Abstract
States relate to each other, giving rise to the international system, which is organized around two main axes: the axis of competition and the axis of cooperation. This chapter focuses on the axis of competition, that is, the mutual disposition or position of state units in the system based on competition. Three important theories of International Relations were reviewed for the analysis, which are embedded within broader paradigms of thought: neorealism (as part of the realist paradigm), world-systems theory (as part of the neo-Marxist paradigm), and institutional neoliberalism (as part of the liberal paradigm). By breaking down the variables used by these theories, it was possible to determine that each of them emphasizes certain elements of national power that allow them to “weigh” states. Discovering this allowed us to question the historically prevalent inter-paradigmatic stagnation and transcend it. From this and with the support of innovative quantitative techniques that allowed us to ponder the multiple dimensions of power revealed by the afore mentioned theories, a trans-structural model was developed that contributed to a broad and complex understanding of power in the international system, which it helped us visualize the heterogeneity and multidimensionality of the distribution of power between states. This innovative classification of states constructed here not only synthesizes the specificities of each theoretical paradigm but also articulates them, generating a model that allows for the accurate determination of the position that each state occupies in the international geostructure based on precise, differentiated, and complex reading of its national power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to Henrique De Oliveira, “the relative predominance of rationalism over realism in Great Britain led to the fact that the word ‘structure’ is there more associated with the institutional structure of the world than with its polarity, that is, the pattern distribution of national capabilities in a gross sense” (De Oliveira, 2002, p. XXI).
- 2.
The microstates identified here without data are: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Nauru, Tuvalu.
References
Abad, G. (2019). El liberalismo en la teoría de relaciones internacionales: su presencia en la Escuela Española. Comillas Journal of International Relations (16), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.14422/cir.i16.y2019.004.
Aguirre, C. A. (2003). Immanuel Wallerstein: crítica del sistema-mundo capitalista. Ediciones Era.
Arrighi, G., & Drangel, J. (1986). The stratification of the world-economy: An exploration of the semiperipheral zone. Review, X(1), 9–74.
Babones, S. (2005). The country-level income structure of world-economy. Journal of World-Systems Research, XI(I), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2005.392.
Baldwin, D. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. Columbia University Press.
Barbé, E. (1995). Relaciones internacionales. Tecnos.
Berridge, G. R., & Young, J. W. (1988). What is ‘a great power’? Political Studies, XXXVI(2), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1988.tb00226.x
Bidet, J. (2011). L'État-monde: Libéralisme, socialisme et communisme à l'échelle globale. Refondation du marxisme. PUF.
Bidet, J. (2013). Le marxisme face à l’histoire globale. Actuel Marx, 1(53), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.3917/amx.053.0106
Borja, A. (2005). Interdependencia, cooperación y globalismo. Ensayos escogidos de Robert O. Keohane. CIDE.
Borja, A., González, G., & Stevenson, B. (1996). Regionalismo y poder en América: los límites del neorrealismo. CIDE.
Braudel, F. (1984). Civilization and capitalism, 15th–18th century. Volume III: The perspective of the world. Collins.
Bull, H. (1995). The anarchical society. Columbia University Press.
Callinicos, A. (2007). Does capitalism need the state system? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570701680464
Callinicos, A. (2009). Imperialism and global political economy. Polity Press.
Chapnick, A. (1999). The middle power. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 7(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212
Chase-Dunn, C. (1988). Comparing world-systems: Toward a theory of semiperipheral development. Comparative Civilizations Review (19), 29–66.
Cooper, D. (2011). Challenging contemporary notions of middle power influence: Implications of proliferation security initiative of “middle power theory.” Foreign Policy Analysis, 7(3), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00140.x
Cox, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world Orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
Cox, R. (1989). Middlepowermanship, Japan and future world order. International Journal, 44(4), 823–862. https://doi.org/10.2307/40202638
De Oliveira, H. (2002). Prefácio à nova edição brasileira. In M. Wight, A política do poder (pp. IX-XXXV). Editora Universidade de Brasília.
Ebert, H., & Flemes, D. (2018). Rethinking regional leadership in the global disorder. Rising Powers Quarterly, 3(1), 7–23.
Farr, W. (1856). The great powers. The Assurance Magazine and Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, 6(3), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2046165800021912
Flemes, D. (2010). Regional leadership in the global system: Ideas, interests and strategies of regional powers. Taylor & Francis.
Frank, A. G. (1979). Unequal accumulation: intermediate, semi-peripheral, and sub-imperialis economies. Review, II (3), 281–350.
Godehardt, N., & Nabers, D. (2011). Regional powers and regional orders. Routledge.
Held, D. (2007). Democracy and the global order. Polity Press.
Holbraad, C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Macmillan Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4
Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. (1986). Neorealism and its critics. Columbia University Press.
Keohane, R. (2011). International liberalism reconsidered. In J. Dunn, The economic limits to modern politics (pp. 165–194). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559174.008.
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1972). Transnational relations and world politics. Harvard University Press.
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1974). Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Politics, 27(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009925
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1989). Power and interdependence. HarperCollins.
Lake, D. (2009). Hierarchy in international relations. Cornell University.
Lashari, S. U. (2017). From the periphery to the semi-core: A world-system analysis of the fall and rise of china and the Indian sub-continent. Retrieved Mar 2019, from, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global A&I: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1994391977?accountid=14167.
MacDonald, P., & Lake, D. (2008). Correspondence. The role of hierarchy in international politics. International Security, 32(4), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.32.4.171.
Mahutga, M., & Smith, D. (2011). Globalization, the structure of world economy and economic development. Social Science Research, 40, 257–272. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.012.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. Norton & Company Inc.
Morales Ruvalcaba, D. (2019). Semi-core states: A new category for rethinking the structure of power. Austral, 8(15), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.22456/2238-6912.86492
Morales Ruvalcaba, D. (2020). The semiperipheral states in the twenty-first century: Measuring the structural position of regional powers and secondary regional states. International Studies, 57(1), 20–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020881719880769
Morales Ruvalcaba, D. (2021). La política exterior de Joseph Biden hacia América Latina: un análisis prospectivo al inicio del nuevo gobierno. Izquierdas (50), 1–26.
Morales Ruvalcaba, D. (2023). The distribution of power in the periphery: An approach with the World Power Index. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 36(2), 260–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1854178
Morgenthau, H. (1949). Politics among nations. Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Nemeth, R., & Smith, D. (1985). International trade and world-system structure: A multiple network analysis. Review, VIII(4), 517–560. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241006.
Nolte, D. (2010). How to compare regional powers: Analytical concepts and research topics. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 881–901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051000135X
Nye, J. (1988). Neorealism and neoliberalism. World Politics, 40(2), 235–251.
Nye, J. (1990a). Bound to Lead: the changing nature of American power. Basic Books.
Nye, J. (1990b). Soft power. Foreign Policy (80), 153–171.
Nye, J. (2002). The paradox of American power. Oxford University Press.
Nye, J. (2004a). Soft power. The means to success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.
Nye, J. (2004b). Power in a global information age. Routledge.
O’Dell, W. (2019). Great power. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.507
Portland & USC Center on Public Diplomacy. (2019). The soft power 30. Retrieved Sept 2019, from, The Soft Power 30: https://softpower30.com/.
Resnick, P. (1989). From semiperiphery to perimeter of the core: Canada's place in the capitalist world-economy. Review, 12(2), 263–297. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241126v.
Rocha, A., & Morales Ruvalcaba, D. (2010). Potencias medias y potencias regionales en el Sistema Político Internacional. Geopolítica(s), 1(2), 251–279.
Rocha, A., & Morales Ruvalcaba, D. (2018). El poder nacional-internacional de los Estados. Una propuesta trans-estructural. Geopolítica(s), 9(1), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.5209/GEOP.57778.
Skumsrud, M. (2016). Semi-cores in imperial relations: The cases of Scotland and Norway. Review of International Studies, 42(1), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210515000030
Snyder, D., & Kick, E. (1979). Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955–1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interactions. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), 1096–1126. https://doi.org/10.1086/226902
Taylor, P. J., & Flint, C. (2000). Political geography. Prentice Hall.
Teschke, B. (2003). The myth of 1648: Class, geopolitics, and the making of modern international relations. Verso.
Teschke, B. (2012). La théorisation du système étatique westphalien: les relations internationales de l’absolutisme au capitalisme. Cahiers de recherche sociologique (52), 13–50. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017276ar.
The Correlates of War Project. (2020). National material capabilities. Retrieved Sept 2020, from The Correlates of War Project: https://bit.ly/2m9qNid.
Treacy, M. (2021). Great chaos under heaven. Strategies and challenges for consolidating China’s global hegemony in the 21st century. In C. Shei & W. Wei, The Routledge handbook of Chinese studies (pp. 9–23). Routledge.
Tyushka, A. (2019). Middle power assertiveness as a behavioral model in foreign policy. In T. Struye, D. Vandamme, D. Walton, & T. Wilkins (Eds.), Rethinking middle powers in the Asian century: New theories, new cases (pp. 122–134). Routledge.
Wæver, O. (1996). The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalawski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 149–185). Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnrj9.
Wallerstein, I. (1984). Patterns and prospectives of the capitalist world-economy. Contemporary Marxism, 9, 59–70. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29765801.
Wallerstein, I. (1996). Historial capitalism with capitalist civilization. Verso.
Wallerstein, I. (2006). World-systems analysis. An introduction. Duke University Press.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Wight, M. (1978). Power politics. Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Womack, B. (2007). Teoría de la asimetría y poderes regionales: los casos de India, Brasil y Sudáfrica. In J. Tokatlian, India, Brasil y Sudáfrica: el impacto de las nuevas potencias regionales (pp. 15–34). Libros del Zorzal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morales Ruvalcaba, D., Rocha Valencia, A. (2024). The International Geostructure of Power: A Trans-Structural Approach. In: Morales Ruvalcaba, D., Rocha Valencia, A. (eds) National Power and International Geostructure. Contributions to International Relations. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1180-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1180-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-97-1179-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-97-1180-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)