In International Relations (IR), power is a multifaceted concept involving a state’s capacity to influence others. It’s not just about tangible attributes like the size or military strength of a country, but also intangible factors such as diplomatic skill and ideology. The concept of power is relational and comparative, because it focuses on how a state’s capabilities stack up against those of others. Key elements of power include economic factors like GDP, population size, and the availability of natural resources, as well as less tangible aspects like political culture and moral authority. In addition, IR scholars deal with various forms of this concept, such as hard power, soft power, smart power, sharp power and collaborative power. By analyzing power, we can understand a state’s ability to effectively influence global affairs and maintain its position in the world.
The Definition of Power
Power is hard to define and measure. It is commonly understood as the ability to influence another actor’s actions or decisions — either to do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise or to refrain from doing something they would have. This notion of power as influence underlines the fact that powerful actors are those who frequently get their way.
However, this definition encounters a critical issue: it’s often unclear what the second actor would have done in the absence of the first actor’s influence, leading to a potential circular logic where power is both the cause and effect of influence. To distinguish from this, power is more accurately seen as the potential or capacity to exert influence, rather than influence itself. IR scholars typically link this potential to tangible and intangible attributes of states, like size, income, and military capabilities.
Power also encompasses non-material elements. The effective mobilization and strategic deployment of a state’s capabilities hinge on factors like national will, diplomatic skill, and government legitimacy. The power of ideas, such as the ability to influence through psychological processes involving religion, ideology, or nationalism, also plays a significant role.
Power isn’t only about dominance; it also involves principles of reciprocity and identity. Different strategies of influence, like offering incentives for desired behavior or appealing to shared identities and values, are equally effective. While realists often focus on dominance, they acknowledge the efficacy of these alternative methods. They also recognize that power is just one of many factors influencing real-world outcomes, with elements like chance also playing a role.
Finally, power is inherently relational and comparative. The significance lies not in the absolute growth or decline of a state’s capabilities but in how these capabilities compare with those of others. The relative power between states is what matters, as exemplified by the comparison of military advancements between rival states like India and China. The key for realists is the relative positioning and the shifts in the balance of power among states.
Elements of Power
Power is a complex blend of various factors associated to a state. Key elements include its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), its population size, its land area, its geographic characteristics, and its reserves of natural resources. These factors evolve gradually over time. Other vital, yet less tangible, aspects include its political culture, sense of patriotism, educational level of the population, and the strength of its scientific and technological foundations. A state’s reputation for maintaining its commitments also plays a critical role in its long-term power, as does its ability to influence other states through its cultural values and ideologies. Moral authority can also augment a state’s power by strengthening its resolve and attracting allies. However, using moralistic rhetoric excessively to mask self-interest can erode a state’s credibility, even among its own citizens.
Perhaps the most crucial factor in establishing a state’s power is the size of its economy, measured by its GDP. This is because a robust economy can fund a large military, win over the population with consumer goods, and even attract allies. An illustrative example of the impact of this is the aftermath of Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Despite Japan’s initial military superiority and territorial gains in Southeast Asia, the United States eventually overpowered Japan due to its superior economic capacity and the subsequent buildup of its military strength. However, it is difficult to measure a state’s GDP, and variations in calculation methods can significantly affect estimates.
In addition, having economic power does not guarantee that a state’s interests will be achieved in the long run. Take the example of the Libyan revolution in 2011. The revolutionaries faced great difficulty in fighting against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, which was equipped with heavy weaponry. The situation changed dramatically when the United States and its NATO allies started an air campaign in support of the rebels. This intervention shifted the balance, leading to the eventual defeat of Gaddafi without NATO losing a single soldier. The economic power of NATO, with a GDP roughly 300 times that of Libya, played a significant role in this outcome. However, this clear victory did not come without unintended consequences. The fighters and militants who had sided with Gaddafi captured a large cache of weapons and then moved to northern Mali and to Algeria, where they engaged in other confrontations. Furthermore, the situation in Libya remained unstable: there are still different factions claiming control over various parts of the country.
This series of events illustrates that, while a strong economy can contribute to military victory, it doesn’t guarantee simplicity or predictability in the long-term aftermath of a conflict. In fact, elements of complexity and chance continue to play a significant role in shaping outcomes.
Moreover, Geopolitics, or the use of geography as an element of power, is integral to a state’s strategy. It includes securing allies and bases near rival powers, controlling natural resources, and managing strategic trade routes. Current geopolitical issues involve control over oil pipeline routes in Central Asia and new shipping lanes opened by the melting of the continental ice shelf, affecting Russia and the United States. In geopolitics, the prime factor is location, which can significantly enhance a state’s military capabilities.
When choosing which elements of power to prioritize, states must make strategic choices. This happens because they have limited resources, what leads to trade-offs among various capabilities. For example, investing in military forces might limit the resources available for foreign aid or domestic consumer goods, affecting the state’s overall capability development. The concept of fungibility, where one form of power can be converted into another, is essential in this context. Money is typically the most fungible resource as it can be used to acquire other forms of power.
Types of Power
Hard Power
Hard power, also known as coercive power, is the ability to force someone to do something, often through rewards, coercion, or threats. This traditional form of power in International Relations was highlighted by Joseph Nye in 1990. Hard power is synonymous with the carrot and sticks approach, involving threats of punishment and promises of reward. It’s not limited to political (like coercive diplomacy or political sanctions) or military aspects but extends to economic influences, often incorrectly associated solely with soft power. This power is typically measured quantitatively, based on a state’s material capabilities, and examples include the imposition of political and economic sanctions and international interventions.
Soft Power
Soft power refers to the ability to affect others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. This power shapes preferences and can manifest in various ways for states, such as through culture, education, political and economic values, sports, technical cooperation, and non-coercive foreign policy and diplomacy. Joseph Nye developed this concept while analyzing the perceived decline of American power in the 1980s. He argued that the US maintained its influence not just through economic and military means but also through its attractive power. Nye attributed the fall of the Soviet Union partly to its loss of soft power, particularly due to interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. According to Nye, soft power works like a magnet, in contrast to the coercive approach of hard power. It depends on credibility and emanates primarily from a country’s culture, political values like democracy and human rights, and foreign policies that consider other countries’ interests.
Smart Power
Smart power involves the strategic combination of hard and soft power to reinforce each other, making the pursuit of international interests more efficient and effective. Recognizing that reliance on either form of power alone is often insufficient or counterproductive, smart power emphasizes the need for military strength along with alliances, partnerships, and institutions at all levels. Coined by Joseph Nye and Suzanne Nossel, this concept became more prescriptive in nature, advocating for the right balance of diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural tools in foreign policy. An example of this was Theodore Roosevelt’s Big Stick Policy, that advocated combining peaceful negotiations with the implicit threat of military force.
Sharp Power
Sharp power, introduced by Christopher Walker and Jessica Ludwig in 2017, describes an information warfare strategy by authoritarian powers like China and Russia. It involves disseminating malicious information globally for political destabilization. Unlike soft power, which relies on positive attraction, sharp power manipulates through deception and lacks transparency. It encompasses subversion, pressure, distraction, and manipulation while suppressing political pluralism and freedom of expression domestically to preserve power.
Collaborative Power
Collaborative power, as discussed by Anne-Marie Slaughter, represents the collective ability to achieve what individuals cannot do alone. It emerges from the convergence of resource power (based on tangible assets like territory) and relational power (the ability to affect others in social situations). This power is facilitated by technology companies providing platforms for social mobilization, often without a formal organization. A case in point is the freeing of blogger Mona Eltahawy, which had been arrested by Egyptian authorities, in the wake of a social media campaign.
Conclusion
The concept of power in International Relations is multidimensional, encompassing a wide range of factors — from tangible assets like GDP and military strength to more intangible elements such as diplomatic skill, ideology, and moral authority. The various forms of power — such as hard, soft, smart, sharp, and collaborative — highlight the complexity of international dynamics and the multitude of strategies states can employ to pursue their interests. Understanding the nuances of these elements and types of power is crucial for comprehending how states interact, influence each other, and shape global affairs. Ultimately, the effective use of power in international relations requires a balanced approach, blending various elements and types of it to adapt to the ever-changing geopolitical landscape.
Leave a Reply