The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Power in International Politics
Open accessAbstract
The concept of power is central to international relations. Yet disciplinary discussions tend to privilege only one, albeit important, form: an actor controlling another to do what that other would not otherwise do. By showing conceptual favoritism, the discipline not only overlooks the different forms of power in international politics, but also fails to develop sophisticated understandings of how global outcomes are produced and how actors are differentially enabled and constrained to determine their fates. We argue that scholars of international relations should employ multiple conceptions of power and develop a conceptual framework that encourages rigorous attention to power in its different forms. We first begin by producing a taxonomy of power. Power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate. This general concept entails two crucial, analytical dimensions: the kinds of social relations through which power works (in relations of interaction or in social relations of constitution); and the specificity of social relations through which effects are produced (specific/direct or diffuse/indirect). These distinctions generate our taxonomy and four concepts of power: compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive. We then illustrate how attention to the multiple forms of power matters for the analysis of global governance and American empire. We conclude by urging scholars to beware of the idea that the multiple concepts are competing, and instead to see connections between them in order to generate more robust understandings of how power works in international politics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fee, D., & Fairclough, N. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074659 · Cited by 11,611
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Nye, J. S. (1990) · Foreign Policy · doi:10.2307/1148580 · Cited by 2,170
American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy
Bacevich, A. J. (2002) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674020375 · Cited by 456
The Other in European self-definition: an addendum to the literature on international society
Neumann, I. B., & Welsh, J. M. (1991) · Review of International Studies · doi:10.1017/s0260210500112045 · Cited by 373
Cited by
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275678 · Cited by 3,435
(2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491207 · Cited by 461
Self-citationHow to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics
NOLTE, D. (2010) · Review of International Studies · doi:10.1017/s026021051000135x · Cited by 386
What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate
NEXON, D. H., & WRIGHT, T. (2007) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055407070220 · Cited by 357
Dallas, M. P., Ponte, S., & Sturgeon, T. J. (2019) · Review of International Political Economy · doi:10.1080/09692290.2019.1608284 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Barnett, M., & Duvall, R.
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 39-75
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2117702238
- Cited by
- 1,793
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 112.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Power in International Politics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0020818305050010
- The paper
- Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818305050010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.