This article resuscitates the idea of structural power in world politics by linking it to modern complex network science, presents a theoretical framework for understanding how global structures develop and change, and empirically analyzes the prominence of leading states within global finance, trade, security, and knowledge networks. It argues that the “fitness plus preferential attachment” (FPA) model of complex network evolution provides a logical explanation for the durability of American influence even as some of its advantages in country-level capabilities has eroded, and it introduces a network methodology that is capable of empirically analyzing the organizational complexity that exists within and across domains in world politics. It argues that the rise of China and other emerging powers has been overstated in some ways, but that a redistribution of structural prominence is taking place, in some domains, as emerging markets increase their transnational connections; this has mostly come at the relative expense of Europe, however, rather than the United States.
AizenmanJChinnMDItoH (2008) Assessing the emerging global financial architecture: Measuring the trilemma’s configurations over time. NBER Working Paper No. 14533.
2.
AmadaeSM (2003) Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
AppeltSvan BeuzekomBGalindo-RuedaF, et al. (2015) Which factors influence the international mobility of research scientists? OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2015/2.
4.
BarabásiA-L. (2016) Network Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BarabásiA-LAlbertR. (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science286: 509–512.
6.
BarnettMDuvallR (2005) Power in international politics. International Organization59(1): 39–75.
7.
Bauerle DanzmanSWinecoffWKOatleyT (2017) All crises are global: capital cycles in an imbalanced international political economy. International Studies Quarterly61(4): 907–923.
8.
BeckleyM (2018a) The power of nations: Measuring what matters. International Security43(2): 7–44.
9.
BeckleyM (2018b) Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
BianconiGBarabásiA-L (2001) Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters54: 436–442.
11.
BremmerIRoubiniN (2011) A g-zero world. Foreign Affairs90(2): 2–7.
12.
BroidoADClausetA (2019) Scale-free networks are rare. Nature Communications10(1017): 1–10.
13.
BrooksSGWohlforthWC (2016) The rise and fall of the great powers in the twenty-first century. International Security40(3): 7–53.
14.
CarpenterRC (2011) Vetting the advocacy agenda: network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms. International Organization65(1): 69–102.
15.
CarpenterCDuyguluSMontgomeryA, et al. (2015) Explaining the advocacy agenda: insights from the human security agenda. International Organization. forthcoming.
16.
ChwierothJ (2007) Neoliberal economists and capital account liberalization in emerging markets. International Organization61(2): 443–463.
17.
ClausetAShaliziCRNewmanMEJ (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review51: 661–703.
18.
CohenBJ (1977) Organizing the World’s Money: The Political Economy of International Monetary Relations. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19.
CohenBJ (2004) The Future of Money. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
CohenBJ (2006) The macrofoundations of monetary power. In AndrewsDM (ed.), International Monetary Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
CohenBJ (2008) International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
CohenBJ (2012) The future of the euro: let’s get real. Review of International Political Economy19(4): 689–700.
23.
CohenBJBenneyTM (2014) What does the international currency system really look like?Review of International Political Economy21(5): 1017–1041.
24.
CohenSSDeLongJB (2010) The End of Influence: What Happens When Other Countries Have the Money. New York, NY: Basic Books.
25.
ColeJR (2012) The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
26.
CooleyANexonDH (2013) ‘the empire will compensate you’: the structural dynamics of the U.S. overseas basing network. Perspectives on Politics11(4): 1034–1050.
27.
CopelovitchMS (2010) The International Monetary Fund in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28.
CranmerSJDesmaraisBA (2011) Forecasting the locational dynamics of transnational terrorism: a network analytic approach. Security Informatics2(8): 1–13.
29.
CranmerSJDesmaraisBA (2016) A critique of dyadic design. International Studies Quarterly60(2): 355–362.
30.
CranmerSJDesmaraisBAMenningaEJ (2012a) Complex dependencies in the alliance network. Conflict Management and Peace Science29(3): 279–313.
31.
CranmerSJDesmaraisBAKirklandJH (2012b) Toward a network theory of alliance formation. International Interactions38(3): 295–324.
32.
CranmerSJHenrichTDesmaraisBA (2013) Reciprocity and the structural determinants of the international sanctions network. Social Networks36(1): 5–22.
33.
CranmerSJMenningaEJMuchaPJ (2015) Kantian fractionalization predicts the conflict propensity of the international system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(38): 11812–11816.
34.
DedrickJKraemerKLLindenG (2010) Who profits from innovation in global value chains? A study of the ipod and notebook pcs. Industrial and Corporate Change19(1): 81–116.
35.
DedrickJKraemerKLLindenG (2011) The distribution of value in the mobile phone supply chain. Telecommunications Policy35: 505–521.
36.
DennyMJ (2016) The importance of generative models for assessing network structure. Working Paper.
37.
DreznerDW (2009) Bad debts: assessing China’s financial influence in great power politics. International Security34(2): 7–45.
38.
DuqueM (2018) Recognizing international status: a relational approach. International Studies Quarterly62(3): 577–592.
39.
EichengreenB (2011) Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
EmmeneggerP (2015) The long arm of justice: U.S. structural power and international banking. Business and Politics17(3): 473–493.
41.
FarrellHNewmanA (2014) The new politics of interdependence: cross-national layering in trans-Atlantic regulatory disputes. Comparative Political Studies48(4): 497–526.
42.
FarrellHNewmanA (2019) Weaponized interdependence: how global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security44(1): 42–79.
43.
FichtnerJ (2014) Privateers of the Caribbean: the hedge funds-US-UK-offshore nexus. Competition and Change18(1): 37–53.
44.
FichtnerJ (2017) Perpetual decline or persistent dominance? Uncovering Anglo-America’s true structural power in global finance. Review of International Studies43(1): 3–28.
45.
FukuyamaF (1989) The end of history?The National Interest. Summer.
46.
Garcia-AlgarraJMouronte-LopezMLGaleanoJ (2019) A stochastic generative model of the world trade network. Scientific Reports9(18539): 1–10.
47.
GartzkeE (1999) War is in the error term. International Organization53(3): 567–587.
48.
GillSRLawD (1989) Global hegemony and the structural power of capital. International Studies Quarterly33(4): 475–299.
49.
GlattfelderJB (2013) Decoding Complexity: Uncovering Patterns in Economic Networks. New York, NY: Springer.
50.
GoddardSE (2009) Brokering change: networks and entrepreneurs in international politics. International Theory1(2): 249–281.
51.
GoddardSE (2018) Embedded revisionism: networks, institutions, and challenges to world order. International Organization72(4): 763–797.
52.
GopinathG (2016) The international price system. Jackson Hole Symposium Proceedings.
53.
Hafner-BurtonEMontgomeryA (2006) Power positions: international organizations, social networks, and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(1): 3–27.
54.
Hafner-BurtonEMMontgomeryAH (2009) Globalization and the social power politics of international economic networks. In KahlerM (ed.), Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
55.
Hafner-BurtonEMMontgomeryAH (2012) War, trade, and distrust: why trade agreements don’t always keep the peace. Conflict Management and Peace Science29(3): 257–278.
56.
Hafner-BurtonEMMontgomeryAH (2014) Centrality in transnational governance: how networks of international institutions shape power processes. Presented at the new power politics: networks, governance, and global security workshop, Denver, CO, 1 March 2013.
57.
HartJ (1974) Structures of influence and cooperation-conflict. International Interactions1: 141–162.
58.
HartJ (1976) Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations. International Organization30(2): 289–305.
59.
HeemskerkEMYoungKTakesFW, et al. (2018) Big corporate network data: problems, diagnostics, and fixes. Global Networks18(1): 3–32.
60.
HelleinerE (2011) Understanding the 2007-2008 global financial crisis: lessons for scholars of international political economy. Annual Review of Political Science14: 67–87.
61.
HelleinerE (2014) The Status Quo Crisis: Global Financial Governance After the 2008 Meltdown. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62.
IkenberryGJ (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
IkenberryGJNexonDH (2019) Hegemony studies 3.0: the dynamics of hegemonic orders. Security Studies. Forthcoming.
64.
KeohaneRO (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
KhannaAWinecoffWK (2020) The money shapes the order. International Studies Perspectives Forthcoming.
66.
KinneBJ (2013) Network dynamics and the evolution of international cooperation. American Political Science Review107(4): 766–785.
67.
KinneBJ (2014) Dependent diplomacy: signaling, strategy, and prestige in the diplomatic network. International Studies Quarterly58(2): 247–259.
68.
KinneBJ (2018) Defense cooperation agreements and the emergence of a global security network. International Organization72(4): 799–837.
KinneBJBunteJB (2020) Guns or money? Defense co-operation and bilateral lending as coevolving networks. British Journal of Political Science. forthcoming.
71.
KirshnerJ. (2014) American Power After the Financial Crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
72.
LakeDA (2009a) Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
73.
LakeDA (2009b) Open economy politics: a critical review. The Review of International Organizations4(3): 219–244.
74.
LakeDAPowellR (1999) International relations: a strategic-choice approach. In LakeAPowellR (eds), Strategic Choice and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
75.
LayneC (2012) The time it’s real: the end of unipolarity and the “pax americana”. International Studies Quarterly56(1): 203–213.
76.
LinsiLMüggeD (2019) Globalization and the growing defects of international economic statistics. Review of International Political Economy. Forthcoming.
77.
MaozZ (2010) Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816-2001. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
78.
MaozZ (2012a) How network analysis can inform the study of international relations. Conflict Management and Peace Science29(3): 247–256.
79.
MaozZ (2012b) Preferential attachment, homophily, and the structure of international networks, 1816–2003. Conflict Management and Peace Science29(3): 341–369.
80.
MilnerHSnyderJ (1988) Lost hegemony?International Organization42(4): 749–750.
81.
MuthukrishnaMBellAVHenrichJ, et al. (2018) Beyond weird psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. SSRN Working Paper.
82.
NexonDH (2009) The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83.
NorrlofC (2010) America’s Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84.
NorrlofCWohlforthWC (2016) Is us grand strategy self-defeating? Deep engagement, military spending and sovereign debt. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Forthcoming.
85.
OatleyT (2011) The reductionist gamble: open economy politics in the global economy. International Organization65(2): 311–341.
86.
OatleyT (2015) A Political Economy of American Hegemony: Military Booms, Buildups, and Busts. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
87.
OatleyT (2017) The political economy of hegemony: the (surprising) persistence of American hegemony. In ThompsonWR (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
88.
OatleyT (2019) Toward a political economy of complex interdependence. European Journal of International Relations. Forthcoming.
89.
OatleyTWinecoffWK (2012) The domestic rooting of financial regulation in an era of global capital markets. In AthanassiouP (ed.), Research Handbook on Hedge Funds, Private Equity and Alternative Investments. Cheltingham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
90.
OatleyTYackeeJ (2004) American interests and IMF lending. International Politics41: 415–429.
91.
OatleyTWinecoffWKDanzmanSB, et al. (2013) The political economy of global finance: a network model. Perspectives on Politics11(1): 133–153.
92.
PalanRP (2003) Pragmatism and international relations in the age of banker’s capitalism: Susan Strange’s vision for a critical international political economy. In BauerHBrighi (eds), International Relations at LSE: A History of 75 Years. London, UK: Millennium Publishing Group.
93.
PanRKKaskiKFortunatoS (2012) World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports2(902): 1–7.
94.
RussettBM (1985) The mysterious case of vanishing hegemony; or, is mark twain really dead?International Organization39: 457–479.
95.
SchwartzHM (2019) American hegemony: intellectual property rights, money, and infrastructural power. Review of International Political Economy. Forthcoming.
96.
Selmier IIWTOhCH (2013) The power of major trade languages in trade and foreign direct investment. Review of International Political Economy20(3): 486–514.
97.
ShambaughD (2013) China Goes Global: The Partial Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
98.
SimonHA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society106(6): 467–482.
99.
SlaughterA-M (2012) A grand strategy of network centrality. In FountaineRLordKM (eds) America’s Path: Grand Strategy for the Next Administration, 43–56. Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security.
100.
SlobodianQ (2018) Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
101.
SmithJMHalginDSKidwell-LopezV, et al. (2014) Power in politically charges networks. Social Networks36(0): 162–176.
102.
SobelAC (2012) Birth of Hegemony: Crisis, Financial Revolution, and Emerging Global Networks. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
103.
SobelAC (2014) Financial roots of hegemony, cooperation, and globalization. In OatleyTWinecoffWK (eds), Research Handbook on the International Monetary System. Edward Elgar Publishing.
104.
StarrsS (2013) American economic power hasn’t declined – it globalized! summoning the data and taking globalization seriously. International Studies Quarterly57(4): 817–830.
105.
StarrsS (2014) The chimera of global convergence. New Left Review87(May/June): 87–96.
106.
StarrsS. (2015) China’s rise is designed in America, assembled in china. China’s World2(2): 9–20.
107.
StarrsS (2017) The rise of emerging markets signifies the end of the beginning of the American century: Henry luce and the emergence of global capitalism. In RegilmeSSFParisotJ. (eds), American Hegemony and the Rise of Emerging Powers: Cooperation Or Conflict. London, UK: Routledge.
108.
StrangeS (1982) Cave! hic dragones: a critique of regime analysis. International Organization36(2): 479–496.
109.
StrangeS (1987) The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International Organization41(4): 551–574.
110.
StrangeS (1988a) The future of the American empire. Journal of International Affairs42(1): 1–17.
111.
StrangeS (1988b) The persistent myth of lost hegemony: reply to Milner and Snyder. International Organization42(4): 751–752.
112.
StrangeS (1988c) States and Markets. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
113.
SubramanianA (2011a) Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China’s Economic Dominance. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
114.
SubramanianA (2011b) The inevitable superpower. Foreign Affairs90(5): 66–78.
115.
SubramanianA (2011c) Renminbi rules: the conditional imminence of the reserve currency transition. Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper 11-14.
116.
ThompsonWR (2013) Analyzing relative decline in Zakaria’s post-American world. In ClarkSHoqueS. (eds), Debating a Post-American World: What Lies Ahead?London, UK: Routledge.
117.
ThompsonWR (2018) The problem with unipolarity. In BergesenAJSuterC (eds), The Return of Geopolitics. Zurich, Switzerland: World Society Foundation.
118.
ToozeRMayC (2002) Authority and Markets: Susan Strange’s Writings on International Political Economy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
119.
Trevino-CantuJA (2010) Merchants of Light: Conversations with Outstanding Scholars in the Social Sciences. Monterrey, Mexico: Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon.
120.
TriffinR (1960) Gold and the Dollar Crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
121.
TriffinR (1978) The international role and fate of the dollar. Foreign Affairs57(2): 269–286.
122.
United States Department of Defense (2014) Base structure report -fiscal year 2014 baseline.
123.
ValerianoBManessRC (2015) Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
124.
VineD (2015) Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
125.
VitaliSGlattfelderJBBattistonS (2011) The network of global corporate control. PLoS ONE6(10): 1–6.
126.
WallRv. d. KnaapB (2011) Centrality and structure within contemporary worldwide corporate networks. Economic Geography87(3): 267–308.
127.
WallersteinI (1984) The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
128.
WardMDAhlquistJSRozenasA (2013) Gravity’s rainbow: dynamic networks models of international commerce. Network Science1(1): 95–118.
129.
WellmanB (1988) Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In WellmanBBerkowitzS (eds), Social structures: A network approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
130.
WinecoffWK (2013) Global banking as a complex political economy. Presented at the annual meeting of the american political science association, Chicago, IL.
131.
WinecoffWK (2015) Financial power and the global crisis: a network analytical approach. Business and Politics17(3): 495–526.
132.
WinecoffWK (2016) Systemic politics and the federal reserve’s international crisis lending, 2007-2011. Presented at the annual meeting of the southern political science Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
133.
WinecoffWK (2017a) Global banking as a politicized habitat. Business and Politics19(2): 267–297.
134.
WinecoffWK (2017b) How did international political economy become reductionist? A historiography of a subdiscipline. In ThompsonWR (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
135.
YoungK (2015) Not by structure alone: power, prominence, and agency in American finance. Business and Politics17(3): 443–472.
136.
ZhouY (2007) The Inside Story of China’s High-Tech Industry: Making Silicon Valley in Beijing. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
