re regional powers
DESCRIPTION
Re Regional Powers. Global Leader. Major Powers Regions and Regional Powers. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Re
Regional Powers
Global Leader
Major Powers
Regions and Regional Powers
Which States Belong in the Club? The Attribution of Major Power Status in
International Politics.
Thomas J. Volgy, Renato Corbetta, Keith A. Grant, and Ryan G. Baird
Presented at the International Political Science Association Conference, Santiago Chile, July 2009, and the Dartmouth Conference on Rising Powers and Status,
October 2010.
“. . . since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides, 1951: 331).
Two assumptions
1) Anarchy (absence of central governmental structures;
+2) Inequality between states
Salience of major powers and their status in international politics
BUT:
As inequality produces major powers,
both systemic and domestic conditions
can create hierarchy in the midst of anarchy
Theory and Empirical literature:
States with major power status =
Global leadership in development of rules, norms, governance mechanisms and primary actors in most forms of major conflict and cooperation
processes in international affairs.
So say realists; neorealists; liberal-institutionalists; power transition theorists; long cycle theorists, some constructivists, and some liberal theorists
=MAJOR POWER STATUS MATTERS
COW Major Power Status Designation,1816-2002.
State Years Lost Status Regained
Austria-Hungary 1816-1918 Yes (dissolved) No
China 1950-2002 France 1816-1940 Yes 1941-44 Yes 1945-2002
Germany/Prussia 1816-1918 Yes 1919-1924 Yes 1925-1945 Yes 1946-1990 Yes 1991-2002
Italy 1860-1943 Yes 1944- NoJapan 1895-1945 Yes 1946-1990 Yes 1991-2002Russia/USSR 1816-1917 Yes 1918-1921 Yes 1922-2002United Kingdom 1816-2002 NoUnited States 1898-2002 No
OUR TASKS
1)Underscore the value of status;2)Differentiate between
a) status consistent and status inconsistent powers; and
b) between underachieving versus overachieving status inconsistent powers;3) Create a new database (MPS) for identifying major power status and status inconsistencies;4) Test predictions related to the varying effects of differential status attribution to propensities for conflict involvement
Three Forms of Status Attribution:
What is Status?===========1)Self Ascription
2)Community based attribution
3)In-Group based attribution
Major PowersJapan U.S. UK Russia France PRC Germany
G-8 PowersNuclear Powers
UNSC Veto
Powers
Regional Powers
A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics
BRICS
Mechanisms of Major Power Status Attribution
OpportunityMilitary StrengthMilitary ReachEconomic SizeEconomic Reach Status
AttributionWillingness Active global engagement in conflict and cooperation
Constraints -major power independence -lead power influence on global norms
But why is Status Important if you have Major Power Capabilities and Intentions?
The attribution of major power status by other states = additional capacity + and legitimacy for major powers (both domestically and externally) for their activism
Status underachieving states
incentives to demonstrate activism to generate more status and/or to change status quo to generate more status than provided by status quo conditions.
So, it should matter in two ways:
Status = Soft power generation to complement hard power
Status inconsistency = motivation to increase or stabilize status attributed to state
Status Types
No Major Power Status (includes all other states)+++++++++++++++++++++
Major Power Status Club Membershipwhich includes:
Status Consistent Major Powersand
Status Inconsistent Major Powerswhich includes:
• Overachievers
• Underachievers
Type of Member Capabilities Activity Status Attribution
Mspend Mreach GDP Ereach Coop Conflict Dipcon Visits
Underachievers + and/or + and/or + and/or +
+ + + or +
+ and + and + or + + or + + or +
Overarchievers + or + and + or + + + + +
+ and/or + and/or +and/or +
+ or + + +
Fully Status Consistent
+ + + +
+ + + +
Figure 2: Threshold Criteria for Inclusion in Major Power Status Club
Validation Scheme: Comparing what we know: U.S. versus India
Validation for the U.S.
Validation Scheme for India as Major Power
So Which States Are Members of the Major Power Status Club in Recent International Politics?
Major Power Status: Early Cold War Period
Major Powers Status States and Time Frames1951-55 1956-60 1961-65
Status Consistent US US US
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Underachievers USSR USSR USSR
UKFrance France
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Overarchievers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------N = 3 3 3
Major Power Status: Late Cold War Period
Major Powers Status States and Time Frames1976-80 1981-85 1986-90
Status Consistent US US US
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Underachievers USSR
UK UK UK-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Overarchievers USSR USSR
France France France-----------------------------------------------------------------------N = 4 4 4
Major Power Status: Post Cold War PeriodMajor Powers Status States and Time Frames
1991-95 1996-2000 2001-2005
Status Consistent US US USFrance France
UKJapan
====================================================Underachievers UK Germany UK
FranceJapan
=====================================================Overachievers Russia/USSR Russia Russia
China China ChinaJapan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------N= 6 7 6
Why Would We Care?
Testing Four Hypotheses
1) Fully status consistent major powers most likely to intervene in ongoing conflicts;
2) There should be substantial differences between status inconsistent and status consistent major powers’ intervention behavior;
3) Underachievers should be more likely to intervene in ongoing conflicts than overachievers
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++4) Overachievers most likely to contest through institutions of cooperation.
Type of State Does not Join Joins TotalNot Major Power
94%
(5,799)
6%
(372)
100%
(6,171)
Status Consistent Major Power
20%
(14)
80%
(56)
100%
(70)
Status Inconsistent Major Power
59%
(80)
41%
(55)
100%
(135)
Tabulations of Joining MIDS by Status Type, 1950-2001.
* The unit of analysis is country year.
Major Power Status and MID Joining, 1950—2001
The Flip Side: Which States Are Most Likely to Pursue Structured Cooperation?
Answer: Overachieving Major Powers*
* Although not as likely to be successful
Major PowersJapan U.S. UK Russia France PRC Germany
G-8 PowersNuclear Powers
UNSC Veto
Powers
Regional Powers
Brazil, India, S. Africa, Australia, Nigeria
A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics
BRICS
The Future:
Whose Coming?
Whose Leaving?
COMING: India and Brazil?
GOING: Germany and Japan?