A discussion of power, part 3

Though it also gives some strange outputs, the CNP methodology definitely sheds light on what else should be put into power considerations. I'm not sure I like the complexity of the model, however. Kenneth Waltz, in Theory of International Politics, talks about the usefulness of a model for a theory. To summarize, the more complex (and thus usually accurate) the model, the more it is descriptive and the less explanatory. This might not make sense at first, so let me explain. Say we wanted to explain everything that happens in the world. We construct a perfect model, that takes into account every possible variable. In effect, we have created another world. It doesn't help us EXPLAIN anything, only describe it. We can say what causes what and how, but not why. In contrast, the most basic Neo-realist theory about world politics is the anarchic international system. From that, you can explain things. The most basic Marxist theory is that money is the driver of politics. These are elegant theories. They are not perfectly accurate, of course. In fact, they really are barely "accurate" at all, in that they describe almost nothing by themselves, but they let you EXPLAIN what you can observe.

Getting back to quantifying power, the Chinese method seems to describe states very well, it has tons of factors. But in having so many factors, they lose explanatory power. Why did they weight factor X more than Factor Y? How does one compare life expectancy and military spending? Does having a long lifespan really make you more powerful at all? Old people are a net burden on the state, I would imagine a state where everyone lives to 100 (because of great medical technology or healthcare spending) is actually less powerful than one where everyone dies at 65 after being productive their entire life. How much does R&D spending contribute? I've played enough strategy games to know focusing on improving your technology can get you killed when someone with lower tech but more troops attacks and destroys you. Even if they don't do that, they can focus on just stealing your innovations, which is certainly much cheaper. Does being good at spying make you more powerful than being good at research?

There are no good answers to the above questions, which is why modeling state power is so difficult. We can far more easily explain which state has the most powerful military OR economy OR culture/society, but unifying these is a huge challenge, especially in a way that actually explains anything (rather than just describing facts). This is something I want to continue to work on as I move into grad school.

A discussion of power, part 2

The CINC (discussed last time) has some flaws stemming from its methodology. However, it does only measure the hardest of hard power: resources, energy, population, military. It completely ignores economic power, to say nothing of "softer" political and cultural power. In an effort to include this, Chinese scholars developed a new method of power quantification. Called "Comprehensive National Power (CNP), this includes not only hard power considerations like military and industrial power, but also economic and social factors, such as quality of life. The model is actually extremely complex (and the current weight of the various elements is unavailable on the internet as far as I can tell) but I'll list the various bits that go into the calculation (this is quoted from a Federation of American Scientists article):

 - Natural Resources

Man Power Resources: total population; life expectancy; the proportion of the economically active population in the total population; the number of university students per 10,000 people

Land Resources: the area of national territory; the area of cultivatable territory; the area in forest

Mineral Resources (reserves): iron; copper; bauxite

Energy Resources (reserves): coal; crude oil; natural gases; water energy

 - Economic Activities Capability

Actual Economic Strength (total): gross domestic product (GDP); industry production capability (electric energy production, steel output, cement output, logs output); food supply capability (total grain output, degree of self-sufficiency in grain); energy supply capability ( volume of energy production, volume of energy consumption, crude oil processing capability); total cotton output

Actual Economic Strength (per person): GDP per person; industry production capability (electric energy production, steel output, cement output, logs output); food supply capability (total grain output, average calories per person); energy supply capability (volume of energy consumption)

Production Efficiency: social labor production rate; industry labor production rate, agriculture labor production rate

Material Consumption Level: volume of energy consumption based on GDP calculations

Structure: the proportion of the tertiary industry in the GDP

 - Foreign Economic Activities Capability

Total import and export trade; total import trade, total export trade

Total international reserves; international reserves (not including gold); gold reserves

Science and Technology Capability

Proportion of research and development in the GDP; number of scientists and engineers; the number of scientists and engineers per 1,000 people; proportion of machinery and transportation equipment exports in total exports; proportion of high-technology intensive exports in total exports

 - Social Development Level

Education Level: education expenditures per person; proportion of people studying in higher education; proportion of people studying in secondary school education

Cultural Level: adult literacy rate; number of people per one thousand who get a daily newspaper

Health Care Level: health care expenditures per person; number of people doctors are responsible for; number of people nurses are responsible for

Communications: number of people who have a telephone per 100 people

Urbanization: Proportion of the urban population in the total population

 - Military Capability

Number of military personnel; military expenditures; weapons exports; nuclear weapons (the number of nuclear launchers; the number of nuclear warheads)

Government Regulation and Control Capability

Proportion of final government consumption expenditures in the GDP; proportion of central government expenditures in the GDP; investigation through interviews asking nine questions

 - Foreign Affairs Capability

Uses ten factors in a "nerve network model" to carry out a broad assessment.

 This gives a more well rounded national comparison. This being a Chinese methodology, the rankings are published in chinese journals (if even there) so the numbers aren't easy to get, but Wikipedia has the top 10 power from their 2006 rankings, which is useful to compare to the 2007 CINC numbers we saw earlier:

1. US: 90.62

2. UK: 65.04

3. Russia: 63.03

4. France: 62.00

5. Germany: 61.93

6. China 59.10

Though some names are familiar, the list is pretty different. Right away, we can see a huge difference with the lack of the big developing nations (China and India) which the CINC ranks high because of population, but CNP lowers because, I would assume, the lack of human development across the board. A billion poor people seem to bring down your CNP scores. France's presence is also interesting, especially that it is higher than Germany, something I don't think many people would say is correct. Is it the presence of nuclear weapons that makes France (and the UK) seem so powerful? England is a powerful nation, but in the modern world, I don't see them as more powerful, really, than Germany or Japan (number 7 on this list.)