Power Structural Power And American Decline (Kitchen and Cox) Flashcards
General argument of Kitchen and Cox
Based on Susan strangers theory
Understanding international relations requieres looking beyond mere resource possession and examining how rules and structures shapes global interaction in ways that reflect power asymmetries.
While American decline in terms of relational power (military and economic dominance) may be evident, its structural power allows to maintain its global leadership role
Triggers of American decline
- Cold War and Soviet technological advances (launch of Sputnik). First wave of “declinism”
1960-70. Vietnam war: inability to secure decisive victory + inability to contain communism in Southeast Asia
1970s economic crisis. Oil shocks, stagnation, inflation.
Paul Kennedy: imperial overstretch
1990s post Cold War and 9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
2008 financial crisis : reliance in debt financed growth particularly for post 9/11 conflicts
21st century: China’s rise. However chinas posed economic challenges specially in trade and technology and us structural power help
Trump Era 2016-2020: questionable foreign policies specially with longstanding alliances
Commands of the commons maintaining America
Capitalism and inequality: alternative models like chinas states capitalism
Rebounding:
1980 Reagan’s morning in America, Reagan’s policies and economic growth. The period culminated with the collapse pf the Soviet Union with the end of the cold and at
1990s unipolar moment
Tradicional measures of power and critics
Military power: defense budgets, troop numbers, advance military technologies.
Economic capabilities: GPD, trade balance, control over financial institutions.
Critics to the resource base approach:
The exercise fallacy: is not only about having resources, is about how effectively those resources can be deployed in specific contexts.
The vehicle fallacy: military and economic resources are potential resources of power but they need to be applied in given situations. Us economic resources vs. 2008 crisis
Dispositional understanding of power: focus on capacity rather than a fixed resources. The context determine the effectiveness
Tradicional measures of power and critics
Military power: defense budgets, troop numbers, advance military technologies.
Economic capabilities: GPD, trade balance, control over financial institutions.
Critics to the resource base approach:
The exercise fallacy: is not only about having resources, is about how effectively those resources can be deployed in specific contexts.
The vehicle fallacy: military and economic resources are potential resources of power but they need to be applied in given situations. Us economic resources vs. 2008 crisis
Dispositional understanding of power: focus on capacity rather than a fixed resources. The context determine the effectiveness
Difficulties of measuring power
Multidimensional nature
Non fungibility
Lack of unified scale: can not be reduced to a simple sum of resources across different domains
Relational vs structural power
Relational: the ability of one actor to directly influence the behavior of another actor through interaction. Dahl’s. Eg. State to state negotiations, trade deals, military confrontations. Eg. China’s growing ability influence southeast Asian states in economic or diplomatic area
Structural: more indirect and pervasive. Instead of focusing in direct relationshipsC concerns the systems, institutions and norms that shape the environment within which actors operate. Not need to be exercised through deliberate action. It is embedded in the very structures of the global system. US has structural power over the financial global systems because design and dominates many of the financial institutions (IMF, WoRld BAnk)
Relational vs structural power
Relational: the ability of one actor to directly influence the behavior of another actor through interaction. Dahl’s. Eg. State to state negotiations, trade deals, military confrontations. Eg. China’s growing ability influence southeast Asian states in economic or diplomatic area
Structural: more indirect and pervasive. Instead of focusing in direct relationshipsC concerns the systems, institutions and norms that shape the environment within which actors operate. Not need to be exercised through deliberate action. It is embedded in the very structures of the global system. US has structural power over the financial global systems because design and dominates many of the financial institutions (IMF, WoRld BAnk)
Importance of structural moments in international leadership
System making moments
Path dependency
Endurance: Pierre Trudeau compare US structural power to sleeping with an elephant, If Us federal reserve raises interest rates it cause global ripples
Susan strange framework of structural power
Def: the ability to shape and define the environment in with actors operate. Focus on underlining frameworks (economic systems, norms, knowledge structures) that shape the shape the behavior of all actors in the system.
Concerns about who will benefits from the way in which relationship are structured.
Control over 4 critical domains: production, financial, security and knowledge.
Scope (the aspect of behavior that is affected) and the domain (the range of actors impacted)
Productive power
How goods and services are produced, by whom and under with conditions. Eg. US WTOs defines the terms of global production.
Financial structure
Control over the global flow of capital, currency regimens and financial markets. US dollar as word’s reserve currency.
Endures even in times of financial crisis
Security structure
Determines the provisions of military and defense related capabilities and well as the frameworks that define what constitutes security threats. US leadership in Nato and its vast military presence across the world
Knowledge structures
Control of information; ideologies and spread of ideas.
Soft power.
Us: educational system, intellectual property regimes and global media
