Book contents
1 - Status and World Order
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2014
Summary
Can the international order be modified to incorporate a greater role for rising or more assertive powers such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, and Turkey? While the rise and decline of major powers cannot be forecast with precision, there is scant uncertainty about the core expectation that relative economic and military clout will shift away from the states that created and have upheld the current international order – the United States and its close allies – in favor of states heretofore thought of as outsiders or as minor players in that order. On the surface, accommodating this shift would appear simple: adjust voting rules in international organizations to reflect new distributions of bargaining power, alter spheres of influence to reflect new military capabilities and interests, and allocate new rights and responsibilities as the situation dictates. After all, nuclear-armed major powers, most of which are democratic, are not going to contest global leadership by resorting to arms. Surely the leaders of modern states in a globalized world will not forgo the massive gains of multilateral institutionalized cooperation over some squabble about the shape of the table and who gets to sit at its head.
Or will they? The ongoing scholarly and public discussion reveals a level of anxiety about rising powers and world order that is hard to explain if people only care about economic prosperity and basic national security. Yet most of what political scientists claim to know about the rise and decline of powers rests precisely on that assumption. The discourse on changing power balances mixes concern over pragmatic adjustments of security- and material welfare-maximizing actors with a vaguer apprehension about clashing national claims to greatness and precedence. To an important degree, the worry is about the search for higher status by emerging powers and the conflict this quest may generate with reigning major power actors. Why do rising powers seek status? What are the mechanisms of status adjustment and accommodation and what are the conditions for use of one rather than another? Can the status aspirations of the rising powers be accommodated without violence, and if so, how?
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Status in World Politics , pp. 3 - 30Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Sixth edn. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 87, 94–96Google Scholar
adopted this approach in War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Prestige and the Origins of War: Returning to Realism’s Roots,”Security Studies 8, no. 4 (Summer 1999), 126–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Hobbes on the Causes of War: A Disagreement Theory,” American Political Science Review 105, no. 2 (May 2011), 298.
, “A Structural Theory of Aggression,”Journal of Peace Research 1, no. 2 (June 1964), 95–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Status Discrepancy and Violence in the International System: An Empirical Analysis,” in The Analysis of International Politics: Essays in Honor of Harold and Margaret Sprout, eds. , and (New York: The Free Press, 1972), 299–319Google Scholar
, The Politics of Assimilation: Hegemony and Its Aftermath (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971)Google Scholar
, Systems in Crisis: New Imperative of High Politics at Century’s End (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) (power cycle theory)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , The Great Powers and Global Struggle: 1490–1990 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994)Google Scholar
, On War: Political Violence in the International System (New York: The Free Press, 1975) (long cycle theory)Google Scholar
: A Realist Quest for the Dynamics of Power,” in The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? eds. and (London: Routledge, 1997), 121–144Google Scholar
, “Gilpinian Realism and International Relations,”International Relations 25, no. 4 (December 2011), 499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Realism and the Present Great Power System: Growth and Positional Conflict Over Scarce Resources,” in Unipolar Politics: Realism and State Strategies after the Cold War, eds. and (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 28–68Google Scholar
, China’s Struggle for Status: The Realignment of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Seeking ‘Legitimate’ Great Power Status in Post-Cold War International Society: China’s and Japan’s Participation in UNPKO,”International Relations 22, no. 1 (March 2008), 45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War,”World Politics 61, no. 1 (January 2009), 28–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy,” International Security 34, no. 4 (Winter 2010), 63–95Google Scholar
, “Status and Leadership on the Korean Peninsula,”Orbis 54, no. 4 (Fall 2010), 546–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
et al., eds., Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics: Global and Regional Perspectives (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition,”International Theory 3, no. 1 (February 2011), 105–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
, Jonathan Renshon, and Paul Huth, “Reputation and Status as Motives for War,”Annual Review of Political Science, in press
, Solidarity and Schism: ‘The Problem of Disorder’ in Durkheimian and Marxist Sociology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 70, 85–86Google Scholar
, Stratification and Power: Structures of Class, Status and Command (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), 30, 31–33, 36Google Scholar
, Stratification: Social Division and Inequality (New York: Routledge, 2005), 39–41, 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495–1975 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1983), 16–18Google Scholar
and , India in the World Order: Searching for Major-Power Status (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 32Google Scholar
, The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-first Century (Malden: Polity Press, 2004), 69–73Google Scholar
, Jr., Status and Sacredness: A General Theory of Status Relations and an Analysis of Indian Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 23–24Google Scholar
and , “Social Status and Economic Performance: A Survey,”European Economic Review 42 (May 1998), 804–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Class Citizenship and Social Development: Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 198Google Scholar
, The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415–1980 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 213–214Google Scholar
, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, Vol. 1, The Period of Unification, 1815–1871 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
, “Identity, Insecurity, and Great Power Politics: The Tragedy of German Naval Ambition Before the First World War,”Security Studies 19, No. 4 (October 2010), 656–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Strategy and Diplomacy: 1870–1945 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983; Fontana Paperback, 1984), 157–158Google Scholar
, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996)Google Scholar
, Identity, Interest, and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden’s Intervention in the Thirty Years War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , The International Politics of Recognition (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2012)Google Scholar
, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Constructing the U.S. Rapprochement with China, 1961–1974: From “Red Menace” to “Tacit Ally” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 66–67, 78–81, 128, 165–166, 200Google Scholar
, Impossible Allies: Nuclear India, United States and the Global Order (New Delhi: India Research Press, 2006), 35, 57–58, 64, 77–78Google Scholar
, “Global Implications of the U.S.-India Deal,” Daedalus 139, no. 1 (Winter 2010), 20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The US-India Nuclear Accord: Implications for the Non-Proliferation Regime,”International Journal 62, no. 4 (Autumn 2007), 845–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess (New York: Free Press, 1999)Google Scholar
, In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 2006), 81Google Scholar
, The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 3rd ed. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), chapters 20–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , Independence and Deterrence: Britain and Atomic Energy, 1945–1952, 2 volumes (London: The Macmillan Press, 1974)Google Scholar
, Deterrence and Persuasion: French Nuclear Armament in the Context of National Policy, 1945–1969 (New York: Praeger, 1970)Google Scholar
, Power versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons (Montreal: McGill-Queens’ University Press, 2000)Google Scholar
, Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2009)Google Scholar
, “The Concept of Power” and John Harsanyi, “Measurement of Social Power in n-Person Reciprocal Power Situations,” in Political Power: A Reader in Theory and Research, eds. , , and (New York: Free Press, 1969), 79–93Google Scholar
, “Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis,”International Organization 47, no. 3 (Summer 1993), 443–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Interpersonal Stratification: Status, Power and Subordination,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 5th ed., eds. , , and (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), 941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
et al., “Status Differences in Cross-Functional Teams: Effects on Individual Member Participation, Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Quit,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45, no. 3 (September 2004), 322–335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and , “Status Processes in Enduring Work Groups,”American Sociological Review 56, no. 2 (April 1991), 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Origins of Commitment: Truman and West Berlin,”Journal of Cold War Studies 13, no. 1 (Winter 2011), 180–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Honor, Symbols, and War (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 193–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Civilizations and Zones of Prestige and Social Contact,” in Rethinking Civilizational Analysis, eds. and (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Civilization and State Formation in the Shadow of China,” in Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives, ed. (London: Routledge, 2010), 18–19, 91–113Google Scholar
, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, eds. and (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 932Google Scholar
, “Honor, Gender, and Power: The Politics of Satisfaction in Pre-War Europe,” in An Improbable War? The Outbreak of World War I and European Culture Before 1914, eds. and (New York: Berghahn Books, 2007), 249Google Scholar
, Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “On the Concept of Face,”The American Journal of Sociology 81, no. 4 (January 1976), 870–871, 873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Mediating National Honour: Lessons from the Era of Dueling,”Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 159, no. 1 (March 2003), 1–19Google Scholar
and , “Automatic Processing of Dominance and Submissiveness,”Experimental Psychology 52, no. 4 (2005), 296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 5, 9Google Scholar
, “Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses,”American Economic Review 95, no. 2 (May 2005), 137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life (New York: Pantheon, 1994)Google Scholar
et al., “Social Comparison Affects Reward-Related Brain Activity in the Human Ventral Striatum,”Science 318, no. 5854 (November 23, 2007), 1305–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, no. 3 (June 1992), 302–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Psychological Structure of Intergroup Relations,” in Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relation, ed. (London: Academic, 1978), 27–98Google Scholar
and , “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. and (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979), 33–47Google Scholar
and , Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes (London: Routledge, 1988), 53Google Scholar
, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 488Google Scholar
, Empire: The Russian Empire and its Rivals (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 48–51, 98, 122, 216–217Google Scholar
, “Honor as Interest in Russian Decisions for War, 1600–1995,” in Honor Among Nations: Intangible Interests and Foreign Policy, eds. and (Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1998), 26Google Scholar
, Solidarity and Schism: “The Problem of Disorder” in Durkheimian and Marxist Sociology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 70Google Scholar
, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,”International Studies Quarterly 14, no. 3 (September 1970), 233–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Foreign Policy Makers and their National Role Conceptions,”International Studies Quarterly 24, no. 4 (December 1980), 532–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ed., Role Quests in the Post-Cold War Era: Foreign Policies in Transition (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997)Google Scholar
, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011)Google Scholar
, Zero-Sum World: Politics, Power and Prosperity after the Crash (London: Atlantic Books, 2010), 212Google Scholar
- 91
- Cited by