1. Regions and Regional Powers
Global Leader
Major Powers
Regions and Regional Powers

2. Which States Belong in the Club
Which States Belong in the Club? The Attribution of Major Power Status in International Politics. Thomas J. Volgy, Renato Corbetta, Keith A. Grant, and Ryan G. Baird Presented at the International Political Science Association Conference, Santiago Chile, July 2009, and the Dartmouth Conference on Rising Powers and Status, October 2010.

3. “. . . since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides, 1951: 331).

4. Two assumptions
Anarchy (absence of central governmental structures; +
2) Inequality between states
Salience of major powers and their status in international politics

5. BUT: As inequality produces major powers,
both systemic and domestic conditions
can create hierarchy in the midst of anarchy

6. Theory and Empirical literature:
States with major power status =
Global leadership in development of rules, norms, governance mechanisms and primary actors in most forms of major conflict and cooperation processes in international affairs.
So say realists; neorealists; liberal-institutionalists; power transition theorists; long cycle theorists, some constructivists, and some liberal theorists =
MAJOR POWER STATUS MATTERS

7. COW Major Power Status Designation,
State Years Lost Status Regained
Austria-Hungary Yes (dissolved) No
China
France Yes Yes
Germany/Prussia Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Italy Yes No
Japan Yes Yes
Russia/USSR Yes Yes
United Kingdom No
United States No
Nine major powers across two centuries; two dead, one new one.

8. OUR TASKS Underscore the value of status; Differentiate between
a) status consistent and status inconsistent powers; and
b) between underachieving versus overachieving status inconsistent powers;
3) Create a new database (MPS) for identifying major power status and status inconsistencies;
4) Test predictions related to the varying effects of differential status attribution to propensities for conflict involvement

9. Three Forms of Status Attribution:
What is Status?
===========
Self Ascription
Community based attribution
In-Group based attribution
What is status?
How do you get it?

10. A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics
Major Powers
Japan U.S. UK Russia France PRC Germany
BRICS
G-8 Powers
UNSC Veto Powers
Regional Powers
Nuclear Powers
Numerous status clubs; our focus is on whether regional powers (Brazil and India) are likely to move from the regional to the major power club.
A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics

11. Mechanisms of Major Power Status Attribution
Opportunity
Military Strength
Military Reach
Economic Size
Economic Reach Status
Attribution
Willingness
Active global engagement
in conflict and cooperation
Constraints
-major power independence
-lead power influence on global norms
Aspects generated endogenously; aspects (attribution) exogenously

12. But why is Status Important if you have Major Power Capabilities and Intentions?
The attribution of major power status by other states = additional capacity + and legitimacy for major powers (both domestically and externally) for their activism
Status underachieving states
incentives to demonstrate activism to generate more status and/or to change status quo to generate more status than provided by status quo conditions.

13. So, it should matter in two ways:
Status = Soft power generation to complement hard power
Status inconsistency = motivation to increase or stabilize status attributed to state
Note: one is material; one is not….realist versus liberal or constructivist

14. Status Types No Major Power Status (includes all other states)
Major Power Status Club Membership
which includes:
Status Consistent Major Powers
and
Status Inconsistent Major Powers
Overachievers
Underachievers

15. Figure 2: Threshold Criteria for Inclusion in Major Power Status Club
Type of Member
Capabilities
Activity
Status Attribution
Mspend Mreach GDP Ereach
Coop Conflict
Dipcon Visits
Underachievers
+ and/or + and/or + and/or + or
+ and and or +
or +
Overarchievers
or and or
+ and/or + and/or +and/or +
or +
Fully Status Consistent

16. Validation Scheme: Comparing what we know: U.S. versus India

17. Validation for the U.S.

20. Validation Scheme for India as Major Power

22. So Which States Are Members of the Major Power Status Club in Recent International Politics?

23. Major Power Status: Early Cold War Period
Major Powers Status States and Time Frames
Status Consistent US US US
Underachievers USSR USSR USSR UK
France France
Overarchievers
N =

24. Major Power Status: Late Cold War Period
Major Powers Status States and Time Frames
Status Consistent US US US
Underachievers USSR
UK UK UK
Overarchievers USSR USSR France France France
N =

25. Major Power Status: Post Cold War Period
Major Powers Status States and Time Frames
Status Consistent US US US
France France UK
Japan
====================================================
Underachievers UK Germany UK
France
=====================================================
Overachievers Russia/USSR Russia Russia
China China China N=

26. Why Would We Care?

27. Testing Four Hypotheses
1) Fully status consistent major powers most likely to intervene in ongoing conflicts;
2) There should be substantial differences between status inconsistent and status consistent major powers’ intervention behavior;
3) Underachievers should be more likely to intervene in ongoing conflicts than overachievers
4) Overachievers most likely to contest through institutions of cooperation.

28. Tabulations of Joining MIDS by Status Type,
* The unit of analysis is country year.
Type of State
Does not Join
Joins
Total
Not Major Power
94%
(5,799) 6%
(372)
100%
(6,171)
Status Consistent Major Power
20%
(14)
80%
(56)
(70)
Status Inconsistent Major Power
59%
(80)
41%
(55)
(135)

29. Major Power Status and MID Joining, 1950—2001
Model 1
Model 2
Model 4
Cow Major Powers
.67**
(.232)
---
MPS Major Powers (all)
.83***
(.231)
Status Consistent Major Powers
1.34***
(.332)
(.333)
Status Inconsistent Major Powers (all)
.59**
(.200)
Status Inconsistent (Overachievers)
.61
(.340)
Status Inconsistent (Underachievers)
.58**
(.224)
ln(Capabilities)
.32***
(.053)
.33***
(.048)
Constant
1.31***
(.400)
1.33***
(.369)
1.25***
(.372)
(.375) n
6,441
Chi 2
603.26***
493.88***
738.81***
770.96***
Even when we control for their capabilities, both status and type of status matters for conflict

30. Answer: Overachieving Major Powers*
The Flip Side: Which States Are Most Likely to Pursue Structured Cooperation?
Answer: Overachieving Major Powers*
* Although not as likely to be successful

32. Brazil, India, S. Africa, Australia, Nigeria
Major Powers
Japan U.S. UK Russia France PRC Germany
BRICS
G-8 Powers
UNSC Veto Powers
Regional Powers
Brazil, India, S. Africa, Australia, Nigeria
Nuclear Powers
Numerous status clubs; our focus is on whether regional powers (Brazil and India) are likely to move from the regional to the major power club.
A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics

33. The Future:
Whose Coming?
Whose Leaving?

34. COMING: India and Brazil? GOING: Germany and Japan?