-politics/
  50. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-soft-power
  51. https://brandfinance.com/insights/global-soft-power-index-2025-the-shifting-balance-of-global-soft-power
  52. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/10/04/Measuring-Soft-Power-A-New-Global-Index-555898
  53. https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/09/the-problem-with-soft-power/
  54. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/10/19/the-irrelevance-of-soft-power/
  55. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/waltz-theory
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/evolution-of-offensive-realism/56B778004187F70B8E59609BE7FEE7A4
  57. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/03/06/john-mearsheimers-theory-of-offensive-realism-and-the-rise-of-china/
  58. https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/preferences.pdf
  59. https://www.e-ir.info/2011/09/01/liberal-institutionalism-an-alternative-ir-theory-or-just-maintaining-the-status-quo/
  60. http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps240/05%2520Cooperation%2520with%2520States%2520as%2520Unitary%2520Actors/Keohane%2520&%2520Nye%2520-%2520Power%2520and%2520interdependence%2520%5BCh%25201-3%5D.pdf
  61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706764
  62. https://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/18/the-democratic-peace-theory/
  63. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1753084
  64. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/liberal-institutionalism-its-threatened-past-its-threatened-future/
  65. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/18/introducing-liberalism-in-international-relations-theory/
  66. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory/
  67. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/power/chpt/constructivist-view-power-international-relations
  68. https://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternal_Document.cfm?contenttype_id=5&ContentID=8773
  69. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/25/introducing-marxism-in-international-relations-theory/
  70. https://fiveable.me/theories-of-international-relations/unit-4/classical-marxism/study-guide/Yy1f1ZeoM7hx0kAy
  71. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/156859/1/Marxiaeth%25209fed%2520golygiad.pdf
  72. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/18/introducing-critical-theory-in-international-relations/
  73. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34331/chapter/291355953
  74. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/88661260/Critical_Theories_and_Change_in_International_Relations.pdf
  75. https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/national-material-capabilities/
  76. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/composite-index-of-national-capability-by-country
  77. https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex
  78. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS
  79. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF215.pdf
  80. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/three-approaches-to-the-measurement-of-power-in-international-relations/F4D580931E934A85351E9406832D354C
  81. https://issforum.org/articlereviews/122-measuring
  82. https://pure.diis.dk/ws/files/56324/WP2009_28_measure_of_power_international_relations_web.pdf
  83. https://hartj.pages.iu.edu/documents/approaches.pdf
  84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3013644
  85. https://www.hoover.org/research/seeking-stability-structure-power
  86. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/12/balance-of-power-theory-in-todays-international-system/
  87. https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/POLINDO/article/download/31126/16142/124340
  88. https://polsci.institute/international-relations/uni-polarity-post-cold-war-us-dominance/
  89. https://faculty.washington.edu/caporaso/courses/203/readings/waltz__Stabillity_of_a_Bipol.pdf
  90. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/49/2/7/125214/Back-to-Bipolarity-How-China-s-Rise-Transformed
  91. https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/4/2/ksae018/7642834
  92. https://www.stimson.org/2023/assumption-testing-multipolarity-is-more-dangerous-than-bipolarity-for-the-united-states/
  93. https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=polsci_pubs
  94. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/papers/relevance_01222011.pdf
  95. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WPP.CHAP12.HTM
  96. https://igcc.ucsd.edu/blog/between-conflict-and-cooperation-the-world-in-2021-2/
  97. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/48/2/164/118107/Wars-without-Gun-Smoke-Global-Supply-Chains-Power
  98. https://www.hawaii.edu/intlrel/pols315/Text/Theory/concoop.htm
  99. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2158379X.2022.2135303
  100. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/future-power
  101. https://irregularwarfarecenter.org/publications/research-studies/the-role-of-non-state-actors-as-proxies-in-irregular-warfare-and-malign-state-influence/
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276907536_Diffusion_of_Power_and_Diplomacy_New_Meanings_Problem_Solving_and_Deadlocks_in_Multilateral_Negotiations
  103. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ethics-and-international-affairs/article/diffusion-of-global-power-and-the-decline-of-global-governance/3476B7B05042D2AD2F7806940FB06FAE
  104. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702436.2022.2110482
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.