Introduction - Characteristics of power at the global scale

As Raymond Aron defined it, in the field of international relations, power as “the ability of a political entity to influence and impose its will on another entity” (Peace and War, A Theory of International Relations). We are in a system where entities are interdependent, where power is exercised over others, and where there exists a hierarchy. The question at hand is, therefore, the capacity to influence, and even compel.

States are the major actors in this world-system, but not exclusively so. There are, in fact, other entities that are capable of influencing the posture of States, such as Transnational Corporations (TNCs), whose power is sometimes greater than that of states, but also terrorist organisations, for example.

Superpower describes a State that holds a dominant position, characterised by the ability to influence or project power on a global scale. During the Cold War, there were two superpowers: the USA and the USSR. Hyperpower is a power hors de pair, with no real competitor and all the powers far behind. The USA was considered a hyperpower in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.

We will seek to distinguish the manifestations of power, both hard power and soft power, and analyse the combination of the two: smart power.

We will question the relevance of our tools for measuring power, by comparing emerging powers, old powers, superpowers, and even hyperpowers, etc. Can we have a clear idea of the hierarchy of powers? From rise to decline, in section 1, we will take a historical perspective on powers. In section 2, the focus will be on analysing indirect forms of power.

#1. Characteristics of power

Power is expressed in several ways. We owe the distinction between hard power and soft power to Joseph Nye (Bound to Lead, 1990).

#A. Hard power

Hard power refers to the characteristics related to coercion, the ability of a political entity to impose its will on another entity.

Hard power notably includes economic, military, political, and demographic strength.

Almost all States develop and maintain military capabilities. For instance, in 2017, the United States spent $610 billion on its military. China spent $228 billion, and France spent $57.8 billion.

Throughout history, entities have formed alliances to avoid situations of hegemony or to protect against hegemonic situations.

Hard power pertains to a capacity for action that contrasts with the capacity for influence.

#B. Soft power

Soft power refers to the influence of a political entity. The approach is more focused on persuading minds rather than coercing them through force.

One can think of the origins of the Cold War, when the United States sought to promote its model by showcasing the individual prosperity of citizens. The goal was to strategically contain the communist ideology, seen as a peril that needed to be prevented from spreading at all costs.

One can also consider the current strategies of countries like France, Germany, or China, for example. Those countries want many speakers of French, German, or Mandarin to make their model appealing and even attract students to their territories. This strategy is carried out through the networks of the Alliance Française, the Goethe Institut, and the Confucius Institute. It is worth noting the significant growth of Confucius Institutes and the very low cost of Mandarin courses. The proliferation of these institutes clearly does not aim at economic profitability.

#C. Smart power

The combination of the gentle and forceful approaches is referred to as “smart power.” Each State establishes its own strategy, finds its own balance.

Joseph Nye wrote about smart power. He gives the example of terrorism, arguing that combatting terrorism demands smart power strategy. Simply using soft power resources to change the hearts and minds of the Taliban government would be ineffective and requires a hard power component.

#D. Sharp power

Since 2017, we have seen the emergence of a “sharp power”. It is a strategy aimed at undermining the image and system of the targeted power. In this field, Russia has distinguished itself with the television channel RT (Russia Today), which, to enhance Russia's image, seeks to destroy the image of its targets. China has also made its mark in this field through social media (including those censored in China), through the Confucius Institutes, and also by appointing aggressive Chinese diplomats, known as “wolf warriors”.

Sharp power differs from soft power due to the violence of the attacks and is often associated with authoritarian regimes. It's a form of diversion: the aim is to divert attention from negative information. We can think of Lu Shaye, the former Ambassador to France, who accused Canadian media of “Western egotism and white supremacy”.

#2. Evaluating and comparing power

#A. Relevance of measurement tools

One can certainly criticise the approaches to measurement tools in the field of power, especially since our concept of power typically refers more to potential power, to projections that can be made for the year 2030 or 2050, rather than actual power.

We will assess the relevance of numerical data as evidence of power, in relation to others, from one manifestation of power to another.

#B. An example of a possible comparative table

The criteria in the following comparative table can be used to assess the power of a State. When assessing the power of a state, you may use criteria for several categories: technological and military power, hence, soft and hard power. The point is finding relevant criteria to make your point, and avoid being vague.

In this table, we used the following criteria:

  • Territory area
  • Energy production (tonne of oil equivalent = toe)
  • Labour force
  • Nominal GDP
  • Purchasing power parity GDP
  • International trade share
  • Currency and gold reserves
  • Steel production
  • Number of TNCs
  • Military expenditures
  • Number of military personnel
  • Number of military aircraft
  • Navy tonnage
  • Number of aircraft carriers
  • Ballistic missile submarines
  • Number of nuclear weapons
  • Orbital launches per year
  • Number of Global Positioning Satellite systems
  • Diplomatic missions and delegations
  • Most spoken languages
  • Number of internet users
  • Last Olympics gold medals
  • Global cities
  • etc.

#C. Creating, commenting on, and criticising typologies

#a) What is a typology?

Creating a typology involves systematic grouping phenomena into categories. It aims to provide a comprehensive description and explanation of phenomena by proposing a structured framework. Typologies expected at high school level may be limited to three categories (e.g., center, periphery, margins).

#b) Typology limitations

Every typology is a construct based on an interpretation of the world, relying on data. It is legitimate to express reservations about this interpretation, discuss the assumptions behind it, or even criticise the entire framework.

#c) A typology of the power index

The following map was created by Christophe Chabert in 2018 for the article “L'indice de la puissance globale” in the release No. 17 of Conflits. The author takes 37 powers, categorises them, and establishes a typology of power and explains his methodology. He first identifies 6 categories, calculates a score for each power, and determines its ranking by assigning coefficients to each category:

  1. Territory, population, resources
  2. Armed forces
  3. Stability and cohesion
  4. Economy
  5. Science and technology
  6. Influence

We can see that the justification of calculation itself is extremely solid.

As there is room for commentary and criticism, we can discuss the wording of types of power here. This wording clearly follows the principles of immediate understanding of the subject and the legibility of the annotations.

  • "Hegemonic power" The author places the United States in this category. However, hegemony implies undisputed dominance, which does not apply to a multipolar world, unless the author is perhaps referring to cultural hegemony (i.e., ideological domination of the bourgeoisie over the working masses, as theorised by Antonio Gramsci).
  • “The rival“. Having a rival facing the hegemonic power implies a Cold War logic.
  • “Continental States“. The phrase refers to territory, although the author subsequently adds economic power and soft power to it.
  • “Major emerging countries“. As the author suggests, India doesn't quite fit here since it ranks 11th in the ranking, in addition to being a military and demographic power.
  • “Supplying-energy powers“. Russia could also be included in this category, given its dependence on hydrocarbon markets.
  • “Old European and Asian Powers“. The word “old” likely refers to the industrial revolution. A political distinction could be made between countries that sit on the UN Security Council and others.
  • “Gentle Powers“. The wording relates to social policy, but it's less obvious in the case of Switzerland.
  • “Newcomers“. Some are less new than others, like the “Asian dragons.” There is indeed a difference compared to the “Asian tigers.”
  • “Ancient Middle Eastern Powers“. The tensions mentioned could also be attributed to the West.
  • “Lagging Africa“. The phrase implies a failed integration. However, it would be interesting to consider resistance to globalisation as a factor of power.