M. Sh. Gubaidullina, S.A.

Insebayeva 83

УДК 327-027.21

M. Sh. Gubaidullina*, S.A. Insebayeva

Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Kazakhstan, Almaty
Faculty of International relations
*
E-mail: maragu@[Link]
The Concept of “power” in International Relations:
Basic approaches, the analysis, and interpretation

Today power remains one of the most effective means of modern world politics. With the concept power is related
one of the central problems of international relations – the problem of war and peace, the problem of conflict and its
resolution, the issue of security. On the basis of the “power” the actors are judged on mutual opportunities, make plans
of their interaction, make decisions, assess the degree of stability of the international system. Category of “power” plays
a significant methodological role in the science of international relations. “Power” is an important instrument of their
scientific analysis: the significance of “power factor” there have been discussions between the various scientific and
theoretical schools. Power a criterion of diverse models of the system of international relations. In practice this means
that the various states are used to take advantage of the different models with «hard» or «soft» power.
Keywords: power, class power, structural power – strength, neo-realism in international politics.

М.Ш. Губайдуллина, С. Инсебаева

Халықаралық қатынастардағы «күш» түсінігі: негізгі əдістер, талдау, интерпретация

Бүгінде күш қазіргі кезеңдегі əлемдік саясаттың əрекет етуші негізгі құралдарының бірі болып табыла-
ды. Күш ұғымымен халықаралық қатынастардың орталық мəселелері – соғыс жəне бейбітшілік, қақтығыстар,
оны шешу жəне қауіпсіздік. «Күш» негізінде акторлар бір-бірінің мүмкіндіктерін бағамдайды, өзара іс-əрекет
жоспарын құрады, шешім қабылдайды, халықаралық жүйенің тұрақтылық деңгейін бағалайды. «Күш» кате-
гориясы ғылыми талдаудың маңызды құралы ретінде халықаралық қатынастар туралы ғылымда белгілі бір
əдіснамалық рөлге ие: «күш факторының» маңызы туралы түрлі ғылыми-теориялық мектептер арасында пікір-
таластар жүргізілуде. Күш халықаралық қатынастар жүйесінің көптүрлі үлгілерінің критерийі болып табыла-
ды. Іс жүзінде түрлі мемлекеттер өз мүдделері тұрғысынан «қатаң» немесе «жұмсақ» күшті пайдалана отырып
түрлі модельдерді қолданады.
Түйін сөздер: күш, күш категориялары, құрылымдық күш, əлемдік саясаттағы неореализм.

М.Ш. Губайдуллина, С. Инсебаева

Понятие “сила” в международных отношениях:
основные подходы, анализ, интерпретация

Сила сегодня остается одним из действенных средств современной мировой политики. С понятием силы свя-
зана одна из центральных проблем международных отношений – проблема войны и мира, проблема конфликта
и его разрешения, проблема безопасности. На основе «силы» акторы судят о возможностях друг друга, строят
планы своего взаимодействия, принимают решения, оценивают степень стабильности международной систе-
мы. Категория «сила» выполняет значительную методологическую роль в науке о международных отношениях,
являясь важным инструментом их научного анализа: о значении «силового фактора» ведутся дискуссии между
различными научно-теоретическими школами. Сила выступает критерием многообразных моделей систем меж-
дународных отношений. На практике это означает, что различные государства в своих интересах используют
различные модели с использованием «жесткой» либо «мягкой» силы.
Ключевые слова: сила, категории силы, структурная сила, неореализм в мировой политике.

Power is a fundamental concept within the study international relations” [1]. It is thought to belong to
of world politics. In spite of its importance, it still “all-inclusive concepts” [2] since the accurate defi-
remains “one of the most troublesome in the field of nition of it still “remains a matter of controversy”

ISSN 1563-0285 KazNU Bulletin. International relations and international law series. № 2 (62). 2013
84 The Concept of “power” in International Relations: Basic approaches, the analysis, and interpretation

[3], nut its “essentially contested nature” [4] is ex- possessed by the state, then one will be able to ex-
plained not only by diversity of views on how to de- plain the behaviour of nations (Johann Galtung) and
fine power but also by a variety of approaches used predict with a high probability the ability of an en-
to operationalize it. Different theoretical paradigms tity to pursue its national interests despite opposition
have attempted to conceptualize the power concept or resistance from others or calculate the outcome of
from different perspectives. Because of the contes- the conflicts between nations [10]. To put the matter
tation over the concept of power, it is necessary to another way, it is a transformation process where a
review where the discussion takes its root as well as nation’s control over various types of resources goes
the on-going debate on the matter. into control over actors or events (Klaus Knorr) [11].
Traditionally, power was defined as “the prob- However, there are a number of problems associat-
ability that one actor within a social relationship will ed with this approach. Therefore, it becomes a subject
be in a position to carry out his own will despite re- of criticism especially from the liberal and neoliberal
sistance” (Max Weber). At that time it was assumed schools of thought [9, 470] Firstly, it is not always clear
that the power of a state relied primarily on its mili- what elements of national power are appropriate as
tary might. If a state “can confidently contemplate measures of real power. To amplify this point, resourc-
war against any other existing single power” then es or capabilities required may differ from issue to is-
it was considered to be a “great power”. In case it sue [12]. Different situations require different blends
“can contemplate war against any likely combina- of resources. Secondly, it is not always certain whether
tion of other powers” then it is a “dominant pow- resources which are nominally under the control of an
er” [5]. Those “powers” that possessed the great- actor will be usable by the state. The other difficulty is
est military capabilities were usually referred as to that not all “components of national power” are fungi-
the main “players” in the international arena while ble. For instance, the will to use force, national morale
“small states” were designated with an irrelevant or quality of diplomacy are not very easy to measure.
role (Nicholas Spykman) [6]. In addition, even though scholars belonging to liberal
Later on, this understanding of power was ad- and neo-liberal paradigms do not ignore the importance
vanced to a more complex concept which was con- of the military domain of power, they emphasize the
ceived as the sum of capabilities (military, strategic importance of interdependence, common norms and
and material ones) available to a state. For instance, rules, as well as the importance of international institu-
classical realist Hans Morgenthau argues that power tions. For instance, it was argued that “while military
is comprised of certain “elements” of “components”, force remains the ultimate form of power in a self-help
which can be subdivided into two groups: tangible system” it becomes more difficult and more costly to
and intangible. Geography, natural resources, indus- apply it nowadays. In addition, it is noted that mutual
trial capacity, military preparedness and population cooperation can bring more advantages in issues such
belong to the former category, while the latter con- as economic or ecological ones (Nye) [13]. In line with
sists of national character, national morale, quality this, another problem with the “control over resourc-
of diplomacy and quality of government [7]. es” method is the role of non-state actors in different
Neorealists, represented by Kenneth Waltz, also spheres and problems associated with the assessment
identify a set of indicators of national power such of the power of states in coalition. Even though one
as military might, political stability, wealth, territory suspects that the power of the bloc may be measured
and population but the emphasis is put on the in- by adding up its member’s national power scores, other
ternational system rather than the actors. From the scholars argue that members of an alliance lose their
neo-realist school of thought, power is defined as a power of manoeuvre in dealing with others and thereby
stock of capabilities of an entity within the systemic lose control. Consequently, they argue that the power
restrictions [8]. In other words, this approach pro- of a coalition of states is not equal to the sum of its par-
poses that the notion of power implies either con- ticipants’ power (J. David Singer, Melvin Small) [14].
trol over resources or as the capacity to influence In spite of all these drawbacks, however, the “power
outcome in pursuing one’s interest [9]. The strength as resources” approach still remains attractive enough
of this method is that it provides the possibility to and should not be easily left aside.
rank actors in a fairly consistent manner. A lot of Rather than focusing on states’ property in terms
literature has proposed that if one takes into account of resources, the second approach conceives power
a stock of capabilities, both tangible and intangible as a relation (Jeffrey Hart, K. J. Holsti). Basically, it

Вестник КазНУ. Серия международные отношения и международное право. № 2(62). 2013

 M. Sh. Gubaidullina, S.A. Insebayeva 85

attempts to capture the processes, relationship and condition should be met: these resources need to be
situations through which A influence B to do some- attractive and be seen as legitimate or having moral
thing which he would otherwise not do (Robert authority in order to be used to structure a situation
Dahl). Thus, the focus is put on the “context” pre- so that other countries develop preferences or define
cisely on the structure of relations and the specific their interests in ways consistent with its own. Pub-
form of interaction between actors, rather than on lic diplomacy is an instrument that governments use
“objects” – the primary concern of the concept of to mobilize these resources to communicate with
power as resources (Ashley [Link] and others) [15]. and attract the public of other countries, rather than
Considering power as a relationship of influence merely their governments. Public diplomacy tries
mitigated the normative complicity of international to attract by drawing attention to these potential re-
relations with militarization. “Since no single pow- sources through broadcasting, subsidizing cultural
er base … is decisive” in crafting influence, states exports, arranging exchanges and so forth.
were counselled to marshal all kinds of power re- Another conceptual framework that draws a lot
sources – not just arms (Stefano Guzzini) [9]. In- of attention among international relations scholars
deed, preoccupation with military power for quite a is that proposed by Michael Barnett and Raymond
long period of time led to neglecting other forms of Duvall. They conceptualize power as “the produc-
power. For a sophisticated attempt at capturing the tion in and through social relations, of effects that
notion of power, scholars have proposed to distin- shape the capacities of actors to determine their cir-
guish between “hard power” and “soft power” (Jo- cumstances and fate” [17]. Resting on the assump-
seph S. Nye) [13]. Hard power or command power is tion that “no single concept can capture the forms of
thought to be associated with the neorealist school. power in international politics”, they propose to em-
Its tactics are to focus on military intervention, co- ploy a four-fold conception of power: compulsory,
ercive diplomacy and economic sanctions to enforce institutional, structural and productive.
national interests. In its turn, liberal institutionalist Compulsory power centres its attention on a va-
proponents emphasize soft power as an essential re- riety of relations between actors that allow one of
source of statecraft [16]. The term “soft power” was the actors to shape directly the position and actions
developed by Joseph Nye, who defines it as one’s of another. This type of power is thought to be as an
ability to get other countries to want what it wants evolution of Dahl’s definition of power as “the abil-
through co-optation, persuasion or attraction instead ity of A to get B to do that B otherwise would not
of force or payment. Splitting hairs, Nye specifies do”. The main defining features of this definition are
that even though the ability to persuade others by intention, resistance and capabilities. However, Bar-
argument to follow a designated course is an impor- nett and Duvall’s taxonomy takes into account the
tant element of soft power, the ability to entice and argument of Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, who
attract is the core of it. Soft power arises from the state that the “power still exits even when those who
attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ide- dominate are not conscious of how their actions are
als and policies, and rests on the ability to shape producing unintended effects” [18]. Thus, accord-
the preferences of others. The advantage of this ap- ing to the authors’ conceptualization, certain condi-
proach is that when one country is able to get others tions should be met if one speaks about compulsory
want what it wants, then there is no need to spend power. Firstly, the compulsory power exists when
as much on sticks and carrots to get others do what A shapes B’s circumstances or actions even without
you want them to do [11]. In other words, in contrast the intention to do so. Secondly, A should possess
with hard power, which is used to shape other ac- certain resources that can be employed to force B to
tors’ behaviours, soft power is used to shape other change its position. Thirdly, it should be specified
actors perceptions and preferences that then shape that B does not want to do what is prescribed by A,
their behaviours. This conception of soft power is since it would result in a weakening of B’s positions
framed in terms of immaterial or intangible resourc- and there is an initial contradiction between goals
es possessed by a country: “its culture (in places pursued by A and B. The field of action of compul-
where it is attractive to others), its political values sory power is not limited only by material resources
(when it lives up to them at home and abroad) and but “symbolic and normative resources” can be used
its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate to exercise influence on power recipients. Because
and having moral authority)” [11]. One important power is the result of effects, compulsory power is

ISSN 1563-0285 KazNU Bulletin. International relations and international law series. № 2 (62). 2013
86 The Concept of “power” in International Relations: Basic approaches, the analysis, and interpretation

best understood not from the perspective of the de- power approach define structure as “sets of rules,
liverer, but from the recipient’s view. procedures, and norms” that impose limits on be-
If compulsory power is characterized by “di- haviour of already established actor with static pref-
rect control” of one actor over another, institutional erences. Advocates of structural power approach
power is the capacity to control others in indirect theorize structure as “an internal relation” between
ways. According to Barnett and Duvall, in this case A and B, such that “the structural position A exists
the focus is put on the formal and informal insti- only by virtue of its relation to structural position
tutions, which serve as intermediaries between the B”. The type of interrelation established between
deliverer and recipients, working through the rules A and B is determined by the location of these two
and practices that define those institutions, guides, in the structure since theirs positions shapes condi-
push and constraints actions and circumstances of tions and fates of actors. This logic is based on two
existence of others. assumptions. Firstly, positions occupied by actors
Mainly authors identify several main character- within the structure do not create the same social
istics that differentiate compulsory power from in- privileges to every actor. On the contrary, “struc-
stitutional one. Firstly, compulsory power primarily tures allocate differential capacities and typically
rests on capabilities possessed and employed by ac- differential advantages to different positions” (Bar-
tor A to exercise influence over B. In contrast to it, nett and Duvall). Secondly, social structure not only
in case of institutional power, institutions that con- assigns capacities of actors, it also forms their un-
straints and shapes B are not owned by A. There is derstanding of its position in the international rela-
a probability, that A maintains control over those in- tions and their subjective interests. In other words,
stitutions, which diffuses the preferred rules “of the structural power is not only about the actors’ capac-
game” further over other actors. However in such a ity to act, it is also about the perception than an ac-
case, Barnett and Duvall suggest “to conceptualize tor has certain rights to act which are defined by its
the institution as possessed by the actor, that is, as an position in the structure of power.
instrument of compulsory power”. In reality, it is not Finally, the last type of power introduced by
very common when there is only one dominant actor Barnett and Duvall is productive power. This type of
over the institution. Instead there are more chances power partly overlaps with structural power, since
that an institution has some independence from ac- both are “attentive to constitutive social processes
tors that constitute it [16]. that are, themselves, not controlled by specific ac-
Second feature typical of institutional power is tors, but are effected only through the meaningful
the distance at which A and B operate in a social practices of actors”. Taxonomy of power developed
context. The distance can be either spatial or tem- by Barnett and Duvall provides a comprehensive
poral. Spatially, A shapes the actions or conditions frame for the categorization of different types of
of B through institutional arrangements such as de- powers. The contested nature of power does not al-
cisional rules, formalized lines of responsibility and low to any single concept to capture the forms of
divisions of labour. In this case, the power works power in international politics.
“through socially extended, institutionally diffuse Apparently, in contrast to structural power,
relations”. Temporally, “institutions established at productive power is seen as a broader and a more
one point in time can have on-going and unintended comprehensive concept. Productive power implies
effects at a later point” (Barnett and Duvall). Struc- the construction of understandings, meanings and
tural power is the third typology of power men- norms through discourses and systems of knowl-
tioned by Barnett and Duvall. According to authors, edge. Whereas structural power deals with positions
it concerns the structures or, more precisely, the of actors in relation to each other within the struc-
co-constitutive, internal relations of structural posi- ture (“hierarchical and binary relations of domina-
tions that define what kind of social beings actors tion”, Pollack, Zartman, Rubin), productive power
are. In other words, the focus here is put on how the refers to the formation of social identities through
structural position of an actor affects its capacities, meaningful reciprocal communications between ac-
subjectivities and interests. Proponents of structural tors [18].
power conceptualize structure differently from those However, authors highlight main distinctions be-
focusing on institutional power. tween these two types of power as follows: “Struc-
Namely, scholars who have used institutional tural power is structural constitution that is, the

Вестник КазНУ. Серия международные отношения и международное право. № 2(62). 2013

 M. Sh. Gubaidullina, S.A. Insebayeva 87

production and reproduction of internally related of signification and meaning (which are structures,
positions of super – and subordination that actors but not themselves structures) and to networks of
occupy. Productive power, by contrast, is the consti- social forces perpetually shaping one another. Pro-
tution of all social subjects with various social pow- ductive power concerns discourse, the social pro-
ers through systems of knowledge and discursive cesses and the systems of knowledge through which
practices of broad and general scope. Conceptually, meaning is produced, fixed, lived, experiences and
the move is away from structures, per se, to systems transformed” (Barnett and Duvall).

References

1 Gilpin R. War and Change in World Politics. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. – P. 13
2 Goodman Jay S. The Concept of «System» in International Relations Theory, Background. – 1965. -Vol.
8, No. 4 (Feb.). – P. 257-268 // The International Studies Association, by Wiley, Article Stable URL: http://
[Link]/stable/3013730
3 Waltz K. N. Reflection on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics // Neorealism and
its Critics / Robert O. Keohane (ed.). – New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. – P. 333
4 Gallie W.B. Essentially Contested Concept // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. – 1959, 56. – P.
167-93
5 See: Weber M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization; Wight M. Power Politics. – New York:
Holmes and Meier, 1978
6 Spykman N. American Strategy and World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power. – New
York: Harcourt-Brace, 1942
7 Morgenthau H.J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace / Alfred A. Knopf. – New
York, 1948
8 Waltz K. N. Theory of International Politics / Addison-Wesley. – Melno Park, 1979. – P. 120-121; Waltz
K. N. Realist Through and Neorealist Theory // Journal of International Affairs. – 1990. N 44(1). – P. 21-37
9 See: Keohanve R.O., Nye J. S. Power and Interdependence. – Harper Collins 1989; Guzzini S. Structural
power: the limits of neorealist power analysis // International Organization. – 1993. – No 47. – P. 443-78; Lukes
St. Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds: on the Bluntness of “Soft Power” // Power in World Politics /
Ed. F. Berenskoetter, M. Williams. – New York: Routledge, 2007
10 Galtung J. East-West Interaction Patterns // Journal of Peace Research. – 1966. – No. 2. – Pp. 146-77
11 Knorr K. The Power of Nations: The Political Economy of International Relations. – New York: Basic
Books, 1975. – Pp. 9-10
12 Pruitt D.G. National Power and International Responsiveness. Background. – 1964. – Vol. 7, No. 4
(Feb.). – P. 165-178 // The International Studies Association, by Wiley, Article Stable URL: [Link]
org/stable/3013643
13 Nye J. S. Soft Power // Foreign Policy. – 1990. – No. 80 (autumn). Twentieth Anniversary. – P. 153-171;
Nye J. S. Soft Power and American Foreign Policy // Political Science Quarterly. – 2004. – Vol. 119. -No. 2
(Summer). – P. 255-270; Nye J. S. Public Diplomacy and Soft Power // Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. – 2008. – Vol. 616 (Public Diplomacy in a Changing World). – P. 94-109
14 Singer J. D., Small M. Alliance Aggregation and the Onset of War // Quantitative International Politics
/J. David Singer (ed.). – New York: Free Press, 1968. P.249
15 Hart J. Three Approaches to the Measurement of Power in International Relations // International
Organization. – 1976. – Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring). – P. 289-305 // University of Wisconsin Press, URL: http://
[Link]/stable/2706260; Holsti K. J. The Concept of Power in the Study of International Relations.
Background, 1964. – Vol. 7, No. 4 (Feb.). – P. 179-194 // The International Studies Association, URL: http://
[Link]/stable/3013644; Dahl R. The Concept of Power // Behavioral Science. – 1957. – N 202, 2 July;
Tellis A. J., Bially J., Layne Ch., McPherson M. Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age. – Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2000. [Link]

ISSN 1563-0285 KazNU Bulletin. International relations and international law series. № 2 (62). 2013
88 The Concept of “power” in International Relations: Basic approaches, the analysis, and interpretation

16 See: Art R. J. The fungibility of force // The use of force: Military power in international politics /Ed.
R. Art and K. Waltz. – Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996; Campbell K., O’Hallon M. Hard power:
The new politics of national security. New York: Basic Books, 2006; Cooper R. Hard power, soft power and the
goals of diplomacy. I American power in the 21st century / ed. D. Held and M. Koenig-Archibugi, Cambridge,
2004. -167-80
17 Barnett M., Duvall R. Power in International Politics // International Organization. – 2005. – No 59 (1).
– P. 39-75
18 Bachrach P., Baratz M. Two Faces of Power // American Political Science Review. – 1962. – No 56 (4).
– P. 947-52
19 Pollack M. Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency and Agenda Setting the EU. – Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003; Zartman W., Rubin J. Power and Negotiation /Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2000

Вестник КазНУ. Серия международные отношения и международное право. № 2(62). 2013