Global Power

Where does the power lie in today’s global order?

There are vast amounts of power held by many sectors of today’s global order. It can easily be argued that States are the key players, although one must also consider the power of which individual world leaders have and that of multinational corporations also. These major players all have power on the world stage but crucially, in different areas. Before looking into where power lies in today’s global order, it is important to first reflect upon what power is and which description of it best fits those with the greatest influences. Power in a global sense could be economic, military or political. Central to the argument is to consider which form has the most significance and in turn, who possesses it. In the present global climate, it will be important to look into the notions of global governance and state intervention and how therefore this could affect the perceptions of States and their power. It will also be vital to look into globalisation as a whole, as this could influence the way in which power is distributed. There is perhaps most prominently the military power of states to consider too, as many conflicts both in the past and present have revealed this to be a crucial factor. In order to assess where power lies within today’s global order, it is crucial then to consider firstly what power is but then which sector wields the most before coming to a definitive conclusion.

Before asking where power lies, it is perhaps first important to determine what power is or at least, what it could be described as. There are many differing perceptions on this and what it could mean for our global order. As Hoge states, “The transfer of power from west to east is gathering pace and soon will dramatically change the context for dealing with international challenges – as well as the challenges themselves.” (Hoge, 2007, p. 3). Power then, could be described as economic, political, military or even technological. The most common definition comes when looking at the economy and how this affects the global hierarchy. This issue is particularly prominent today especially considering the world wide recession and economic downturn. This has meant that many nations have lost significant amounts of power on the global scene and therefore many world industries are taking a turn for the worse. Looking at the UK, what became obvious, a little time after the hysteria surrounding the credit crunch, was that the motor industry was becoming less and less profitable. People had stopped buying new cars due partly to many companies cutting back on expenses but also private buyers becoming wary of what the recession could mean for their job security. Many commentators believe that the recession was hyped up by the media which became half the problem itself. Nevertheless, the Labour government introduced a scheme in which to help get the motor industry back up and running and, despite scepticism, the scrappage scheme seemed on the most part to be successful. Macalister writes, “The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said the scheme was “a great success”, boosting commerce and meeting environmental criteria by being concentrated around smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles” (Macalister, 2009). Any car over ten years old was to be given a minimum of two thousand pounds worth of scrappage allowance when part exchanging at a dealership for a new car. This meant that for people who owned a car worth less than two thousand pounds and were in the market for a new car, the system was financially beneficial. Although the scheme achieved further success for the motorist and for the economy as a whole as this was incentive enough for people, who were not in the market for a new car before, to become tempted. Subsequently, car dealerships often became tempted to add their own deals on top of the scrappage scheme for buyers to become even more tempted by a new car. If a country’s economy is thriving, it can have a hugely influential effect on global markets and therefore establishing its power on the global scene. Although measures like these have helped the UK economy, today the UK is still not in the strongest position and has much inferior economic power compared with other world nations. In terms of economic power and how the global hierarchy sits at the moment, it is China who are making the largest strides. An idea presented by Hoge also, “Today, China is the most obvious power on the rise. But it is not alone: India and other Asian states now boast growth rates that could outstrip those of major Western countries for decades to come” (Hoge, 2007, p. 3). Soon it is expected for China to overtake even the USA as the world’s greatest superpower but for now they are second, recently surpassing Japan with a GDP of $5.8786tn, compared with Japan’s $5.4742tn (McCurry, 2010).

Political power and the power of world leaders, is an area which concerns both domestic and international issues. Political power in many states can internally be described as the power the leadership has or maybe the power with which the electorate can hold them to account. Another area could be in individual constituencies as in the UK, or indeed States in the US. Although, it is the leadership which controls the country and thus is expected to have the most power, it is not necessarily the case especially in the US as I believe. The President of the United States is restricted massively by his Congress in all decisions he makes due to the way in which the constitution is written. Watts argues, “The President needs congressional support, and in the more assertive mood of Congress in recent years’ incumbents have found this difficult to achieve even with their own party in control” (Watts, 2005, p.82). Due to the doctrine of the separation of powers, the leader of the executive, or indeed any member of the executive for that matter, is not allowed to sit in on legislative proceedings in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The President can of course choose to override any proceedings with the power of veto, though even this action can be overridden by a two thirds majority in congress. A President can even be impeached or removed from office. In comparison, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has no such troubles and although he can be removed through a vote of no confidence, his powers are not quite so limited as is the nature of a fusion of powers. Seymour-Ure states, “Some of the Prime Minister’s formal tasks get called ‘powers’ precisely because there is no challenge to the Prime Minister’s right to perform them, although he obviously has to follow correct procedures” (Seymour-ure, 2003, p.16). Also, whilst it is the constitution that is sovereign in the US, it is Parliament which is sovereign in the UK, thus giving the UK Prime Minister more authority. In addition to this fact, the UK constitution in comparison is uncodified as opposed to the codified in the US, thus allowing for amendments to be made far easier. This is something which can be quite advantageous particularly when combined with the influence with which can be had in the Judiciary. Despite this, due to the economic positions of world states, it is the US President who is seen to have the greatest power on the global front even if his position domestically is somewhat limited. This trail of thought is apparent because, at the moment, it is the US state which wields the most economic power and is therefore seen to have the most influence. Though as Ferguson states, “The United States may boast a massive economy and whopping defence budget, but wielding true global power takes more than just greenbacks and green berets.” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 18). Nevertheless Barack Obama is looked upon as being the individual who has the most power at his disposal. Whether this is true or not is debateable and even if he does hold this title, it does not necessarily mean it is of any greater significance than the other factors considered.

There are of course other ways in which we can determine what global power is. Many consider military power to be the most generic answer, particularly in the post-war period where military power was everything. Ferguson argues, “Yes, but military dominance depends on other factors. The German thinker Max Weber once characterized the modern state as claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Although such a monopoly is impossible in the global arena, international power sometimes seems to depend on monopolizing the most sophisticated means of perpetrating violence” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 18). In the lead up to the Second World War there was an arms race which eventually led to war. Due to dramatic losses of life in the First World War, both Britain and France were reluctant to go to war again and therefore proceeded to perform a process of appeasement with Germany which should have guaranteed peace. This delay in action only allowed Adolf Hitler to rebuild Germany’s defences and military power, enough for it to become a significant threat to Europe and indeed, the world. Today the greatest military power belongs, according to studies, again to the USA. This is decided upon by recent activity and this could be in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite many perceptions being that the war is indeed, unwinnable. Or maybe the recent happenings in Libya and the support of rebel forces allows for this conclusion. The idea of state intervention is also a critical factor when examining global power. Rozeff says, “The U.N. is intervening to take down the Gaddafi administration and replace it by another, of undetermined nature. This means that the U.N. places its power over that of the Libyan state. The U.N. makes itself the Supreme Governor in the sense that it decides on a critical feature of a State, namely, who has “consent,” or who is entitled to rule that State when protests against the existing rule emerge” (Rozeff, 2011). This power of intervention is in the hands of states only and does lead to thoughts that without common sense prevailing in cases such as Libya, the world could be a much darker place. It is no secret however, that despite these thoughts, China must again be considered as the country making the biggest strides in terms of military power. They are leading the way on new technologies and as such, have the most nuclear power plants planned for future development. China can manage such feats because of the finances they have to fall back on, as Burn summarises, “Because of the inherent difficulties and the dangers involved, the development – still in important aspects incomplete – has been very long and very costly” (Burn, 1978, p. 1). Leading on from this point is that many new technological advances are also coming from China. Technology in and of itself can wield great power on the global scene, as many industries are crying out for new ideas, thus creating prosperous economies. Microsoft and Apple are leading the way when it comes to introducing new popular innovations. Whereas we might not think that this a direct control of world power or that they necessarily do anything with it, it is becoming increasingly obvious that many domestic industries and thus economies are becoming dependent upon new easy to sell products. Furthermore, in order for an industry to thrive, the machinery, the workers and the investment must come together as one or risk losing their place in the market. As Sawyer explains, “The withdrawal of resources from the industry under consideration is assumed to lead to the use of those resources elsewhere in the economy.” (Sawyer, 2005, p. 164). We are beginning to see a trend as to where power may lie specifically in the global order or where it certainly may in the future. China is quickly becoming the world’s most powerful state.

However, although there are differing interpretations as to what global power is, all these factors concern States and their impact. In order to determine where power lies in the global order, it is important to note that state power is simply one of many entities controlling power in the global order. In contrast to state power and their influences, it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the advancements being made by huge multi-national corporations. Whereas states may influence where power is distributed, particularly in an economic sense, it is arguably the corporations who use it and have little or no political boundaries to abstain to. Shah states, “Today we know that corporations, for good or bad, are major influences on our lives. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries. In this era of globalization, marginalized people are becoming especially angry at the motives of multinational corporations, and corporate-led globalization is being met with increasing protest and resistance” (Shah, 2002). Climate change is vastly becoming the most prevalent issue in today’s society and it is corporations such as Shell and BP who can take advantage of this. With ever increasing worry over whether we have reached the notion of ‘peak oil’, oil companies can seemingly charge whatever they like, as society continues to believe that oil is becoming harder to come by in the middle east. Although it is true that politicians can use this methodology also, to increase fuel duty taxes. Though this is just the literal power with which corporations have, what must also be viewed are the staggering amounts of money being turned over by some of these businesses. Indeed, some smaller country’s have less GDP than some of the larger corporations and arguably even less global influence. In turn, a corporation usually specialises in only one area and therefore can concentrate its efforts in making the most money from this area and therefore commanding the most influence. Whereas states must take an overview over all global issues and try to find compromise and this, if they want a booming economy, hands power back to the corporations. Indeed, Dawson explains, “An open economy engages in a wide range of transactions with the rest of the world, with a wide range of different factors affecting them” (Dawson, 2006, p. 458).Although, this argument is easily contested as many larger states have the authority to create laws which can limit the activities of corporations. The market potential which the larger states hold is very attractive to the multi-national corporations such as Shell and therefore growth within it is vital. It can therefore easily be argued that corporations need states, more than states need the corporations. Though even if this argument can be flipped, especially from the point of view of smaller nations who may need the economic growth benefits.

In order to contrast together the two arguments of where power lies in the global order, it is important to apply theory from contrasting ideological perspectives as to whether these clashes of power are leading us to cooperation or conflict. There are many differing theories surrounding global governance but the four most prominent are, Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, Neo-liberalism and Marxism. Two of these theories believe that states control power in the global order; with the other two believe that it is non-state actors which are key. Realists believe that states are the building blocks of international society because they have national interests at heart. Due to these desires, a realist would believe that they only way forward for states is to push them through at all costs which is thus believed to lead to conflict between states. As Smith argues, “World politics represents a struggle for power between states each trying to maximise their own interests” (Baylis & Smith, 1997, p.4). Such is the competitive nature of domestic economies or indeed, world leaders. Indeed, when treaties are signed, they are done so with only consideration for the national interest and therefore, from a Realist’s perspective, they must have some benefit for the domestic market or politics. Interestingly, Realists also take the view that there is no absolute global order and that the international system is in a state of anarchy. In contrast, a Liberal Institutionalist perspective argues that although states are key to the global order, they can interact without the need for there to be conflicts. Indeed, without cooperation no treaties or negotiations would ever succeed thus affecting a country’s economy and trade markets. The relationship between different states is one that is built on compromise, as is politics in general and as such, as the theory of liberal institutionalism would suggest, is vital for the stability of a global order. Though Realists are unconvinced by this argument, as Roggeveen explains, “…Ikenberry’s liberalism is ambitious and utopian, and only encourages the kind of neo-conservative adventurism that got the US into so much trouble in the Bush era” (Roggeveen, 2009). In stark contrast to both these views however, a Neo-Liberal would argue that non-state actors are the most important part of an international system. This is an argument which stems from the perceived power which multi-national corporations are looking increasingly likely to have. Furthermore, a capitalist global order would, according to Neo-Liberalism, provide jobs in both rich and poor countries as people will always move to find work which is best suited to them. Therefore, in essence, the state becomes partly irrelevant as it is the world’s companies and businesses which provide the money for families. So whereas in the previous two theories, it is the idea that the state is concerned only with its domestic issues, this particular theory takes this a step further as here it is the individual who looks after his own interest at the expense of the state’s preferences for its economy. A Neo-Liberal trail of thought also believes that cooperation, like the Liberal Institutionalist perspective, is the way forward. Indeed the argument is clear, states which interact with each other regularly on a trade or political basis, rarely go to war thus creating an international society which can be mutually beneficial. Although as Burchill states, “Neo-liberalism is largely concerned with the critique of liberal approaches” (Burchill & Linklater, 2005, p. 25). The remaining theory is that of Marxism. Originating from the ideas of Karl Marx, Marxism is an ideology which is often made reference to in contemporary politics. Gamble argues, “The areas in which Marxists have shown most interest are also subject to change. At different times history, political economy, philosophy, political science or sociology have commanded most attention (Gamble, 1999, p. 6). It does indeed have a stance on the way in which the global order is being run and agrees with Neo-Liberals that it is non-state actors which are key but yet still argues for sure, that cooperation is unlikely. A Marxist would say that multi-national organisations exploit the less fortunate in order to generate its finances. Indeed, it is class struggle with which Marxist theory is centred and here it could be argued that it is the workers in today’s society’s that are taken advantage of. Marxism points to capitalism as the main blame for this exploitation but does accept that states are not redundant in the global order, as capitalists need state action to support international trade. Indeed, Capps explains, “In this sense, globalisation represents the crisis of state capitalism on a world scale” (Capps & Panayiotopoulos, 2001, p. 211). Although these theories do overlap at times, they do all provide coherent arguments as to which way the global order could be heading.

There are many differing opinions on where the power lies in the global order. There are of course many contrasting ideas as to what power is, or rather, which type has more significance in contemporary society. It was easy in the past to point to political power and the power of leaders, as they seemed to control more of what a specific country’s ideological position was on the world stage. This in particular concerns both world wars and what this meant for each country involved. Today however political leaders, such as the UK Prime Minister and the US President, struggle to have maximum influence over their own country, leave alone any influence on the global scene. Such is the nature of modern governmental systems and in turn, checks and balances on power. Leading on from the same vein as this is military power and its effect and although we are seeing military action in the Middle East, this concerns mostly the US and is therefore difficult to judge a comparison between states in this area. What is more prominent today are the new technologies being developed, this is where China leads the way. In contemporary society however, it is my opinion that economic power is what is most important, particularly concerning the recent economic downturn. The comparisons between world states and multi-national corporations are difficult to finalise. It could be argued that multi-national corporations, due to their massive GDP’s and more specific influences on the global market, hold the most world power. In my opinion however it is the power of states which hold the most power in this area, as they can dictate the actions of corporations through the introduction of new laws and trade restrictions such is the benefit of having political power also. To conclude, it is states that have what in my opinion are the four greatest examples of world power; the power in politics and economics in addition to military and technological advancements.

Bibliography

John Baylis & Steve Smith, (1997), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott Burchill, (2005), Theories of International Relations, Third Edition, Hampshire: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Duncan Burn (1978) Nuclear Power and the Energy Crisis: Politics and the Atomic Industry, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

Prodromos Panayiotopoulos & Gavin Capps, (2001), World Development: An Introduction, London: Pluto Books.

Graham Dawson, (2006), Economics and Economic Change: Macroeconomics, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Andrew Gamble, (1999), Marxism and Social Science, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

James F. Hoge, Jr. (2007) World Politics: A Global Power Shift in the Making, 27^th Edition, Dubuque: The McGraw-Hill Company.

Macalister T. (2009) ‘Scrappage Scheme sells 50,000 new cars’ The Guardian12^th June 2009 [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/12/uk-car-scrappage-success

McCurry, J. (2011) ‘China overtakes Japan as world’s second-largest economy’ The Guardian 14^th February 2011. [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/14/china-second-largest-economy

Roggeveen S. (2009) Liberal Institutionalism and its Critics [online] Available at: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/05/12/Liberal-institutionalism-and-its-critics.aspx

Rozeff M S. (2011) On UN Intervention in Libya and World Government [online] Available at: http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/03/on-un-intervention-in-libya-and-world-government/

Malcom Sawyer, (2005), The UK Economy, 16^th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seymour-Ure (2003) Prime ministers and the media: issues of power and control Google Books [online] available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=bjB31HKtiSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prime+minister+power&hl=en&ei=9T-0TYb8KYSi8QOU7eyVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prime%20minister%20power&f=false

Shah A. (2002) The Rise of Corporations [online] Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations

Duncan Watts, (2005), Understanding American Government and Politics, Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Journals

Ferguson N. (2003) ‘Power’ Military Dominance makes the United States the world’s greatest power p. 18