What is a Great Power? A Concept and its Meaning for understanding International Relations

Essai , 2011 , 11 Pages , Note: 2.3

Politique - Généralités sur la politique internationale

‘A hegemon is a state that is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the system’. Under this assumption, who can be considered to be a great power? A world leader? Can there be more than just one? And if yes, what makes them so powerful? The purpose of this essay is to point out that the term of great power states and politics has changed in recent decades from security policy aspects of the Cold War to a more broaden definition including societal, economic and cultural characteristics. Taking these indicators into consideration, the international state system has turned away from a bipolar constellation between the two superpowers USA and Soviet Union to a multipolar world with numerous big players and growing regionalisation. In this world order, the BRIC states contemplate the field of great powers next to the US and Russia.

The first section will outline a comprehensive definition of what a great power is and which characteristics distinguish it from less powerful states. The second part gives an overview of how great power politics has changed in recent decades from a bipolar world system with two super powers towards a far more diversified multipolar world with various great powers and no remaining hegemon. This approach will be tested within the third part of this essay through brief inspections of the cases of the US, India and the EU.

2

I

NTRODUCTION

`A hegemon is a state that is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the

system' (Mearsheimer 2004, p. 185). Under this assumption, who can be considered

to be a great power? A world leader? Can there be more than just one? And if yes,

what makes them so powerful? The purpose of this essay is to point out that the term

of great power states and politics has changed in recent decades from security policy

aspects of the Cold War to a more broaden definition including societal, economic

and cultural characteristics. Taking these indicators into consideration, the

international state system has turned away from a bipolar constellation between the

two superpowers USA and Soviet Union to a multipolar world with numerous big

players and growing regionalisation. In this world order, the BRIC states contemplate

the field of great powers next to the US and Russia.

The first section will outline a comprehensive definition of what a great power

is and which characteristics distinguish it from less powerful states. The second part

gives an overview of how great power politics has changed in recent decades from a

bipolar world system with two super powers towards a far more diversified multipolar

world with various great powers and no remaining hegemon. This approach will be

tested within the third part of this essay through brief inspections of the cases of the

US, India and the EU.

D

EFINITIONS

& C

ONCEPT

The first step to elaborate a concept of great power politics requires an explicit

definition of what power in international relations is as well as why and with which

mechanisms actors possess and exercise it. Max Weber defined power in the early

stage of the 20

th

century as the ability of an actor assert his own will within a social

---

3

relationship, even against the will of the other (Weber 1922, p. 28). He adapted his

concept to interpersonal relations between human beings, the smallest unit capable of

acting politically. In any case, Weber´s definition can easily be employed on other

political actors such as states, (international) organisations as well as firms and

corporations. In the 1970s, Robert Koehane and Joseph Nye extended Weber´s

definition and understood power as `the ability of an actor to get others to do

something they otherwise would not do' (1989, p. 11). In contrast to Weber, power is

not solely based on coercion as a means to push through own interests. Instead, states

can also manipulate cost-benefit calculations of other actors, persuade them with

rational arguments, make them emulate successful or desired policy outcomes or

promote ideas by setting positive examples (Börzel and Risse 2009, pp. 9-14). Taking

these mechanisms of transformative power into account, the question remains what

actually distinguishes the power of one state from the power of another. What makes

some states more powerful and others less? Who is to be conceived as a great power

nowadays?

Some scholars terminologically equate great powers with empires (Geiss

1994; Münkler 2005). Geiss, for instance, emphasised the historical path dependency

of power configuration and its origins in states´ human resources: `Civilization

provides power ­ concentration of people, men in armed forces, economic potential in

social, political and military structures' (1994, p. 24). As obvious as this may sound,

empirical evidence can easily disprove the generality of this finding. It would mean

that the more people live inside a country, the more powerful the state would be.

Instead, civil power is more a necessary than a sufficient pre-condition of great power

developments, in particular when it comes to the economic performance. Otherwise,

China and India, for instance, would have been great powers for a long time as about

---

4

19.5 per cent of the world population lives in China and about 17.3 per cent in India

respectively (Population Reference Bureau 2010).

Especially if we look at the concept of a regional power, the question lags

behind what a regional power distinguishes from a great power. Or is a regional

power in any case a great power, at least among other regionally bounded great

powers? Nel and Nolte, for instance, differentiate between `major powers' and

`emerging powers' (2010, p. 877). Under the former they subsume both sovereign

states, e.g. the US and Japan, and regional actors such as the EU, the latter one

denotes rising economic powers such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China),

but also new aspirants like South Africa, Mexico and even Venezuela (ibid.).

Following Nel and Nolte, these countries demand to 'have a place at the tables where

decisions affecting the world are made' (ibd.). Unfortunately, their classification lacks

the justification why they have the power to do so.

F

ROM BIPOLAR TOWARDS MULTIPOLAR GREAT POWER POLITICS

The comprehension of what distinguishes a great power changed with time, first and

foremost after the end of the Cold War in 1989. The post-1990 transition of world

power politics lasts up to the present day. Until then, the United States led the

Western hemisphere and defended its values of peace, democracy and free markets,

first, in the Second World War and afterwards during the four-decade bipolar conflict

with the Soviet Union (Mandelbaum 2002). In the words of Barry Buzan,

`[t]he US was an effective leader not only because it promoted liberal economic

and political values that were attractive to many others, but also because it was

prepared to bind its own power in multilateral rules and institutions sufficiently

that its followers could contain their fear of its overwhelming power' (Buzan

2007, p. 1).

---

5

Buzan refers to an important aspect of international great power politics: such nations

are not self-appointed hegemons living in political autarchy, but as dependent on the

acknowledgement and allegiance of others as any other (weaker) state. With that said,

Buzan points at the exterior dimension of great power politics: the regional or

worldwide recognition as such (Buzan 2007, p. 2). Nowadays, the US has lost its

position as a prevailing hegemon and imperialistic empire (Münkler 2005, pp. 224-

234) in relation to other powers and their re-emergence or awakening.

Since the early 1990s, the world witnesses increasing regionalism, which is

referred to as `new regionalism' (Ethier 1998). This ongoing process, such as the

European Union, the Common Market of the South (Mercosur) in Latin America or

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has two interrelated

consequences on what we can define and conceptualise as a great power in

international relations. First, in the post-Cold War era great powers do not only

accumulate massive military resources in order to defend its own territories against

outer threats as well as to constitute a threat to others itself (Mearsheimer 2004, pp.

187-189). Power can be obtained and utilised in many other ways, such as economic,

political or cultural dominance over a region or sometimes even in global scopes.

Globalization is as much as a reason for this development as it is a consequence.

Secondly, states as centres of power increasingly lose relevance as great powers in

international

relations

through

the

transfer

of

authority

towards

intergovernmental/supranational regimes and are thus complemented rather than

replaced by great power regions.

In recent years, the bygone Cold War, which determined world affairs, has

been replaced by a multipolar world order with other important actors and new rising

powers to be expected. The United States, the former super power, is by now one

• Université: University of Bath
• Note: 2.3
• Auteur: Ron Böhler (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2011
• Pages: 11
• N° de catalogue: V376552
• ISBN (ebook): 9783668538658
• ISBN (Livre): 9783668538665
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: Power, International Relations, World leader, US, Russia, EU