IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v30y1976i02p289-305_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations

Author

Listed:
  • Hart, Jeffrey

Abstract

There are three main approaches to the observation and measurement of power: 1) control over resources, 2) control over actors, and 3) control over events and outcomes. The control over events and outcomes approach emerges as the best approach to the measurement of power in contemporary international politics because: 1) it is the only approach which takes into account the possibility of interdependence and collective action, 2) it is more general than the other two approaches, and 3) it produces a type of analysis which has both descriptive and normative advantages. I will discuss each of these approaches at length and criticize them. I will argue that the third approach is superior to the other two for the measurement of power in contemporary international politics because it is better suited to situations in which interdependence and collective action can be derived from the third.

Suggested Citation

  • Hart, Jeffrey, 1976. "Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 289-305, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:30:y:1976:i:02:p:289-305_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818300018282/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zeev Maoz, 1983. "Resolve, Capabilities, and the Outcomes of Interstate Disputes, 1816-1976," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(2), pages 195-229, June.
    2. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8602 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8602 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Patalakh Artem, 2016. "Assessment of Soft Power Strategies: Towards an Aggregative Analytical Model for Country-Focused Case Study Research," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 22(76), pages 85-112, October.
    5. Hua, Wei & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Mitchell, Benjamin T. & Mitchell, J. Robert & Israelsen, Trevor L., 2022. "Momentum for entrepreneurial internationalization: Friction at the interface between international and domestic institutions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(6).
    6. Stephanie Oserwa Schandorf, 2024. "Power Relations and Maritime Justice: An Exploration of UNCLOS Negotiations," Ocean and Society, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1.
    7. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8602 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. David P. Rapkin & William R. Thompson & Jon A. Christopherson, 1979. "Bipolarity and Bipolarization in the Cold War Era," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(2), pages 261-295, June.
    9. Zeev Maoz, 1995. "National Preferences, International Structures and Balance-of-Power Politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(3), pages 369-394, July.
    10. Barry Eichengreen, 1987. "Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System," NBER Working Papers 2193, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Zürn, Michael, 1992. "Interessen und Institutionen in der internationalen Politik: Grundlegung und Anwendungen des situationsstrukturellen Ansatzes," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 112639, March.
    12. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/8602 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Nozomu Matsubara, 1989. "Conflict and Limits of Power," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(1), pages 113-141, March.
    14. Junshi Li & Yao Pan, 2023. "EU and China’s comparative advantage, trade complementarity and trade specialization dynamics in agricultural products," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 351-379, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:30:y:1976:i:02:p:289-305_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.