Power as the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means , was neatly summed up in the title of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936). But this merely raises another question: what, exactly, is power? How can power, particularly in global politics, best be understood? Power is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. Joseph Nye (2004) likened power to love – ‘easier to experience than to define or measure, but no less real for that’. The problem with power is that it is an essentially contested concept: there is no settled or agreed concept of power, only a series of rival concepts. Power can be understood in terms of capability; that is, as an attribute, something that states or other actors ‘possess’. Power can be understood as a relationship; that is, as the exercise of influence over other actors. And power can be understood as a property of a structure; that is, as the ability to control the political agenda and shape how things are done. To add to the confusion, there are also debates about the changing nature of power, and in particular about the key factors through which one actor may influence another. 

The idea to distinguish between hard power and soft power was first introduced by Joseph Nye (1990). He defined power as the “ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants” and command or hard power as coercive power wielded through inducements or threats . Hard power is based on military intervention, coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions  and relies on tangible power resources such as armed forces or economic means. Thus, the German invasion into Poland in 1939 and the UN economic sanctions against Iraq in 1991 following the first Gulf War are examples for the use of hard power. According to Nye, persuasive power is based on attraction and emulation and “associated with intangible power resources such as culture, ideology, and institutions” 

Hard power: is command or coercive power: the ability to make others do what you want, or to use some form of incentive to get what you want. Hard power encompasses military and economic ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’. Realists tend to conceive of power in these terms. Military power is the capacity of a state to commit an aggressive act against another state, up to and including full-scale conflict.

Case Study US Hard Power: Assassinations 

Recent examples of expansion in or demonstrations of military power include the following.

• As China’s economic power has grown (it is now the second- richest state in the world) it has been building up its military capability. In 2009, military spend was about $70 billion; by 2016, it was $150 billion.

• Russia used its six-day invasion of Georgia in 2008 to retaliate against Georgia’s suppression of Russian nationalist separatists in South Ossetia.

• The Iraq War of 2003 was fought to achieve a number of foreign-policy objectives for the USA, but principally its intention was to subdue America’s enemies in the Middle East and in other parts of the world.

Economic power, on the other hand, involves inducements or incentives to a state to act according to the wishes of another state. For example, economic sanctions are commercial and financial penalties applied by one or more countries against a targeted country, including trade barriers, tariffs and restrictions on financial transactions. Trade agreements, which give countries privileged access to each other’s markets, can also be used. Recent examples of the exercising of economic power illustrate the varied nature of this means of hard power.

• There were long-running sanctions against South Africa (1986–94) by the USA, Japan and the European Economic Community (EEC) in an attempt to end the racist apartheid regime. This prevented trade in certain commodities and financial services.

• Since 2014, the EU has imposed sanctions against Russia over its military support for Russian nationalist separatists in Ukraine. This includes the freezing of assets held in the EU by individuals and entities associated with Putin and his government, and a ban on certain exports to Russia.

• The USA and the EU were the first to insert clauses into their trade agreements protecting human rights and workers’ conditions. More and more countries are using trade agreements to further their political objectives.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It calculated that it could get Ukraine to ‘behave’ through military intervention. Russia has been willing to use this kind of hard power before. It has recently used hard power in Syria, to destroy opposition to Assad and has of course been fighting a ‘grey zone’ war in the eastern Ukraine since 2014.

The United States and Europe have also used their hard power, apart from arming the Ukrainian government, there has been an array of economic and cultural sanctions levied against Russia. Governments around the world have taken coordinated action, using sanctions to target Russia’s banking system, state-controlled companies and powerful oligarchs.

There are many facets to hard power, but its effectiveness can be questioned. China may have increased its military capability, but it has not been able to assert its legal claims over the South China Sea or establish military superiority in the region. US bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam, Philippines, Australia and the Malacca Straits effectively encircle China. Russia’s intervention over South Ossetia has leſt the area in limbo, but Georgia has not been able to suppress the Russian nationalist movement there.

Whether the ‘carrot’ of trade agreements really works in promoting human rights is debatable, for two reasons.

• Countries seeking to make trade agreements are usually already on a path to democratisation, the adoption of rule of law and the protection of rights.

• Western states promote human rights but turn a blind eye when important trading partners have lower standards than they would like.

China is a good example of such double standards. Every Western leader who meets Chinese representatives lectures them about China’s human-rights record, but concrete action is lacking even when the treatment of political prisoners and critics of the regime does not improve.

Military power is declining as a method of pursuing a state’s interests. Inter-state conflict is decreasing and economic interdependence is on the rise. States are more likely to resort to economic sanctions or trade agreements to extend their influence. In Ukraine in 2016, although NATO increased its presence in Eastern European states bordering Russia, European states chose to use economic sanctions as their main tool in persuading Russia to withdraw its support for the Russian separatists. There was no immediate prospect of military intervention on behalf of Ukraine against its hostile neighbour.

Soft Power

Power Relationships 

The UK has topped recent league tables of soft-power states. One reason is that English is the most common second language in the world, spoken by an estimated 1 billion people – about a seventh of the world’s population. This is a product of both British imperialism in the 19th century and the global influence of the US in the 20th and 21st centuries. Familiarity with, and admiration for, British culture wins it friends across the world. Britain has also taken a leading role in the formation of international organisations. Britain helped to establish the Council of Europe in 1948, which produced the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, and is a member of the UN Security Council. Britain is also a leading member of the International Olympic Committee, with London the only city to have hosted the Olympic Games three times. The “soft power superpower” of U.K has been well known globally. As a reserve of soft power with centuries of culture and chronicles, the nation has unquestionably performed strongly. Since the colonial era, soft power has connected Britain to the world through the English language and has continued to enhance its influence through literature, music, films, BBC and British Council, maintaining trade and prosperity promotion, helping developing countries reach their potential, offering scholarships to foreign students, making U.K attractive to other countries and their citizens, driving global action through its memberships of international organizations like the UN, the Commonwealth, NATO and so on. For nearly a centenary the British Council has showcased the English language internationally and guided cultural performances, artworks carnivals and libraries across the world magnifying itself as a tangible soft power enlargement of the U.K foreign policy. The achievement of Britain’s mighty soft power massively extends to television such as Game of Thrones, Sherlock Holmes, Peaky Blinders, Shakespeare and Jane Austen series, Harry Potter and so on that has expanded its light to many corners of the earth.  

Smart power

Smart power is a combination of hard and soſt power. Liberal international-relations theorist Joseph Nye coined the term in his 2004 book Soſt Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Drawing on his experience as assistant secretary of defense during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Nye argues that the most effective foreign policy employs a combination of hard- and soſt-power strategies. Relying on hard or soſt power alone in a given situation will usually prove inadequate.

Nye uses the example of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which aided and supported the terrorist group Al-Qaeda that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Simply employing soſt-power resources to change the hearts and minds of members of the regime would have been ineffective. Force was required to remove the regime and isolate Al-Qaeda. However, in developing relationships with the mainstream Muslim world, such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, the use of hard power would alienate them. In these cases, soſt power would be a more fruitful strategy.

Structural and relational power focus on the environment in which an actor uses their power.  Susan Strange described relational power as the ability of one actor to persuade another to do something they wouldn’t normally do. She defined structural power as the ability to shape the systems that influence how states and their institutions operate. These two types of power can overlap since structures often arise from relationships and vice versa. For instance, the permanent members of the UN Security Council won World War II, and that history shaped the UN's structure. Other organizations formed after the war eventually led to the creation of the EU. Greater collaboration among European nations improved relations between France and Germany, who had fought several wars before World War II.

Strange added to the Marxist idea that production is the key structure for understanding power. She identified four types of structural power: finance, production, security, and knowledge. She visualized these dimensions as a pyramid, where each one supports the others. Whoever can create or control valuable knowledge holds structural power. Her analysis in States and Markets (1988) focused on what she called the "market-authority nexus", the see-saw of power between the market and political authority. She maintained that the global market, relative to the nation-state, had gained significant power since the 1970s and that a "dangerous gap" was emerging between the two. She considered nation-states inflexible, limited by territorial boundaries in a world of fragile intergovernmental co-operation. Markets would be able to flout regulations and reign free, creating more uncertainty and risk in an already chaotic environment. 

Case study: The US limits China's access to chip technology.

In the first aspect of relational power, political theorist Robert Dahl describes a situation similar to hard power, where one actor takes direct action towards another, either through threats or rewards. For instance, in 2018, Rwanda chose to stop the import of second-hand clothes that were being dumped in the country, which harmed local production and affected the community's identity and self-worth. In response, the US, a major source of these clothes, threatened to cut Rwanda's duty-free export benefits. Despite this, Rwanda stood firm. Political scientists Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz introduced a second aspect of relational power known as agenda-setting. This occurs when a political actor feels constrained by what is seen as possible or acceptable. For years, Pacific Island Nations have urged significant changes in lifestyle and production methods. However, industry lobbying and election concerns affect how much the largest greenhouse gas emitters are willing to adjust their practices, which in turn shapes the agenda at conferences like the UN Climate Change COP summits.

Cultural power refers to an actor's ability to influence knowledge, beliefs, art, laws, morals, customs, and other skills and habits learned as part of society. Military power involves using or threatening military force to control another actor or protect oneself. Economic power relates to the use of bribes, aid, or sanctions to manipulate another actor's behaviour or a state's influence through its economic strength.Political scientist Steven Lukes then introduced a third aspect of relational power, which involves shaping another actor's beliefs, perceptions, and preferences. The capitalist system and liberal democracy many people live under affect how willing individuals are to change their lifestyles and the sense of responsibility they feel towards others. Luke's academic theory known as the "three faces of power" appears in his book, Power: A Radical View. This theory explains that power operates in three ways: decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power.

Decision-making power is the most obvious of the three. It looks at how policy choices are shown through political actions.

Non-decision-making power shapes what topics are discussed and what remains off-limits in public debates, such as whether socialism is acceptable in the United States. This aspect helps to broaden the understanding of power by considering both existing issues and those that may not be openly addressed.

Ideological power enables individuals to sway the preferences and beliefs of others, sometimes leading them to support ideas against their own best interests, such as women endorsing a patriarchal system. Luke introduces this third face as a detailed critique of the first two, improving upon previous theories and allowing for the examination of both hidden and visible conflicts. 

The third aspect of relational power can be understood as cultural power, which is a type of soft power. Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor described culture as the combination of knowledge, beliefs, art, laws, morals, customs, and other skills that people learn as members of society. Influencing any of these areas gives significant power to the state, as well as to organised religions or dominant groups within society.

Globally, nomadic ways of life are fading. In Darfur, Sudan, there are ongoing conflicts between nomadic tribes and those who have settled in one place. Similar situations arise with Bedouins in Israel and Palestine and with Roma communities across Europe. The culture of settling down and owning land has become the main lifestyle. According to Peace Studies Professor Johan Galtung, cultural power can lead to what he calls "structural violence," creating systems or social facts that impose certain ideas on people. The existence of prevailing or prominent social norms makes direct and structural violence seem natural or at least acceptable, and serves to explain how prominent beliefs can become so embedded in a given culture that they function as absolute and inevitable and are reproduced uncritically across generations.