What are the Sources of State Power?
Money, position, history or good old fashioned military might. How does a state derive its power?
A quick view, and analysis of this topic - how are states powerful?
In the conventional sense, the notion of power is an attribute where a state has domination and control, that is material “power over” others. Internationally this may result in influence, sway or ability to change the course of other nations. Carey Salmon et al1 breaks this down further “[power] is multifaceted but can be defined in two distinct forms – hard power and soft power. Hard power is the ability to physically hurt and damage and is usually associated with military force and physical persuasion. Soft power is the ability to exert pressure and influence without using physical threat”.
Traditionally, hard and soft state power has always been considered originating from military and economic strength as well as technological advances and resources security. Some academic circles argue2 that geography and population, are a more modern understanding as a source of state power, which I am sure Tim Marshall would agree with;3 geographic control over the Bosporus gives Turkey power over Russia despite their lack of military comparison.
Many academic thinkers also fail to mention the importance of culture. That is the language, art and music which can be used as a successful method of tactical soft power. Cultural soft power is in some manners equivalent to influence, the ability to change opinion or decision by inducing a desire to do so. When one says cultural power one thinks of France or the USA. All over the globe we watch Hollywood movies and drink Champagne™ - isn’t this power over others?
Joyce Kaufman puts emphasis on the economic potential of states, not their economy. She contends that even developing countries such as Nigeria have been able to exert relative power in the international system due to their possession of oil4, but I don’t think that this is the rule - on the whole, the rich are powerful, the poor are not. Even those that possess the resource potential are unable to leverage it without military, economic or other power sources; this is often known through the maxim - paradox of plenty.
Until the early 2010s power in international relations was definitively based on the realist assumptions about the primacy of states, and their military, resource or economic power. The biggest military and economic powers have often been the most powerful states - but perhaps this is the other way around. In the modern globalised world, power is beginning to shift into the hands of non-state actors; tech giants and industries-as-a-service gain more power over governments year on year. Google, Apple, Facebook (Meta?) and Amazon likely have enough economic power and reliance-based leverage to influence a lot of international establishments - more so than traditional states.
States can also trade some of their authority for power, such as access to resources, advanced technology and shared military strength in alliances. The European Union (EU) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) pool different states’ economic power whilst NATO enhances a states military power through collective defence. One must ask, however, how can a state have true sovereignty if there is external governance they must adhere to?
National power ultimately rests with the people who allow political leaders to govern them and this social contract is also the basis of ‘power as a structure’ in a macro sense. States accept the current method of global governance and collectively bestow authority on a unifying body - the United Nations, to keep laws over all states. The UN, in turn, relies on the hard and soft power of the states to keep international law. Those states that do not wish to adhere to the current structural power resultantly have no way to counter this hegemony and must rely on the most basic tenant of power, which turns out to be military strength. States like North Korea and Iran who face global ostracisation, sanctions and embargos, have no option other than to remain militarily powerful to retain significance - the nuclear pursuit is an expression of this.
In summary, states draw their power from wherever they can - economically, socially, militarily, geographically and culturally. Some states are forced to rely on one over the other either because they don’t have much to play with, or they are ostracised from the international community. Some states can even leverage their potential power to exert real power, but there are limits to this. States that share power through institutions such as the EU or GCC may gain power in turn but may have to trade some sovereignty to do so.
The ability to turn a source of power into power itself is another discussion, just because someone has a powerful oil-backed economy, doesn’t mean they want to exert power over others. Elsewhere someone with a small military may push the boundaries in intra-state violence beyond what one would tolerate, but somehow, they are tolerated.
Salmon, T., Imber, M., Fraser, T. and Carey, R. (2008). Issues in International Relations.
Heywood, A. (2015). Global Politics.
Marshall, T (2021). The Power of Geography.
Kaufman, J. (2013). Introduction to International Relations.