Introduction

The contemporary study of middle powers has focused primarily on defining the concept and examining the foreign policies of such states. While there has yet to be a standardized definition of what middle powers are, the literature suggests three primary ways of approaching the concept, based on material capabilities, identity and behaviour. These approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather, as we will see in the following discussion, their respective elements are interlinked. The themes in each of these approaches to middle powers moreover correspond to the three dominant IR paradigms, namely, (neo)realism, constructivism and (neo)liberalism. This chapter reviews the existing approaches to middle powers with three aims in mind. First, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each approach would help to establish a working definition for middle powers. This would, in turn, be the basis upon which the countries for study are selected. While acknowledging that definitional issues remain the biggest challenge for middle power theory building, the best way forward would nonetheless be to arrive at a composite definition of middle powers that draws on the strengths of the three approaches while offsetting their weaknesses. Consequently, the working definition of a middle power in this book refers to a state that quantitatively ranks below the major powers but above most of the rest of the states; identifies and is regarded by others as a middle power; and employs behavioural strategies such as investing in multilateralism and relying on persuasive or soft power.

Second, through a review of the extant approaches to middle powers, we will be able to discern the notion of differentiation that is implied in the study of middle powers but thus far undertheorized. For instance, defining middle powers based on material capabilities – also known as the position approach – is premised on the assumption that these states have a different level of capabilities as compared to others. The identity approach makes the case that middle power identity is different from the identities of major powers and smaller states. Last but not least, the behaviour approach emphasizes that middle powers rely on particular foreign policy strategies or diplomatic styles that other types of states may not be as drawn towards or be as effective in.