POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: SEARCHING FOR A NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR POWER ANALYSIS - Part III *

Resumo

*This series is the result of an adaptation of a paper presented as part of a seminar on “Theories and Research in International Relations” at Hebrew University, July 2012. Commentaries are welcome to daniel.wajner@mail.huji.ac.il

Click here to read Part II of the series

In the first article of this series we have introduced the debates on the ontology of power, while in the second one we have presented the main epistemological approaches of the different paradigms. In this third and final article we will deal with methodological schemes for Power Analysis in IR, while indicating areas for possible innovation using the “Arab Spring” cases as illustrations.

Power, Outcomes, and what brings them together
As we have seen in the last part, the contribution made by Barnett and Duvall with his taxonomy of four dimensions of power is very helpful as theoretical framework; nevertheless, it is still weak to implement as a methodological tool - it is very difficult to distinguish in a real case what is originated through the structure or the actor, as well as to measure if the specificity is direct or diffuse.

But the same could be expressed about the majority of the mentioned schemes. In fact, Dahl itself warned about the difficulties of combining variables to compare power relations and argued that it depends on the requirements of the research.1 This complexity is even larger when normative factors are included; for example, despite the proposal of Nye of measuring soft power through polls and focus groups, he also cautioned about the limits of the intangible variables.2 Hurt addresses certain ways of skipping the difficulties in measuring the power of legitimacy, such as examining: the rates of compliance, the reasons given for compliance and for non-compliance, the support given by the centers of Power and the need for legitimacy argument (akin to a counterfactual technique).3 But, once again, no combined power relations framework is presented.

In addition, Lukes argues that power depends on the “significance“ of the outcomes, namely, in the capacity of affecting the interests of the agents. He refers to two methods: by changing incentives structures (indoctrination) and by influencing interests (subject freedom). However, Lukes confesses that the main question remains open: how to use certain power to shape certain preferences?4

In conclusion, in these approaches no power relation mechanism explains, in a measurable way, how material and normative resources are combined to shape power and influence decisions. Therefore, I would like to subsequently suggest a very simple framework that may allow us to implement the knowledge mentioned hitherto to study specific cases in IR.

In line with the majority of the authors, in order to make power measurable I consider that we have to divide it in two variables: material power (or simply Power) and legitimation power (or legitimacy). In international politics, the power of an actor is expressed by its military (backed-by-economical) resources, and for the scheme it would receive “high” or “low” values. The legitimacy of the actors, which is based on their capacity to be perceived as norms-compliers and to build consensus around them5, would receive also “high” or “low” values.

A power analysis based on the combination of those two variables, as it is shown below in illustration I, leads us to the taxonomy of four types of cases, each one ascribed to an “outcome”. It is important to clarify that, for this paper, the outcomes would reflect the domestic situation of the main agent (the State) given an international system; it is a sort of outside-in analysis if we take into account Gourevitch´s second image reversed.6 Further work has to be done to adapt this scheme so as to explain the conduct of the State vis-à-vis other States as well as to include the domestic sphere of legitimacy.

The first actor, which has high power and high legitimacy, could describe his situation as “stable”; that means, the actor would overcome the domestic and external challenges without internal changes and high international costs.

The second actor, having high power but low legitimacy, is considered to be in a “changeable” situation. Although this actor is capable of overcoming internal and external challenges, due to the fact that it lacks of support from the other actors he could suffer from high international costs and possibly domestic changes.

Illustration I – Taxonomy of Power-Legitimacy outcomes
POWER
LEGITIMACY
High Power
Low Power

High Legitimacy


“STABLE”

“PROTECTABLE”

Low Legitimacy


“CHANGEABLE”

“REVOLUTIONABLE”

To the third actor, which has low power but high legitimacy, his situation is defined as “protectable”. Due to his incapacity to overcome alone the internal and external challenges, this actor may count on the support of other actors to reduce the possibility of domestic changes; otherwise he will suffer from it.

The fourth actor, with low power and low legitimacy, is placed in a “revolutionable” situation; that means, this actor is candidate to suffer from internal changes and high international costs at the time he would face challenges.

Testing the Power Analysis framework with the “Arab Spring”

The phenomenon known as the “Arab Spring”, composed of dozens of countries in which massive protests were held, constitutes an outstanding test for the theory. A large quantity of those cases happened in a very short range of time, with all the variety of domestic conditions, reactions from the regime and from the world, as well as different outcomes. This makes those events ideal for the present examination; even though it is just a “sample” of a more deeply study.7

Although no State of those that suffered uprisings is considered in a “stable” situation at all, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could be mentioned as good examples of Arab countries that combined high power (relatively, of course) and high legitimacy. Their regimes faced the uprisings from the beginning (mid-January 2011), but were capable of overcoming the internal challenges through a combination of repression and reforms, without suffering changes in their regime and being supported by the international community.

Egypt is probably the best representation of a country whose regime kept high power at the moment of facing domestic challenges but received low legitimacy from the world; this “changeable” situation caused drastic changes at the top of the leadership (including the president, ministers, etc), albeit not of the whole regime (still leaded by the Military Council). Syria seems to be in a similar situation; while the power of the regime is still high, the legitimacy is not low enough to bring to major changes due to the sustained support of Russia, China and Iran. As a result, Syria constitutes today an excellent test for the power of legitimacy (and norms) in international politics.

Between those countries that experienced a combination of low power and high legitimacy, experiencing a “protectable” situation, it is possible to mention Bahrain. Despite its regime was not capable of overcoming the internal revolts alone, it counted with the support of most of the Arab countries in the repression, and the Western approval of the “regional intervention” leaded by Gulf countries around the GCC. Yemen was in a comparable position, but at the end of 2011 the legitimacy of its regime was reduced when the region and the world understood the necessity to remove the President to maintain the remaining, in what was denominated later “the Yemenite option”.

Finally, Libya constitutes the case in which the regime was in a “revolutionable” situation, owing to its low Power to contain the rapid domestic rebellion and its low legitimacy after the first days of tremendous repression. The international costs were so high that included a military intervention leaded by NATO (with the endorsement of the Arab League), that led to the total collapse of the regime. It is possible to say that Tunisia was in an analogous situation while it did not need for a civil war and an external intervention to consummate finally a revolution (i.e., the complete removal of the existing regime).

Conclusions
Throughout the paper we were able to observe that the ontological, epistemological and methodological discussions about the complex concept of Power maintain their relevance in the main schools of IR, and in some cases even constitute an essential part of their latest developments.

At the same time, the inter-paradigmatic efforts of the last decades are demanding new power analysis approaches; that means, theoretical schemes that would embed a combination of the different factors at stake (material and non-material, resources and interactions, agents and structures) to specific cases of study.

Deeper examinations of the “Arab Spring” cases need to be implemented so as to confirm the presented findings, as it was previously said. However, these small samples could possibly reveal that the implementation of a framework that combines both material and non-material resources is possible and, even more, desirable, to a better understanding of the devices of power in IR.

1 Robert A. Dahl, “The concept of Power”, p.214
2 Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power- The Means to Success in World Politics. p.6
3 Ian Hurt, “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics”. International Organization 53 No2 (Spring 1999), 390-391
4 Stephen Lukes, “Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds”, p.492
5 This short definition is based on concepts presented in Ian Clark, “Legitimacy in International Society” (London: Oxford University Press, 2005). It includes components both from the structure and the agent.
6 Peter Gourevitch, “The second image reversed – the international sources of domestic politics” International Organization 32 No4, (Autumn 1978), 881-911.
7 An investigation is “under construction”, called “The Arab League and its legitimation role in the Arab Spring”. It focuses on the power of the Arab League to yield legitimacy (or not) in six different cases.



Bibliography

Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S.. “Two Faces of Power”. The American Political Science Review 56 No4, (December 1962), 947-952

Baldwin, David A. Paradoxes of Power (NYC: Basil Blackwell, 1989).

Barnett, Michael and Duvall, Raymond. “Power in International Politics”, International Organization 59, No1 (Winter 2005), 39-75

Berenskoetter, Felix and Williams, Michael J.. Power in World Politics. (NYC: Routledge, 2007)

Bourdieu, Pierre. Language & Symbolic Power (NYC : Polity Press, 2001)

Carr, Edward H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis,1919-1939 (NYC: Harper Torchbooks, 1964)

Clark, Ian. “Legitimacy in International Society” (NYC: Oxford University Press, 2005)

Claude, Inis L., Power and International Relations (New York: Random House, 1962).

Dahl, Robert A. “The concept of Power”, Behavioral Science 2 No3, (July 1957), 201-215

Haas, Ernst B. When Knowledge is Power (University of California Press, 1990).

Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization 52, No. 4 (Autumn 1998), 887-917.

Foucalt, Michael. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-77 (Brighton: Havester, 1980)

Franck, Thomas M., “The Power of Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Power: International Law in an Age of Power Disequilibrium.” American Journal International 88 (2006), 88-106

Gourevitch, Peter. “The second image reversed – the international sources of domestic politics” International Organization 32 No4, (Autumn 1978), 881-911.

Guzzini, Stefano, “The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis” Millennium 33 No3, 2005, 495-521.

Guzzini, Stefano, “Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis”, International Organization 47, No3 (Summer 1993), 443-478.

Hurt, Ian, “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics”. International Organization 53 No2 (Spring 1999), 379-408

Ikenberry, John and Kupchan, Charles A. “Socialization and hegemonic power”, International Organization 44, No3 (Summer 1990), 283-315.

Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence, 2nd edition (New York: Harper Collins, 1989)

Krasner, Stephen D. “Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous Variables”, International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), 497-510

Lukes, Stephen. “Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds”, Millennium 33 No3, (2005), 477-493

Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great power Politics (NYC: Norton, 2001)

Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations, 4th edition (NYC: Knopf, 1967).

Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power- The Means to Success in World Politics (NYC: PublicAffairs, 2004)

Putnam, Robert. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42, No3, (1988), 427-460

Risse, Thomas. “Let’s Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics,” International Organization 54 No1 (Winter 2000), 1-40.

Schmidt, Brian C. “Competing Realist Conceptions of Power”, Millennium 33 No3, 523-549

Walt, Stephen. The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987)

Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. (NYC: McGraw-Hill, 1979)

Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. (California: University of Berkeley, 1978. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich).

Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46 (1992), 391-425.

Wendt, Alexander. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory”, International Organization 41/3 (1987), 335-370.

Fabian Daniel Wajner is a Research and Teaching Assistant at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Department of International Relations) and a Fellow of the Liweranth Center for Latin America Studies.