Class 4 – Emerging Powers in Comparative Perspective Dr. Vinícius Rodrigues Vieira (Postdoctoral Researcher) IRI-USP, São Paulo, 7 March 2016

Hard Power Soft Power Realists Liberals emphasis on cooperation (influence only) Power Military Structural (Norms) CulturalEconomic Building hegemony and influence… emphasis on conflict (power without influence) HEGEMONY

But how is the current hegemon behaving? Unilateral turn (Ikenberry, 2003)  Informal Empire??? (Reich and Lebow 2014: 137);  Emphasis during Bush years ( );  Examples: non-signature of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC);  That is, problems with sponsorship (Reich and Lebow 2014)  What has originated such approach???

Let’s first understand what is opposed to unilateralism Multilateralism (Ikenberry, 2003: 534)  Involves three or more states;  Entails the coordination of relations among a group of sovereign states;  Pre-defined rules and norms;  Reduction in a state’s policy autonomy.

Which are the incentives for multilateralism?  Power (fewer costs than in other arrangements, such as an empire or unilateral approaches);  Sponsorship: “The war in Iraq—a quintessential example of a leadership strategy—is conservatively estimated to have cost in excess of $800 billion. By late 2011, the war in Afghanistan had cost another $467 billion. Other estimates suggest the eventual long-term costs will approach $4 trillion. The sponsorship strategy in Libya cost a small fraction of that amount, and was notably successful in orchestrating civilian protection and regime change” (Reich and Lebow 2014: 141).

Which are the incentives for multilateralism?  Legitimacy (hegemon can express its interests without looking authoritarian—or heregmonic);  Competition (US vs USSR during the Cold War)  but in the 1990s...

Incentives for the erosion of multilateralism (and, thus, for the use of sponsorship strategies)...  Power (much more than Cold War allies, including Western Europe and Japan);  Legitimacy (without alternatives of power, there might be less incentives to portray cooperativeness);  Competition (US becomes the sole major military power)  Furthermore, in the 2000s...

Challenges to US power (Non-state)

Lake (2009, 68-70)  Security Hierarchy  Military Personnel: troops deployed elsewhere (subordinated states);  Independent Alliances: measured by the number of alliances subordinated states have with other countries independently of the hegemon (foreign policy autonomy).

Lake (2009, 72)  Economic Hierarchy  Exchange rate: highest possible scale of dependence corresponds to states that adopt dollarization;  Problem: only states that in a given year fixed their currency directly to the dollar.  Trade dependence (Ibid. 75): total trade with US divided by the subordinated state GDP, minus similar ratios for the other permanent members of the UNSC (China, France, Russia, and UK).

Challenges to US power (State)  Are they ACTUAL challengers???

Discuss in pairs the most likely outcome...  Cooperation between the US and the emerging powers  that is, will American persuasion be effective??;  Conflict between them;  Depends on the issue area (economy, military questions, terrorism, climate change).

REMEMBER!!!  HEGEMONY!!!  It may be conceived “…as the result of legitimacy as well as power. Drawing on the theories of Antonio Gramsci, Roger Simon describes hegemony as a relation ‘not of domination by means of force, but of consent by means of political and ideological leadership’” (Lebow and Reich, 2014: 18)  “By definition, hegemony requires both economic and military dominance and leadership (Ibid.: 23)” + Soft Power???  Legitimacy  Leadership???  Hegemony or Influence???

REMEMBER!!!  HEGEMONY!!! 1 ) Agenda Setting: “…ability to initiate, legitimize, and advocate policy issues” (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 37); 2 ) Custodianship: stabilization of the international system in economy (economists would say that it is a provision of a public good) (Ibid.: 37), may not depend on a hegemon (Ibid.: 42); 3 ) Sponsorship: “enforcement of rules, norms, agreements, and decision-making processes as well as the maintenance of security to enhance trade and finance” (Ibid.: 43-44);

China has increasingly become a lender of last resort. It made record amounts of investment in the Global South in key development projects (…) The United States, by contrast, has increasingly disregarded its managerial role by abandoning what we have referred to as custodial economic functions. Despite the continued importance of the dollar as a reserve currency, the United States no longer acts as the lender of last resort. It now borrows an unprecedented amount of money rather than lending it (Reich and Lebow 2014: 132).

Great powers routinely exaggerate threats to their security or standing and feel the need to act aggressively in response. Great powers are even more aggressive and, not content with their advantages, routinely seek hegemony. They start wars they lose. Thucydides teaches us that great powers can often be their own worst enemy. American policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are the latest example of this phenomenon. In search of security and hegemony, the United States damaged both (Reich and Lebow 2014: 132). CRASHING THE HARD CEILING???

Established Powers Emerging Powers Fragmentation of interests = Less cooperation??? HEGEMONIC COMPETITION

Established Powers Emerging Powers Cooperation in spite of fragmentation??? SPONSORSHIP

REMEMBER!!!  INFLUENCE ONLY:  It depends on persuasion (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 36).  Persuasion, in turn, is more effective if it comes from someone who upholds power!!!  built upon shared values and advocate policies that involve accepted practices  Shared values come from who has more power and, thus, is more legitimate!!!  So persuasion does not preclude power

REMEMBER!!! Power Military Structural (Norms) CulturalEconomic  State power in the international system has various dimensions;  The starting point seems to be the ownership of structural power;  Yet, having economic power may trigger hegemonic ambitions, although not always in worldwide scale….

NEXT CLASS Regions and the global dynamic of Power

NEXT CLASS Regions and the global dynamic of Power  Emerging Markets: countries with sizable production and consumption markets, having them the potential to increase their overall power in the world;  Emerging Powers: usually emerging markets that, due to a variety of reasons, opt to convert their growing economic clout into other forms of power.

Structure of the Seminars The class readings (the mandatory and IN PARTICULAR the optional) of the presentation day should inform your analysis. Considering your topic, start to think of the challenges associated to it. The following questions may structure your presentation:

 Is country X being successful in its rising strategies? (This is an opportunity to analyze whether the rising strategy consists of emphasizing a given dimension of power—military, economic, structural[norms], and cultural);  What are the implications of the rise of country X on the group of established powers Y or third-part countries, such as developing ones? (i.e., is country X a threat from the standpoint from group Y? Can X contribute to empowering other developing countries?);  Does country X face domestic constraints in its rise? Why?

 Of course you do not have to cover all those questions in your presentation and brief. Also, think of specific questions according to the topic. Nevertheless, the more dimensions you consider in the analysis, the more likely you are to succeed in addressing the chosen topic. The same is applicable for the essay you will write in your final exam (see separate instructions).  Finish the presentation with policy recommendations.

World Development Indicators (WDI)  World Bank (gathers official data from countries) riableSelection/selectvariables.aspx?source=wo rld-development-indicators riableSelection/selectvariables.aspx?source=wo rld-development-indicators Example: let’s compare the BRICS.

Brookings Institution  Think-tank based in the US Example: US views on world affairs

Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)  Think-tank based in Canada Example: BRICS and Global Governance

BRICS Policy Center  Think-tank based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil x/1?tipo=Policy%20Brief Example: BRICS and Global Governance

China Daily  Chinese newspaper in English US edition: Economic data: Example: Chinese views on the US

Open Government Data (OGD) Platform India  Official data from the Government of India Example: patterns of foreign trade

Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE)  Official data from Brazil Center for Social Policies (CPS/FGV)  Up to date info on poverty and development Example: rising middle class

Statistics South Africa  Official data from South Africa Example: differences in subnational performance

Federal State Statistics Service, Russian Federation  Official data from Russia rosstat/en/main/ Example: evolution since the transition to market economy

Ministries of Foreign Affairs  China:  India:  Brazil: Brazilian_Foreign_Policy_Handbook.pdfhttp://funag.gov.br/loja/download/454- Brazilian_Foreign_Policy_Handbook.pdf  South Africa:  Russia:

Ministries of Foreign Affairs  Mexico:  Indonesia:  Nigeria:  Turkey:

Other sources  ADB:  AfDB:  BRICS: and sotrudn/eng_site/brics.htmlhttp:// sotrudn/eng_site/brics.html  Military Spending: atabase atabase

Can I use Wikipedia???  YES, for background research only!!! Keep in mind that every source has a potential bias!  Therefore, triangulate whenever it is possible. These sources are also useful for the final exam essay  But let’s talk now about exam 1...

Structure of Exam 1 You will have a list of 7 definitions, out of which you will select 4 to write about. I will extract the definitions from concepts found in the mandatory readings, class slides, and facts that I mention during the lectures.

Structure of Exam 1 How should you write a definition? Consider at least the following elements/implicit questions:  What?  Why? (i.e., relevance, justification for studying the concept);  Example 1 (i.e., a case that demonstrates the application of the concept);  Example 2.

Structure of Exam 1 Example of Definition  Military Power: it corresponds to the use of warfare by a state against another with the purpose of coercion. It is relevant for the study of international politics—including the rise of new powers— insofar as it is an instrument through which sovereign entities reach the goals of survival and expansion. An example is the action of European powers until the first half of the 20th Century, when they competed with each other for supremacy at the regional and global level. Also, it might be one of the strategies new powers tend to employ to gain more influence around the globe as its economic might and political clout increase at the world stage.