2. The changing nature of world power

Recent debates about the changing nature of power reflect less on the emergence of conceptually new forms of power, and more on the changing mechanisms through which relational power is exercised. Two alleged shifts in this respect have attracted attention. The first is a general shift from military power to economic power. Military power is the traditional currency of world politics. Realist theorists place a particular emphasis on military power because, in their view, the international system is structured above all by security and survival. In a self-help world, states face national disaster unless they have the capacity for self-defence. However, this image of militarily-based power politics has been challenged by neoliberals who argue that growing trade links and increasing interdependence make inter-state war more costly and so less likely. Military force has thus become a less reliable and less important policy option. In the modern world, states therefore compete through trade rather than through the use of force.

The second shift is the alleged wider decline of ‘hard’ power, which encompasses both military power and economic power. Hard power is ‘command power’, the ability to change what others do through the use of inducements or threats. By contrast, there has been a growth in ‘soft’ power. Soft power is ‘co-optive power’; it rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others by attraction rather than coercion. Whereas hard power draws on resources such as force, sanctions, payments and bribes, soft power operates largely through culture, political ideals and foreign policies (especially when these are seen to be attractive, legitimate or to possess moral authority).

How has this alleged shift from hard to soft power come about? The key explanation is that the growth of interdependence and interconnectedness means that people see more, hear more and know more about what happens around the globe. Increasing cross-border flows of images, information and ideas make it easier for people to form judgements about the culture and values of other states as well as about the foreign and domestic policies of their govern¬ments. This trend is also aided by generally improving literacy levels and educa¬tional standards worldwide, and by the spread of democracy, particularly democratic systems operate largely through soft-power mechanisms (the personalities of leaders, the image and values of political parties and so on). In such circumstances, a state’s use of hard-power strategies may risk the loss of ‘hearts and minds’. For example, the Bush administration’s approach to the on terror’, and particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, may have be counter-productive in that it provoked increased anti-Americanism across the Arab and wider Muslim world, possibly even fuelling support for terrorism. In most circumstances, however, hard power and soft power operate in tandem. Figures within the Obama administra¬tion, for instance, have thus been championing the idea of ‘smart power’, by which they mean soft power backed up by the possible use of hard power.