Power and Powers in IR

Question 1

Who came up with an important definition of power used in IR?

Answer 1

Robert Dahl

Question 2

What is Dahl’s definition of power?

Answer 2

A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would otherwise not do.

Question 3

How can we view international politics from a realist perspective?

Answer 3

As a struggle for power.

Question 4

Which realist work explores how international politics is a struggle for power?

Answer 4

Hans Morgenthau - Politics among nations

Question 5

What could be argued to be at the core of IR (one word)?

Answer 5

Power.

Question 6

What is a bipolar world?

Answer 6

Bipolar - two poles of power dominate the world - most stable of them all as power becomes balanced between two poles (brings stability because of this)

Question 7

What is a multipolar world?

Answer 7

Multipolar - multiple poles of power in the world - e.g. just before WW2 where powers where ‘balancing’ their power (or trying to) which resulted in somewhat of a global power struggle which materialised in WW2

Question 8

What is a unipolar world?

Answer 8

Unipolar - one pole of power dominates the world - can lead to hegemonic stability = idea that international order can be provided by a single hegemonic power. For this to happen, the hegemon needs to define its long-term interests in ways that are compatible with the interests of others in the system (e.g. through regimes and institutions). The one power benefits, but often smaller countries also benefit from the stability.

Question 9

What is the only real example of a recent unipolar power?

Answer 9

The US has been the only real hegemonic power of recent history - they have great economic stability with the strong dollar, huge cultural power… the US has also historically devoted a larger share of its economy to defence than many of its key allies

Question 10

Which is more stable… a world with balanced power? OR a world where powers are ‘balancing’ power?

Answer 10

A world with balanced power = more stable

A world with powers ‘balancing’ power = less stable

Question 11

What is hard power?

Answer 11

The ability to get others to do what they otherwise would not do through threats or rewards (coercion, payment, military might)

Question 12

What is soft power?

Answer 12

Getting others to want the outcomes that you want (attraction, persuasion). - e.g. USA’s cultural reach (it has Hollywood, some of the worlds best unis, the American dream…) - state’s can’t build soft power on their own and so it is harder for authoritarian gov’ts to build soft power.

Question 13

What is smart power (not independent of hard and soft)?

Answer 13

The ability to combine hard and soft power resources into effective strategies.

Question 14

How did 911 completely shift the discipline of IR and the way it views the world?

Answer 14

There was a shift from an economic centric view of the world (world trade…) to one dominated by international security.

It was also important in the developing polarity of the world post-cold war as it was the first time that the US was weak in decades (made weak by a bunch of nobodies) - as it led to interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Question 15

When was the idea of the BRICS formulated?

Answer 15

2001.

Question 16

What were the BRICs (now BRICS) countries when the idea was created?

Answer 16

Large fast growing economies rivalling the G7 and American economic supremacy. The movement of balancing was beginning (at least economically)?

Question 17

Have the BRICS been pushing the world towards a less unipolar world?

Answer 17

The BRICS (especially China) are (and have been) pushing the world towards a bipolar, or multipolar, world (especially post-2008) with their growing economic power - but also China’s growing influence in Africa and across the globe.

Question 18

In regards to power, what is the type of power called if A becomes so powerful it loses the need for B?

Answer 18

Absolute power.

Question 19

Is power based on resources alone (manpower, oil, industry…)?

Answer 19

No power is reliant on behaviour as well. Countries may have resources but may not act in a sensible way limiting their power - at the same time many countries may punch above their weight if they have limited resources but behave in a certain way that enables them to have power.

Question 20

Is power always based on success?

Answer 20

Usually BUT in limited circumstances it is not. Powers are not always less of a power than another party if they fail to succeed against them - e.g. USA lost the Vietnam War BUT the USA is not less powerful than Vietnam. In IR we often give a discount to those we perceive to be more powerful.

Question 21

What are the three main problems with power (particularly the realist idea of power)?

Answer 21

-The circulatory argument
-The lump power fallacy
-The relational character of power

Question 22

What is the circulatory argument (problem with power)?

Answer 22

“Power is often used as the killer argument, the ultimate put-down: something happened ‘because of power’”. BUT power doesn’t belong to anyone, it always circulates (harder to study in IR).

Question 23

What is the lump-power fallacy (problem with power)?

Answer 23

It is an argument by Robert Dahl that…

“In real world politics, we have no existing measure to tell us how much a billion inhabitants weigh in power as compared with a nuclear weapon, or hundreds of them” it is hard (nearly impossible) to AGGREGATE resources and then resources need to be compared with success and behaviour!

Question 24

What is the relational character of power (problem with power)?

Answer 24

• “The main characteristic of a relational approach is that it locates power in a human relationship, this distinguishing it from the sheer production of effects” (Guzzini, 2013, 3-4).

Power thus relies on the ‘B’ in Dahl’s definition.

Question 25

What is fungibility?

Answer 25

If one country invades another it requires an immediate military response (economics has little impact) BUT if the war lasts for years then economic strength and resource capability becomes far more important (increased time = increased fungibility)

Question 26

What are the three main perspectives on power in IR?

Answer 26

-Realism -Neoliberal institutionalism -Constructivism

Question 27

What is the realist perspective on power?

Answer 27

SHORT TERM VIEW of powers, crisis mindset (short term), temporal decay of power (LONGER YOU HAVE POWER THE MORE LIKELY YOU ARE TO LOSE IT by being challenged by others as they rise or if you as the power goes beyond their capabilities)…

Question 28

What is the neoliberal institutionalist perspective on power?

Answer 28

ACTORS VALUE THE FUTURE (not just survival), power can yield increasing returns over time particularly through institutions (e.g. UN, WTO…)

Question 29

What is the constructivist perspective on power?

Answer 29

Focus on power through NORMS, RULES AND IDEAS, LONG TERM VIEW of power. Power as ‘the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their own circumstances and fate’ (Barnett and Duvall 2005, 3). Constructivism exists in four forms: compulsory (‘direct control over another’), institutional (indirect power), structural (constitutive relations), and productive ( which ‘highlights how the discourses and institutions of international relations contingently produce particular kinds of actors with associated social powers, self-understandings, and performative practices’)

Question 30

What are the two main critical approaches to power?

Answer 30

-Critical theory -Post-structuralism

Question 31

What is critical theory in regards to power?

Answer 31

Critical theory shares with constructivism's focus on IDEAS, NORMS and IDENTITY. BUT There are two major differences: -Assumptions about temporal returns (critical feedback) in a way that makes them perhaps more realist -More open to the possibility of change (even advocate for change)

Question 32

What is post-structuralism in regards to power?

Answer 32

Post-structuralism believes that powder SHAPES ALL SOCIAL AND MORAL RELATIONS and therefore constitutes our identities. They see power as circulatory (power doesn't belong to anyone in particular) like energy in physics, and they see the relationship between power and knowledge as key.

Question 33

On a scale of 'negative-positive' and scopes of key causal processes 'short-long' where do realism, critical theories, neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism sit?

Answer 33

Realism = negative-short Critical theories = somewhat negative-long Neoliberal institutionalism = positive-somewhat short Constructivism = positive-long All have different takes on power (how it can be studied or resisted...) but all acknowledge the centrality of power in IR.

Question 34

Is power a contested concept? Is it important?

Answer 34

Power is a fundamentally contested concept. Understanding the distribution of power is essential to understanding modern international relations and the evolution of international history.

Question 35

What is the key reading for Power and Powers in IR?

Answer 35

Mattern 2008 'The Concept of Power and the Undiscipline of IR'

Question 37

Which perspective on power was responsible for the conception of the concept of power in IR? How important did power become to this school of thought?

Answer 37

Realists. Power was envisioned as an entity as intrinsic as tangible things such as the military, wealth, and geography. IR became focused on material resources and the states that controlled them, it became normatively complicit with militarisation and violence, and also in turn deemed non-state actors and small starts largely irrelevant.

Question 38

How did IR's study of power change in the second half of the 20thC?

Answer 38

-Potential vs actual power split acknowledged -Power considered more as a relationship of influence (mitigated the normative complicity in IR's complicity with militarisation)

Question 39

What is the first face of power?

Answer 39

'Decision making power' - a person having power over another so that they do something they otherwise would not have done (e.g. Robert Dahl)

Question 40

What is the second face of power?

Answer 40

'Agenda setting power' - more covert exercise of power, controlling the terms of the discussion (e.g. via exploiting their institutional position to silence dissent) (e.g. Bacharach and Baratz)

Question 41

What is the third face of power?

Answer 41

'Preference-shaping power' - power that circulates through thoughts and beliefs, often long term. Can be described as the Gramscian conception of power. With this face must consider states' relative positions in social structures, institutions... with socially privileged actors (e.g. USA) able to use their stature to deceive those less privileged (e.g. Bolivia) into complicity with their own domination

Question 42

Is IR an indiscipline in regards to power?

Answer 42

Yes. International relations is an (un)discipline. The fragmentation and silence across international relations' research niches have, in turn, shaped the way that international relations scholars approach power in their research.