Thread by @dicicco_jon

Processing the @ForeignAffairs expert survey on unipolarity/multipolarity in various ways today, including thru a #greatpowercompetition lens. (🧵)

In our attempt to define GPC, Tudor Onea & I reject the idea that GPC does not exist in unipolarity...
doi.org/10.1093/acrefo…

...because a single great power can become preeminent while other GPs continue to exist and maintain their rank. A. F. K. Organski's stylized "power pyramid" diagram reflects this notion that a dominant power can head up an order that includes several GPs.

In other words, just because there is one extraordinarily powerful country for a time doesn't mean that there are no other great powers. For this reason we would respectfully disagree with a take like Jakub Grygiel's:

I'm more intrigued by Barry Posen, who writes, "The U.S., China, Russia, India, France, and Britain look much stronger...than do other states. This does not mean they are equal. But these six powers tend to treat one another as quite important, and others as less important."

The idea that GPs "treat one another as quite important, and others as less important," is key, because it brings a social hierarchy aspect into play. In our piece, Tudor & I write about recognition as a key element of great-power-ness. We are not the only ones who do, of course!

.@dhnexon argues for example that "being a 'great power' is like being a 'musical genius' — ultimately it is a matter of social recognition and deference." Indeed, we suggest in our piece that GPs form an exclusive club, and mutual recognition of membership is vital.

Now, Barry Buzan states, "Both China and the United States are at best primus inter pares among a group of great powers. The world order will soon have no superpowers, several great powers, and a host of regional powers, and it will not look like traditional multipolarity." So...

Where does this leave us with regard to the world today? I posed a question to @g_natalizia's students at @DiSpSapienza last week: "How many great powers exist in today's system? and received a wide range of plausible responses, based on the (somewhat mushy) criteria we used.

What we did not discuss -- and what does come through in the @ForeignAffairs expert survey -- is the complexity involved not only in assessing how many powers exist within how many ranks (superpowers? world powers? great powers? regional powers? etc.)...

... but also the complexity inherent in the system, whether in terms of the inclusion of non-state actors, or understanding the system as being "multiplex" (per @AmitavAcharya, and in the survey, also @jorgeheinel). And yet...

...imo sovereign states remain paramount, and demand our attention. What interests me is assessing, in a systemic (as well as systematic) way, how these states are interrelated. This goes for the GPs and their exclusive club, as well as for GPs' ties to other states.

And for that reason, I would recommend the ideas and observations of surveyed experts like @SBmoller, @rohan_mukh, Manjari Chatterjee Miller,@dhnexon, @Ali_Wyne, @daltman_IR, & @segoddard, who emphasize networks and friendships and relationships in their responses.

Ultimately, I'm not sure whose take is most compelling, but I'm alarmed and partially seduced by Mark Leonard's forecast of a system in which complex relationships among GPs result in distinct regional orders, rather than one inclusive or two competing orders...

...and I rather wish that @ForeignAffairs had invited @DrBeeZee to participate, because works like this one provide fresh insight into polarity. academic.oup.com/jogss/article-… I encourage you to read this, and to reply to this 🧵 if you can recommend other scholarly work in this vein!

A more recent article to consider is by @justinscasey & @mrldolan in @ISQ_Jrnl. Very interesting work!
Read Casey's informative thread that explains the piece:

https://twitter.com/justinscasey/status/1633879857343119360

...or see Dolan's v. short thread to go to the article:

https://twitter.com/mrldolan/status/1661051457041317888

.