We often hear that the world is changing and that the United States is losing influence and power. Regional and middle powers such as China and Russia are rising. Scholars talk about structural changes from a unipolar system with one dominant country to a bipolar system (with two dominant countries) or a multipolar system (with three or more dominant countries). Most people agree that a multipolar system is the most unstable and least peaceful system. Maintaining the balance of power becomes more difficult in a multipolar system, increasing the likelihood of great power war.
Many experts believe that multipolarity has become the dominant feature of the international system. Or that will be the case soon. For example, Emma Ashford and Alvin Cooper say that the world is indeed multipolar. Ashford and Cooper argue that the United States’ loss of power and other states’ gain in power mean that neither unipolarity nor bipolarity is a good description of today’s international system. In addition, a recent informal poll conducted by Foreign Affairs showed that 65% of well-known scholars of international politics believe that the world is more multipolar or bipolar than unipolar. Only 23% of academics believe the world remains more unipolar. Those who oppose a unipolar system say we must accept the economic and demographic power shifts we have witnessed over the past 30 years. Power shifted from the West to India, Russia and China.
Ashford and Cooper’s multipolarity argument is based on findings from their own policy documents. To measure polar structure, they combine gross national income (GNI), GNI at purchasing power parity, GDP per capita, total national wealth, and a range of aggregate economic and power indices. But does a larger economy and population mean the country becomes a polar power? Not really. Political scientists generally define power as the ability of one state to force another state to do something it would not normally do. Given this definition, neither economy nor population are particularly good indicators of the current distribution of international power.
Even if a country adds 50 million people to its population overnight, it does not necessarily make it stronger. The same applies to a country’s economy. During the Cold War, the economy of the Soviet Union, the richest country, was only one-third that of the United States. But the Soviet Union chose guns over butter. This is why the world became bipolar during the Cold War. The military strength of communist forces is equal to or even greater than that of the United States.
Money and people are the main sources of power. A country’s military strength provides a better understanding of the current balance of power and a country’s ability to make other countries do things they would not normally do. In a recent research article, I looked at the size of the armed forces of all countries and How much do they spend on each soldier. This shows the size, strength and complexity of the country’s military. I then compare how the distribution among the great powers has evolved over time. The result is clear: the world remains unipolar.
Russia, Britain and France have far less military strength than the United States. Although Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin shouts a lot, it actually does not have the strength to call itself a polar country. Britain and France were no longer the great powers they once were. Therefore, describing the world as multipolar—which requires three or more power centers—is incorrect.
To be sure, China’s growth is remarkable. For example, Beijing’s league level is higher than Russia’s. But that alone will not polarize the world. If the current system is seen as bipolar, then the 1970s must also be seen as multipolar with China, Russia and the United States as superpowers. no. The model I developed provides some support for the view of Jo Inge Bekkevold and others that we are beginning to see the outlines of a bipolar world. China has a large population and economy, which they are quick to turn into military strength. But there is no guarantee that China can continue on the same track. Doubts may also arise about the actual size of China’s economy. The country’s population has declined for the second year in a row.
Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the state is able or willing to use money or personnel for military purposes. Japan, Germany and the European Union are examples of countries that, for various reasons, have failed to translate their potential into military strength. Therefore, experts are right to say that China’s economy and population give China the potential to increase its power. This could indeed make the world a more bipolar place. But they are wrong when they say it will happen or has happened. They are even more wrong when they say that Russia, India, Brazil or other regional powers will fill the last polar spots. The world is still in a unipolar structure centered on the United States.
Further reading on electronic international relations
