Re

Regional Powers

Global Leader

Major Powers

Regions and Regional Powers

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.

“. . . 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).

Two assumptions

1) Anarchy (absence of central governmental structures;

+2) Inequality between states

Salience of major powers and their status in international politics

BUT:

As inequality produces major powers,

both systemic and domestic conditions

can create hierarchy in the midst of anarchy

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

COW Major Power Status Designation,1816-2002.

State Years Lost Status Regained

Austria-Hungary 1816-1918 Yes (dissolved) No

China 1950-2002 France 1816-1940 Yes 1941-44 Yes 1945-2002

Germany/Prussia 1816-1918 Yes 1919-1924 Yes 1925-1945 Yes 1946-1990 Yes 1991-2002

Italy 1860-1943 Yes 1944- NoJapan 1895-1945 Yes 1946-1990 Yes 1991-2002Russia/USSR 1816-1917 Yes 1918-1921 Yes 1922-2002United Kingdom 1816-2002 NoUnited States 1898-2002 No

OUR TASKS

1)Underscore the value of status;2)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

Three Forms of Status Attribution:

What is Status?===========1)Self Ascription

2)Community based attribution

3)In-Group based attribution

Major PowersJapan U.S. UK Russia France PRC Germany

G-8 PowersNuclear Powers

UNSC Veto

Powers

Regional Powers

A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics

BRICS

Mechanisms of Major Power Status Attribution

OpportunityMilitary StrengthMilitary ReachEconomic SizeEconomic Reach Status

AttributionWillingness Active global engagement in conflict and cooperation

Constraints -major power independence -lead power influence on global norms

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.

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

Status Types

No Major Power Status (includes all other states)+++++++++++++++++++++

Major Power Status Club Membershipwhich includes:

Status Consistent Major Powersand

Status Inconsistent Major Powerswhich includes:

• Overachievers

• Underachievers

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 + + or +

Overarchievers + or + and + or + + + + +

+ and/or + and/or +and/or +

+ or + + +

Fully Status Consistent

+ + + +

+ + + +

Figure 2: Threshold Criteria for Inclusion in Major Power Status Club

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

Validation for the U.S.

Validation Scheme for India as Major Power

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

Major Power Status: Early Cold War Period

Major Powers Status States and Time Frames1951-55 1956-60 1961-65

Status Consistent US US US

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Underachievers USSR USSR USSR

UKFrance France

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Overarchievers

-------------------------------------------------------------------------N = 3 3 3

Major Power Status: Late Cold War Period

Major Powers Status States and Time Frames1976-80 1981-85 1986-90

Status Consistent US US US

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Underachievers USSR

UK UK UK-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Overarchievers USSR USSR

France France France-----------------------------------------------------------------------N = 4 4 4

Major Power Status: Post Cold War PeriodMajor Powers Status States and Time Frames

1991-95 1996-2000 2001-2005

Status Consistent US US USFrance France

UKJapan

====================================================Underachievers UK Germany UK

FranceJapan

=====================================================Overachievers Russia/USSR Russia Russia

China China ChinaJapan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------N= 6 7 6

Why Would We Care?

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.

Type of State Does not Join Joins TotalNot Major Power

94%

(5,799)

6%

(372)

100%

(6,171)

Status Consistent Major Power

20%

(14)

80%

(56)

100%

(70)

Status Inconsistent Major Power

59%

(80)

41%

(55)

100%

(135)

Tabulations of Joining MIDS by Status Type, 1950-2001.

* The unit of analysis is country year.

Major Power Status and MID Joining, 1950—2001

The Flip Side: Which States Are Most Likely to Pursue Structured Cooperation?

Answer: Overachieving Major Powers*

* Although not as likely to be successful

Major PowersJapan U.S. UK Russia France PRC Germany

G-8 PowersNuclear Powers

UNSC Veto

Powers

Regional Powers

Brazil, India, S. Africa, Australia, Nigeria

A Variety of Status Clubs In International Politics

BRICS

The Future:

Whose Coming?

Whose Leaving?

COMING: India and Brazil?

GOING: Germany and Japan?