Class 3 – Emerging Powers in Comparative Perspective Dr. Vinícius Rodrigues Vieira (Lecturer in International Relations) IRI-USP, São Paulo, 29 February 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

Building and preserving hegemony  Persuading Allies?

Building and preserving hegemony  Not always!!!

Building and preserving hegemony  Potential hegemon

c ) Building and preserving hegemony  Potential hegemon

a ) From economic to structural power  Analogy with firms  What should they do to expand their market share or at least survive?  A condition seems to be applicable to states as well (without any adaptations in the analogy, as we did last week for the idea of mergers and acquisitions…)  Tip: it starts with “I”…

a ) From economic to structural power  Innovation  Technology!!!

a ) From economic to structural power  Case: Patent Registration  Property rights (North 1981);  For individuals: stimulus to innovation;  Beyond the individual: countries can export technology and generate revenue with services.

Source: legal-wrangles

a ) From economic to structural power  Post World War II order was shaped by the US, the largest economy!!!  International Organizations (IOs) (e.g.)  United Nations (UN)  Security Council  International Monetary Fund (IMF)  World Bank  Values (e.g.)  Democracy  Free markets  But can the US retain its position ???

b ) Is it inevitable to crash the “hard ceiling”?  The limit for social development, after which a civilization falls apart and becomes unable to control the impact of other forces (based on Morris, 2010)  YES: Societies are open systems  Endogenous and exogenous factors;  All them are out of complete control;  A missing factor: natural disasters;  Apart from that, it seems that every single dominant polity has been engaged in “Imperial Overstretching” (Snyder 1991).

b ) Is it inevitable to crash the “hard ceiling”?  Even after “Imperial Overstretching”…  Can the US retain its position ???

b ) Is it inevitable to crash the “hard ceiling”?  NO, if it advances the interests of the international community!  Hēgemonia  In the Greek Sense! “Hēgemonia requires material capabilities, but those capabilities must be used to advance the common interests of the [international] community” (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 47).

b ) Is it inevitable to crash the “hard ceiling”?  “The coming decades are not likely to see a post- American world, but the United States will need a smart strategy that combines hard-and soft-power resources. Toward this end, [Joseph] Nye advocates, as he has for some time, a liberal approach emphasizing multilateralism, bargaining, and the promotion of American values through globalization" (Reich and Lebow, 2014: 20)  But will the emerging powers, particularly China, agree?

It may depend on what an emerging power prefer Status quo Revisionism

Quick Task: Discuss in pairs what they mean in world politics Status quo Revisionism

Good friends  Status Quo???

Power Military Structural (Norms) CulturalEconomic Hard Power Soft Power Realists Liberals emphasis on conflict emphasis on cooperation Preserving hegemony and influence…

Free-Riding… Is it possible in International Politics?..

… or at least in the International Economy!  Taking advantage of custodianship provided by the hegemon “The world economy is a system of interconnected national economies that bring together national capital (especially national financial power) and states that struggle to move up the hierarchy of states and the value-added pecking order”. (Robinson, 2011: 272).

Yet International Politics and Economy are intertwined! “… key actors are rival states operating in an inter-state system, each in competition with the others. These competitive nation-states within an inter-state system are the subunits of analysis and the larger unit of analysis is the interaction between these sub-units and the world system over time”. (Robinson, 2011: 272).

How does the world system change?  It is impossible to expand continuously in material terms  analogous to crash the hard ceiling; 1 st phase: material expansion and subsequent market saturation; 2 nd phase: finance capital became dominant;  Yet can financial products alone sustain growth?

 When a hegemon hits the “hard ceiling”… Hegemonic Transitions “… a period of systemic chaos as well as organisational revolutions in a newly emerging hegemonic bloc of business and governmental institutions and spatial shifts in the epicentres of world accumulation that brings about structural changes in the world-system” (Robinson, 2011: 273)

 When a hegemon hits the “hard ceiling”… Hegemonic Transitions “… a period of systemic chaos as well as organisational revolutions in a newly emerging hegemonic bloc of business and governmental institutions and spatial shifts in the epicentres of world accumulation that brings about structural changes in the world-system” (Robinson, 2011: 273)

Discussion: Give 3 examples of subsequent Hegemonic Transitions according to Arrighi (Robinson 2011 reading)   

Quick Task: Give 3 examples of subsequent Hegemonic Transitions according to Arrighi (Robinson 2011 reading) Genoa  The Netherlands  Great Britain  The US

Are we living a Hegemonic Transition? Arrighi: The coming of an Asian age (Robinson, 2011: 278)  He is too optimistic with China!!! Why it might be a problem? “… bifurcation of military [US] and financial [East Asian] global power” (Arrighi and Silver, 1999: 95). Economic power is CHANGING  Is REVISIONISM coming???

Back to 1914???  Military Power???

Composite Index of National Capability (CINC)  Share in the world of:  Total population;  Urban population;  Iron and steel production;  Energy consumption;  Military personnel;  Military expenditure.  capabilities/national-material-capabilities-v4-0

CINC ( )

Question: Discuss in pairs why China has not become the world hegemon yet?

Back to 1914???  Military Power???

NO!!! Good friends MAY imply in Status Quo  Structural Power

What are your thoughts about this: Even if there is a consensus on the use of structural power over military power, nobody can be sure whether the parameters for setting norms will remain the same.

Status quo Revisionism

Status quo Revisionism

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

Building and preserving hegemony  Persuading Allies?

Building and preserving hegemony  Not always!!!

Building and preserving hegemony  Potential hegemon