-
Will emerging powers be successful in their rise?
-
If yes, will they be able to reform the “Western
International Society”? How?
-
If not, will the established powers seek accommodating
with the rising ones?
-
How can the “rest” benefit from such power shift?
Do the emerging powers want to impose a new world
order?
*
Class 2 – Emerging Powers in Comparative Perspective
Dr. Vinícius Rodrigues Vieira (Postdoctoral Researcher)
IRI-USP, São Paulo, 22 February 2016
Military
Economic
Power
Cultural
Structural
(Norms)
Definition of Power (following Hans Morgenthau):
“anything that establishes and maintains the control of
man over man” (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 28)
Hard Power matters the most? “In practice, material
capabilities and power are related in indirect, complex,
and often problematic ways. Material capabilities are a
principal source of power, but critical choices must be
made about which capabilities to develop and how to use
them” (Ibid.: 32).
Not always, but we need more work on defining soft
power, particularly when culture is at stake: “What is the
leap of logic that leads from attraction to Americanc ulture
or its products to support for American foreign policy? (…)
There has been an (…) negative reaction to some American
exports, like McDonald’s and fast food chains more
generally” (Ibid.: 34).
Hard Power
Soft Power
Realists
vs.
Liberals
emphasis on conflict
Military
Hard Power
Economic
Power
Structural
(Norms)
Cultural
Soft Power
emphasis on cooperation
1 ) Falling and rising (McNeil, 2008)
a)
b)
c)
The decline of the East;
The rise of the West;
Which future?
2 ) Elements of resistance (Reich and Lebow, 2014;
Lake, 2009; Morris, 2010)
a)
b)
c)
Past is not fate;
From economic to structural (normative) power;
Building and preserving hegemony.
b ) Definitions
a ) The decline of the East
 GDP size (1500) (source:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=160)
a ) The decline of the East
 China achieved Eurasian dominance by 1000
(McNeil, 2008: 220);
 Reasons for dominance: trade and technology
(Ibid.);
 Lasted about 500 years…
But in the meantime…
a ) The decline of the East
 Europe “borrows” and adapts Chinese technology
(as China did from elsewhere, McNeil, 2008: 226);
 Naval/military technology and new routes.
Long duration process (Braudel, 1960)…
a ) The decline of the East
 Closure (not only China, but later Japan);
 Social structures
 Lack of differentiation (i.e., societies with multiple
interests, such as in contemporary capitalism);
 Cultural argument: hard to test and
tautological/circular.
b ) The rise of the West
 Geography and economic development;
 Military competition (i.e., Europe has various
sovereign states, Landes, 1998).
Why not other places???
 Pommeranz (The Great Divergence)
 Coal deposits in Britain were far more accessible than

elsewhere (in particular in comparison to China
Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism)
 Exceptions???
b ) The rise of the West
 The only exception (before
WWII): Japan
 Closure for about 200 years;
 Forced opening after the
arrival of U.S. squad led by
Commodore Perry (1853);
a ) The decline of the East
 GDP size (1500) (source:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=160)
b ) Definitions
b ) The rise of the West
 GDP size (1900) (source:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=161)
c ) Which future?
Following the example of the table below, discuss in
pairs one argument for and another against for the
rise of an emerging power and the decline of an
established power? (5 minutes)
Argument
Emerging Power
Established Power
For
Country X has been growing
faster and faster
Country Y has technological
dominance
Against
Country Y still faces strong
domestic challenges
Country Y has high levels of
debt
Who wants to be powerful forever? “West's
dominance of the past 200 years was neither
inevitable nor ‘locked in’ for the future”
(Economist, 2010);
a)
Past is not fate

Change comes from “the will to improve”
 "Change is caused by lazy, greedy, frightened people
looking for easier, more profitable and safer ways of doing
things. And they rarely know what they are doing” (Morris,
2010).


Somewhat obvious!!!
So under which conditions does “the will to
improve” lead to change?
a)
Past is not fate

Adding more historical interpretations
 Historical statistics of GDP (see class 1) suggest that China
was AHEAD of the West at the beginning of the common
era (2000 years ago), but..



Morris (2010) argues that the West was dominant BEFORE
the East (e.g., Roman Empire would be more advanced
than Chinese dynasties);
We will never know the truth… 
Yet it is still possible to analyze mechanisms of
decline and, therefore, of resistance as well.
a)
Past is not fate

Let’s remember…

State power in the
international system has
various dimensions;

Which one is the starting
point???

Actually, can we define a
starting point?

Let’s HYPOTHESIZE…
Military
Economic
Power
Cultural
Structural
(Norms)
Does economic power drive military might? "The move in
trade flows from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and
northwestern Europe from the sixteenth century onward,
or the redistribution in the shares of world manufacturing
output away from western Europe in the decades after
1890, are good examples here. In both cases, the
economic shifts heralded the rise of new Great Powers
which would one day had a decisive impact upon the
military/territorial order. This is why the move in the
global productive balances toward the ‘Pacific rim’ which
has taken place over the past few decades cannot be of
interest merely to economists alone“ (Kennedy, 1988)
b ) From economic to structural power
Based on your knowledge of world History, list with a
colleague examples of countries and/or empires that
exemplify the following chains of power. Justify your
choices  Think of a country in different times
*
*
*
*
Economic  Military
Economic  Military  Structural
Economic  Cultural  Structural
Structural  Economic
b ) From economic to structural power
Economic  Capacity of improving a country’s
overall material well-being, regardless of the
conditions of individuals who live there;
Structural  Related to the ability of defining the
rules of the game, that is, the norms and
mechanisms that govern international affairs.
 Matters in contemporary times (1990s onwards);
 With increasing interdependence (a liberal idea),
costs of war became too high.
b ) From economic to structural power


Is military power useful?

Authority is a relationship between ruler and ruled (Lake,
2009: 44)

Hierarchy is the consequence of the existence of the
facto authority of a country over another

POWER DETERMINES HIERARCHY!!!
It is certainly part of the creation of hierarchies in
international affairs!!!  How are hierarchies built???
b ) From economic to structural power



For Lake: Hard Power only!!!
Economic + Military!!!
Power complicates sovereignty
(Lake, 2009: 46-37)
1.
Absolute authority (but not
complete authority);
2.
External actors do not have
authority over subjects/citizens
and the state territory;
3.
Indivisible  in theory...
b ) From economic to structural power

Sovereignty is divisible in practice



Citizens have a private sphere;
Subnational governments;
Indirect rule (e.g.: British Empire).
 HENCE, HIERARCHIES MATTTER!!!
 IR are not entirely anarchical  at least there is some
order…
b ) From economic to structural power

Sovereignty is divisible in practice



Citizens have a private sphere;
Subnational governments;
Indirect rule (e.g.: British Empire).
 HENCE, HIERARCHIES MATTTER!!!
 IR are not entirely anarchical  at least there is some
order…
b ) From economic to structural power


Discussion: consider examples for one level of hierarchy
Economic




Dependency:
Economic Zone:
Market Exchange
Security



Protectorate;
Sphere of Influence;
Diplomacy.
b ) From economic to structural power


Is military power useful?

Some soft power might be needed to run hierarchies
smoothly…
“…recent surveys reveal that the United States is not
perceived as acting in the interests of the international
community. Whatever legitimacy its leadership once had
has significantly eroded as publics around the world are
particularly worried about the way in which the United
States uses its military power” (Reich and Lebow, 2014:
44).
b ) From economic to structural power


HEGEMONY!!!

“By definition, hegemony requires both economic and military
dominance and leadership (Ibid.: 23)” + Soft Power???

Legitimacy  Leadership???  Hegemony or Influence???
It may be conceived “…as the result of legitimacy as well as
power. Drawing on the theories of Antonio Gramsci, Roger
Simon describes hegemony as a relation ‘not of domination by
means of force, but of consent by means of political and
ideological leadership’” (Lebow and Reich, 2014: 18)
b ) From economic to structural power

HEGEMONY!!!
1 ) Agenda Setting: “…ability to initiate, legitimize, and advocate
policy issues” (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 37);
2 ) Custodianship: stabilization of the international system in
economy (economists would say that it is a provision of a public
good) (Ibid.: 37), may not depend on a hegemon (Ibid.: 42);
3 ) Sponsorship: “enforcement of rules, norms, agreements, and
decision-making processes as well as the maintenance of security
to enhance trade and finance” (Ibid.: 43-44);
c ) Building and preserving hegemony



INFLUENCE ONLY:

Shared values come from who has more power and, thus, is
more legitimate!!!  So persuasion does not preclude power;

However, what happens if the parameters for defining what is
legitimate/acceptable change???
It depends on persuasion (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 36).
Persuasion, in turn, is more effective if it comes from
someone who upholds power!!!  built upon shared values
and advocate policies that involve accepted practices
What is
missing in
Reich and
Lebow, as
well as in
Lake???
c ) Building and preserving hegemony

How power shifts from hand to hand!!!

State power in the
international system has
various dimensions;

The starting point seems
to be the ownership of
structural power;

So hard power (including
economic) does not
matter??
Military
Economic
Power
Cultural
Structural
(Norms)
c ) Building and preserving hegemony
c ) Building and preserving hegemony

Let’s remember…

State power in the
international system has
various dimensions;

The starting point seems
to be the ownership of
structural power;

Yet, having economic
power may trigger
hegemonic ambitions!!!
Military
Economic
Power
Cultural
Structural
(Norms)
c ) Building and preserving hegemony  SUMMARY
 Power is more than material (hard) capabilities (Reich and
Lebow, 2014: 16), particularly military;
 Hegemony (focused on hard power ONLY) can be
counterproductive (Ibid.: 15);
 Persuasion is the best form of influence, but its success
depends on a state’s strength on both hard and soft
power!!!  hegemony or influence are not automatic;
 Economic power may open space for a new hegemon;
 Emerging powers: challenges taken-for-granted hierarchies.
emphasis on conflict
Preserving hegemony…
Military
Hard Power
Economic
Power
Structural
(Norms)
Cultural
Soft Power
emphasis on cooperation
Building hegemony and influence…
emphasis on conflict
(power without influence)
Military
Hard Power
Economic
Power
Structural
(Norms)
Cultural
Soft Power
emphasis on cooperation
(influence only  perhaps limited)
c ) Building and preserving hegemony  Persuading Allies?
c ) Building and preserving hegemony  Not always!!!
c ) Building and preserving hegemony  Potential hegemon
c ) Building and preserving hegemony  Potential hegemon