Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reconsidering Power in International Relations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chinese Political Science Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article provides a conceptual and empirical review of power analysis in International Relations. The main objective of this article is to bridge the gap between conceptual and empirical research on power. First, it reviews various definitions of power by focusing specifically on International Relations literature. Second, it identifies and illustrates key measurement issues concerning the national power capacities of major powers. In this article, the Composite Index of National Capabilities for 20 countries for the period between 1991 and 2012 is used to demonstrate the change in power distribution among major powers. Lastly, it introduces diplomatic representation and war proneness as two new variables that enhance the empirical analysis of power by adding a relational dimension while working with tangible and quantifiable data. These two variables are both indicators and sources of national power. The article concludes by suggesting that diplomatic representation, and war proneness of countries, should be taken into consideration analytically if one wants to comprehend the dynamics and effects of power distribution among the most powerful countries in today’s world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more information on relativity and measurement of power, see K. H. Höhn, Geopolitics and the Measurement of National Power, (PhD Dissertations, Hamburg 2011). Online at https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/6550/pdf/Dissertation.pdf. Accessed on 01 March 2019.

  2. National power indexes gained popularity especially during the Cold War. Höhn’s research shows that, from 1741 to 2009, 51 different power formulas have been developed. However, in empirical international relations theory, the CINC score developed by the COW project is still the most popular power formula.

  3. The Correlates of War dataset defines interstate war as a combat between two states which involves ‘regular armed forces on both sides and 1,000 battle-related fatalities among all of the system members involved. Any individual member state qualified as a war participant through either of two criteria: a minimum of 100 fatalities or a minimum of 1,000 armed personnel engaged in active combat’ (Sarkees 2011, 3).

  4. According to the definition given by Sarkees (2011, 11) an extra-state war is ‘between a state and a nonstate entity outside its borders.’.

  5. The full list can be found in Akgül (2015:508–509).

References

  • Akgül, Öner. 2015. Devletlerin Savaş Yatkınlıklarının Ölçülebilirliğine İlişkin Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım [An Alternative Way on the Measurability of War Proneness of Nations]. Paper presented at the VII. Uludag International Relations Conference (UCIR), 20–22 Nov, Bursa, Turkey: 508–509. https://cdn-cms.f-static.net/uploads/2415508/normal_5d48a67a1305c.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2020.

  • Alcock, Norman Z., and Alan G. Newcombe. 1970. The perception of national power. Journal of Conflict Resolution 14 (3): 335–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. 1962. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, David A. 2002. Power and international relations. In Handbook of international relations, ed. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 177–191. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenskoetter, Felix. 2007. Thinking About Power. In Power in World Politics, eds. F. Berenskoetter and Michael J. Williams, 11–32. Abigdon, OXON: Routledge.

  • Bilgin, Pınar, and Berivan Eliş. 2008. Hard power, soft power: toward a more realistic power analysis. Insight Turkey 10 (2): 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporaso, James A. 1978. Dependence, dependency, and power in the global system: a structural and behavioral analysis. International Organization 32 (1): 13–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choucri, Nazli, and Robert C. North. 1972. Dynamics of international conflict: some policy implications of population, resources, and technology. World Politics 24 (S1): 80–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choucri, Nazli, and North, Robert C. (1989). Lateral pressure in international relations: Concept and theory. In Handbook of war studies, (eds.) Manus Midlarsky: 289–326, Unwin-Hyman: Boston.

  • Cline, Ray S. 1975. World Power Assessment: A Calculus of Strategic Drift. Boulder Co: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Andrew. 1997/1998. Beyond representation. International Journal 53 (1): 173–178.

  • Crescenzi, Mark J.C. 2007. Reputation and interstate conflict. American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 382–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Karl Wolfgang. 1968. The analysis of international relations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Digeser, Peter. 1992. The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics 54 (4): 977–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchêne, François. 1972. Europe’s role in world peace. In Europe tomorrow sixteen europeans look ahead, ed. R. Mayne, 32–47. London: Fontana/Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, Daniel S. 1992. Capability concentration, power transition, and war. International Interactions 17 (3): 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, Daniel S., and J. David Singer. 1998. Nations at war: a scientific study of international conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzini, Stefano. 2011. Relational power. In Encylopedia of Power, ed. Keith Dowding, 563–566. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

  • Hanson, Jonathan K., and Rachel Sigman. 2013. Leviathan’s latent dimensions: measuring state capacity for comparative political research, Paper presented at the APSA Annual Meeting, California, 2011. Online at (https://ssrn.com/abstract=1899933). Accessed on 01 March 2019.

  • Hart, Jeffrey. 1976. Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations. International Organization 30 (2): 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhn, Karl Hermann. 2011. Geopolitics and the Measurement of National Power. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Hamburg, Hamburg. https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2014/6550/pdf/Dissertation.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2019.

  • Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. 1990. Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, Kalevi Jaakko. 1972. International politics: a framework for analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houweling, H.W., and J.B. Kuné. 1985. An inquiry into the war proneness of nations, 1821–1980. Current Research on Peace and Violence 8 (2): 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, Paul K. 1988. Extended deterrence and the outbreak of war. American Political Science Review 82 (2): 423–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, Robert. 2017. How statesmen think: the psychology of international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadera, Kelly, and Gerald Sorokin. 2004. Measuring national power. International Interactions 30 (3): 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugler, Jacek, and Douglas Lemke (eds.). 1996. Parity and war: evaluations and extensions of "The War Ledger.". Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, Steven. 2005. [1974]. Power: a radical view, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manners, Ian. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235–258.

  • Mansfield, Edward D. 1992. The concentration of capabilities and the onset of war. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (1): 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edward D. 1993. Concentration, polarity, and the distribution of power. International Studies Quarterly 37 (1): 105–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Zeev. 2004. Pacifism and fightaholism in international politics: a structural history of national and dyadic conflict, 1816–1992. International Studies Review 6 (4): 107–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattern, Janice Bially. 2005. Why ‘Soft Power’ Isn'’t So Soft: representational force and the sociolinguistic construction of attraction in world politics. Millennium:Journal of International Studies 33 (3): 583–612.

  • Mcclory, Jonathan. 2018. The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power 2018. USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Online at (https://softpower30.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-Soft-Power-30-Report-2018.pdf). Accessed on 01 March 2019.

  • Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, Eric. 2008. Distance, power and ideology: diplomatic representation in a world of nation-states. Area 40 (2): 228–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph S. 1990. Bound to lead: the changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph S. 2009. Get Smart: combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs 88 (4): 160–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organski, Abramo F.K., and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The war ledger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, Jerrold M. 2010. The psychological assessment of political leaders: with profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, Jerrold M. 2014. Personality Profiling Analysis. In Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership, ed. R. A. W. Rhodes and Paul 't Hart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Renshon, J. (2017). Fighting for status: Hierarchy and conflict in world politics. Princeton University Press.

  • Russett, Bruce M., and W. Curtis Lamb. 1969. Global patterns of diplomatic exchange, 1963–64. Journal of Peace Research 6 (1): 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkees, Meredith R. 2010. The COW Typology of War: Defining and Categorizing Wars (Version 4 of the Data). Online at (https://cow.dss.ucdavis.edu/data-sets/COW-war). Accessed on 01 March 2019.

  • Sarkees, Meredith R., and Wayman, F. Whelon 2010. Resort to war: a data guide to inter-state, extra-state, intra-state, and non-state wars, 1816–2007, CQ Press.

  • Schmidt, Brian C. 2005. Competing Realist Conceptions of Power. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33 (3): 523–549.

  • Sharp, Paul. 1997. Who needs diplomats the problem of diplomatic representation. International Journal 52 (4): 609–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J.David. 1979. Explaining war: correlates of war project. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J.David. 1988. Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions 14 (2): 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J.David, and Melvin Small. 1972. The wages of war, 1816–1965: a statistical handbook. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J.David, Stuart Bremer, and John Stuckey. 1972. Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–1965. In Peace, war, and numbers, ed. Bruce Russett, 19–48. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, Melvin, and J. David Singer. 1973. The diplomatic importance of states, 1816–1970: an extension and refinement of the indicator. World Politics 25 (4): 577–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, Richard J., and Michael Don Ward. 1989. Power in world politics. Boulder Co: L. Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, Susan. 1990. Finance, information and power. Review of International Studies 16 (3): 259–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, John A. 2009. The war puzzle revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volgy, T.J., and S. Mayhall. 1995. Status inconsistency and international war: exploring the effects of systemic change. International Studies Quarterly 39 (1): 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, Richard. 1998. From civilian power to superpower?: The international identity of the European union. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Relations, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, Bagbasi Campus, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kırşehir, Turkey

    Öner Akgül

  2. Department of International Relations, Hacettepe University, Beytepe Campus, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ankara, Turkey

    Kadri Kaan Renda

Authors
  1. Öner Akgül
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kadri Kaan Renda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Öner Akgül.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akgül, Ö., Renda, K.K. Reconsidering Power in International Relations. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. 5, 332–354 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00151-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00151-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation