Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies

Abstract

Recent refinements in social science thinking about power could be used to revitalize this approach to understanding international relations. The relevance of scholarly work on the causal concept of power is explored with regard to the following topics: potential vs. actual power, interdependence, military power, positive sanctions, the zero-sum model of politics, and the distinction between deterrence and compellence. The tendency to exaggerate the fungibility of power resources, the propensity to treat military power resources as the1 “ultimate” power base, and the emphasis on conflict and negative sanctions at the expense of cooperation and positive sanctions, are still common in international relations scholarship. The most important need is for recognition that the absence of a common denominator of political value in terms of which different scopes of power can be compared is not so much a methodological problem to be solved as it is a real-world constraint to be lived with.

Geopolitics and international organizations: An empirical study on IMF facilities

“…First, one should not search for a determinant, neither for some determinants, but rather for a range of interacting determinants. Indeed, as Baldwin (1979) argues, there is no unique geopolitical variable. Geopolitics may therefore concern many different areas.…”

“…The conversion of 'land power' into 'political power' is however not straightforward. In the context of International Politics, Baldwin (1979) and Nye (1990) developed the following seminal argument:…”

“…This idea, already mentioned by Baldwin (1979) as one of the two reasons 2 explaining "the paradox of unrealized power", refers to the fact that a country with resources identified as strategic does not necessarily succeed in being powerful. According to Baldwin, this country has the resources but has not the knowledge to use it in order to convert them into power.…”

“…After defining the concept and relevance of geopolitics in the context of an international organization with a particular focus on the IMF, we collected and built various indicators that, according to related literature, are subjects of geopolitical stakes. As Baldwin (1979) argues, there is no unique geopolitical variable. Indeed, geopolitics may concern many different areas, thus inducing that, regarding on the area, the same country's geopolitical importance may switch from the highest to an insignificant level.…”

Du « Consensus de Washington » au « Consensus de Séoul » : quelle place pour l’État dans la gouvernance ?

“…À cet égard, la crise économico-financière récente a accéléré le processus de croissance de poids politico-économique des pays émergents au détriment des anciennes puissances. Cette redistribution de la puissance de manière asymétrique (Grévi, 2009) est révélatrice de la phase de transformation et de consolidation en cours de ces pays, à partir de leur solidification économique, avant de pouvoir traduire celle-ci en résultats escomptés sur la scène internationale, en dépit de la prudence dont il convient de faire preuve quant à l'éventuelle automaticité entre les ressources de puissances et les résultats obtenus (Baldwin, 1979).…”