Many studies attempt to explore future trends. A problem I have with these studies is that they are often ahistorical and have a "grab bag" feel to them. A large number of trends, variables, or other international "shocks" are assembled, but do not take advantage of the insights of International Relations Theory and have few underlying or unifying themes. I will propose a set of variables that can be used to describe any international environment -- past, present, or future, and would like to explore the idea of "power" as a unifying theme.
This discussion will explore how power is is generated, who has it, how it is wielded, and for what purpose. I would like to propose a working definition of power as: "the ability of one actor to cause a change in behavior in another actor, at reasonable cost."
The advantage of this approach is that it spans the range of options, from military force, to coercion, to simple pursuasion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The notion of "at reasonable cost" is both too arbitrary and too subjective. It should be dispensed with.
I've struggled with including this clause in the definition. I go back and forth, but my principle reason to include it is that the U.S has the power to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. (10 or 11 ICBMS would probably do the trick). The problem is the idea of "reasonable cost". If it took that course, it would have consequences that would rebalance the equation. That's the intent of the phrase. Thoughts?
Post a Comment