Towards a New Understanding of Structural Power: “Structure Is What States Make of It”

  • Andrej PustovitovskijEmail author
  • Jan-Frederik Kremer
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)


The study of power in International Relations (IR) can be seen as the search for the cornerstone of our discipline. Hardly any theory or approach of IR can claim evidence and explanatory power without at least implicitly addressing the question of the ontology of power. In this article we will, by introducing our concept of structural power, offer a new path towards understanding a concept famously introduced in the 1980s by Susan Strange (1987, 1988a, b), but still lacking clarity in operationalization and application. By addressing the questions: “How does structural power work?/How does structural power change the rules of the game?/How is structural power constituted?/Through which kind of transmission channels does structural power affect the power position of states?/What are the underlying power resources of structural power? What is the relationship between structural power and other forms of power?”, our approach to structural power will, by responding this questions offer a new approach towards the study of power in IR and will foster the understanding of a concept which can help to understand international relations in an interdependent age. By doing so, we will present a concept of structural power which differs from the concept of Susan Strange, but which is also able to enclose her ideas about power structures in world politics, by examining the importance of states’ needs and goods for their structural power position in international relations. The aim of this article is to foster a new understanding of structural power, by introducing a concept of structural power independent from the assumed, but empirically not proofed existence of a specific number of dominant power (sub-)structures and certain resources, but based on a model of structure able to enclose changes in power structures in international affairs.


International Relation Structural Power Structural Position African State World Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bacevich, A. (2008). The limits of power: The end of American exceptionalism. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bailer, S. (2004). Bargaining success in the European Union: The impact of exogenous and endogenous power resources. European Union Politics, 5, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balaam, D. N., & Veseth, M. (2008). Introduction to international political economy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, D. A. (1979). Power analysis and world politics: New trends versus old tendencies. World Politics, 31(2 (January)), 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin, D. A. (1980). Interdependence and power: A conceptual analysis. International Organization, 34(4 (Autumn)), 471–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, D. A. (2002). Power and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), The handbook of international relations (pp. 177–191). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumann, R., Rittberger, V., & Wagner, W. (1999). Macht und Machtpolitik Neorealistische Außenpolitiktheorie und Prognosen über die deutsche Außenpolitik nach der Vereinigung. Zeitschrift für Internationalen Beziehungen, 2, 245–286.Google Scholar
  8. BPSM – Bonn Power Shift Monitor, accessible via:
  9. Brookes, P., & Shin, J. H. (2006) China’s influence in Africa: Implications for the United States (The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, No. 1916, 22.2.2006). Accessed 15 Dec 2011.
  10. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dür, A. (2007). EU Trade Policy as protection for exporters: The agreements with Mexico and Chile. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 833–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferguson, N. (2003). Think again: Power. Foreign Policy, 134(March–April), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson, N. (2005). Colossus. The rise and fall of the American Empire. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grieco, J. M. (1995). The Maastricht Treaty, economic and monetary union and the neo-realist research program. Review of International Studies, 21(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guzzini, S. (1993). Structural power: The limits of neorealist power analysis. International Organization, 47(3 (Summer)), 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ikenberry, G. J. (2003). Is American multilateralism in decline? Perspectives on Politics, 1(3 (September)), 533–550.Google Scholar
  18. Ikenberry, G. J. (2004). Illusions of empire: Defining the new American order. Foreign Affairs, 83(2 (March – April)), 144–154.Google Scholar
  19. Joffe, J. (2006). Die Hypermacht. Warum die USA die Welt beherrschen. Bonn: Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Kagan, R. (2002). Power and weakness. Policy Review, No. 113.Google Scholar
  21. Kappel, R., & Schneidenbach, T. (2006) China in Afrika: Herausforderungen für den Westen (GIGA Focus, Nr. 12). Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  22. Katzenstein, P. J. (2005). A world of regions. Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (1977/2001). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2001). Power and interdependence. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Krasner, S. D. (1985). Structural conflict: The Third World against global liberalism. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lawton, T. C., Rosenau, J. N., & Verdun, A. C. (2000). Strange power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  28. Mann, M. (2003). Incoherent empire. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  29. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moravcsik, A. (1991). Negotiating the single European Act: National interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community. International Organization, 45(1), 19–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muthoo, A. (2000). A non-technical introduction to bargaining theory. World Economics, 1(2 (April–June)), 145–166.Google Scholar
  35. Norrlof, C. (2010). America’s global advantage. US hegemony and international cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nye, J. S., Jr. (1990a). The changing nature of world power. Political Science Quarterly, 105(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nye, J. S., Jr. (1990b). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004a). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  39. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004b). The decline of America’s soft power: Why Washington should worry. Foreign Affairs, 83(3 (May–June)), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen, N. (1986). Bargaining power among potential allies: negotiating the North Atlantic Treaty, 1948–49. Review of International Studies, 12, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, E. A. (2004). OPEC’s dominance of the global oil market – the rise of the world’s dependency on oil. Middle East Journal, 58(3), 424–443.Google Scholar
  42. Schirm, S. (2005). Der Einfluss von Interessen und Normen auf nationale Positionen zur Global Economic Governance. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 15(3), 825–847.Google Scholar
  43. Schirm, S. (2009). Ideas and interests in global financial governance: Comparing German and US preference formation. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(3), 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schirm, S. (2011). Varieties of strategies: Societal influences on British and German responses to the global economic crisis. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 19(1), 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider, G. (2005). Capacity and concessions: Bargaining power in multilateral negotiations. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 33, 665–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strange, S. (1987). The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International Organization, 41(4 (Autumn)), 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strange, S. (1988a). States and markets – An introduction to international political economy. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Strange, S. (1988b). The persistent myth of lost hegemony – Reply to Milner and Snyder. International Organization, 42(2 (Autumn)), 751–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tull, D. M. (2006). China’s engagement in Africa: Scope, significance and consequences. Journal of Modern African Studies, 44(3), 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Volgy, T. J., & Lawrence, I. E. (2000). The faces of hegemonic strength: Structural versus relational capabilities. International Interactions, 26(3), 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walt, S. M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waltz, K. (1990). Realist thought and neorealist theory. Journal of International Affairs, 44, 21–37.Google Scholar
  54. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. Ward, H. (1987). Structural power – A contradiction in terms? Political Studies, 35, 593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Witte, J. M., & Goldthau, A. (2009). Die OPEC – Macht und Ohnmacht des Öl-Kartels. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woods, N. (2008). Whose aid? Whose influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs, 84(6), 1205–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zakaria, F. (2011). The Post-American World: Release 2.0, New York: W. W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Global StudiesUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Center for Global StudiesUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Development Research and Development PolicyRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations