And now how to measure power?

This is a very crucial and important question

in our studies, that’s to say

if the concept of power is so important,

is the cornerstone of the international order,

we must measure, we must have

a very precise measure of the power,

and, if it is possible, we have to try to set up

a kind of hierarchy of powers,

or a hierarchy of states

according to their own power.

But how to classify?

That is a very difficult question

and a dissensual vision

of the international relations.

Can we really define

an objective measure of power?

Well, the easiest way will be to say

that the power holder is the winner.

We have to observe

the international competition

and to decide that the winner

is reputed to be the most powerful.

But is it so clear by now?

When we observe for instance

that wars are no more won by the players,

by the actors, who are participating in,

that is a very tough question,

that now there is no more clear victory

in the contemporary wars.

So it’s difficult to use this kind of measure.

Other problem:

do we consider factors or markers of power?

A factor of power is reputed

to be a cause of power,

a marker of power is reputed to give us

a measure without deciding of the cause.

The problem is not so easy to solve, previously,

all the observers had the same indicator,

that’s to say the military capacity.

In the westphalian world,

the competition was at his pick

when the states were in war,

and so their military capacity

was supposed to give

an exact vision of their power.

That’s why many analysts use military expanses

as a good measure of power,

and if we follow this vision,

it is quite clear for instance that US

is the most powerful state,

as we know that US covers

about 43% of the world military expanses.

And all the other competing states

are very far behind this first rank,

which is clearly occupied by US.

But the question now is:

what is the exact power capacity

of military instrument?

Is military instrument deciding

the rank of power by now,

when for instance we observe

that the most powerful state, US superpower,

was defeated in Vietnam

by a weaker competitor,

when we observe that in Iraq,

in Afghanistan, in Somalia,

the US military power

was not able to lead to a clear victory?

And the second problem

is that military expanses are depending

on the economic capacity of a state,

and so, we can easily turn,

move to another vision,

which is considering

that the real basis of power

is not military power but economic power,

because without economic power,

there is no possible military power.

So economic power can be considered

as the substitute to the military power,

and that’s why for instance,

when you take into account

the hierarchy of military expanses,

some very rich countries

like Saudi Arabia or Oman

are situated in the top of the hierarchy.

But now, if we consider economic power,

what does it mean?

Generally, we use a very famous indicator,

which is the GNP, the gross national product.

And in this GNP, it’s quite clear

that US is the first,

with about as you know something like

17 000 billion of US dollars,

and China is now clearly located

at the second rank,

Japan at the third, Germany

at the fourth and so on.

But we know that GNP

is not a very clear indicator,

and the first question is:

what about the capacity of a GNP?

That’s why people included a second variable,

which is the purchasing power parity,

as it is quite clear that with

one dollar in US and one dollar in China,

we cannot do the same things,

and so the capacity of one dollar

in different countries is not the same.

So, can we redefine the GNP

only by this correction?

And this is opening another question,

if we take into account the economic power

we have to differentiate between

financial power and commercial power,

and this is another introduction to power

in our contemporary world.

If we take into account for instance

commercial power,

European Union is the first

and US is the second,

but both US and European Union

are clearly and directly challenged

by Chinese commercial power

and the distribution of powers is then different.

If now we take into account

another possible indicator,

which would be the technological power,

technological power is measured,

is currently measured

by the number of researchers

by inhabitants in every country,

and the distinction, and the distribution,

the hierarchy of powers will be different.

Japan has for instance

a number of researchers by inhabitants

which is more important than US

and especially European Union,

that’s why we have then

another classified order.

If now we move to other indicators,

we have different and new results,

for instance demography.

What is the power capacity

of a strong demography

when we know for instance

that the increasing demography of Africa

is giving a role to Africa,

which will be quite different

within 20-30 years than it is now?

What is the real capacity of demography

for restructuring and reshaping

the classification of power in the world?

For instance for setting

as permanent members of Security Council,

many countries pretend to take into account

the number of their inhabitants

and Pakistan, with more than 160 million

of people considers that, as such,

it must be hold as a power,

the same for Nigeria in Africa,

the same for Brazil in Latin America and so on.

And what about territorial capacity?

That’s to say is a huge,

a very vast territory able to create a power?

Russia was considered as powerful

because it had a very huge territory,

and then after, Susan Strange pointed

how that maybe the dimension,

the size of territory is an handicap,

an obstacle to power

rather than its easing power.

Now we consider for instance

that some very poor countries

have very huge territory,

like the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa,

or Sudan in Africa and so on,

so the capacity of this indicator is really blurred.

Now we have to take into account new visions

and so new indicators of power

which were not used previously,

but which are more and more considered

in our present global world:

cultural capacity, that’s to say

the capacity to use its own cultural resources

for playing a role inside the international arena.

The role of for instance the English language

as a vector of power,

but we have also to take into account

religious resources of power.

Religion is more and more considered

as an active factor,

as an active resource of power,

Saudi Arabia, Iran, for instance

use there own religious specificity

as a factor of power

and as a very fruitful resource of power.

But in our new communicating world,

networks are also a resource of power,

and if the state or non state actors

are able to mobilize

very active transnational networks,

they have in their hands a real capacity of power,

which is challenging the classical vision of power.

If you observe the present international arena,

is military power able to contain

and balance religious power?

We can then imagine that there is something new

we have to use as an amendment

to the traditional IR theory,

that’s why power is not so clear

as it was or as it appears to be.

Weak Indicators

Espace mondial, uma visão francesa sobre os estudos globais

Conheça os instrutores