Comparing Measures of National Power
| Author | Hyung Min Kim |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512110371239 |
| Date | 01 September 2010 |
| Published date | 01 September 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Corresponding author:
Hyung Min Kim, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea.
[email: kim.hyungm@gmail.com]
Comparing Measures of
National Power
Hyung Min Kim
Abstract
This article proposes a new national power concept, using the social network perspective, called ‘structural
network power,’ which is defined as the power of an individual state arising from its location within the
networks of international relations. This article primarily aims to compare and contrast the new measure
of national power (structural network power index [SNPI]) to the previous measures of national power
(focusing on the correlates of war composite index of national capabilities [CINC]), which is the most widely
used measure of national power in international relations. A comparison of the two measures is performed
using two sets of analyses: confirmatory factor analyses and correlation analyses (Pearson and Spearman).
The results clearly show that the two power measures tap into two different aspects of national power
– one measured by the attribute-based power concept and the other measured by the relations-based
power concept – and that the measurement model of the new national power measure performs far better
than that of previous national power measures. Based on these results, scholars are advised to consider
different aspects and measures of national power when they study national power and its application to the
phenomena in the fields of comparative politics and international relations.
Keywords
confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, international relations, national power, social network
perspective
Introduction
This article proposes a new power concept, using the social network perspective, called ‘struc-
tural network power,’ which is defined as the power of an individual state arising from its location
within the networks of international relations. 1 A state does not maintain its power in isolation
from other states nor from the system structure; rather, it has power as a consequence of its inter-
active relations with other states in the system and its structural positions in the networks of rela-
tions. A structural network power concept views an individual state’s power as arising from its
positions in different interaction networks of international relations: if it is well-positioned, or
International Political Science Review
31(4) 405–427
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512110371239
ips.sagepub.com
406 International Political Science Review 31(4)
occupies relatively advantageous positions in networks, it will be powerful. As most social network
theorists emphasize, there is a consensus among social network analysts that a positive relation-
ship exists between an actor’s centrality (i.e. holding an advantageous position compared with
other actors) and its power within a network. Actors occupying central positions in the network
are essentially seen to be powerful due to their greater access to and possible control over the
relevant resources. Social network theorists argue that a state with a high centrality (i.e. with
an advantageous position) holds a powerful and prominent position in the network (Freeman,
1978/1979; Knoke and Kuklinski, 1982; Freeman et al., 1991; Wasserman and Faust, 1994;
Borgatti and Everett, 1999; Degenne and Forsé, 1999; Scott, 2000; Hanneman and Riddle, 2001;
Borgatti et al., 2002; Brandes and Erlebach, 2005; Carrington et al, 2005). A state with most vis-
ibility and centrality is the point where there is most activity in the network and gains influence
as a result (Wasserman and Faust, 1994).
This way of conceptualizing a state’s power concurs with the work of social network theorists
who believe that the characteristics of social units arise out of structural or relational processes
played out among all the units within the network. The measures of structural network powers in
this article are derived by utilizing six types of international interaction data sets relating to com-
munication patterns and resource flows:
1. diplomatic exchanges from Singer and Small (1991) and from Bayer (2006);
2. foreign student exchanges from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)’s Statistical Yearbook (various years);
3. international telecommunications from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)’s
Yearbook of Statistics (various years) and Direction of Traffic (various years);
4. arms transfers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s Arms
Transfers Database;
5. international exports from Gleditsch (2002, 2004);
6. international assistance from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)’s International Development Statistics: Geographical Distribution of Financial
Flows to Aid Recipients.
This article primarily aims to compare and contrast the new measure of national power – namely,
the structural network power index (SNPI) – to the previous measures of national power, focusing
on the correlates of war (COW) material capability index – namely, the composite index of national
capabilities (CINC), which is the most widely used measure of national power in the field of inter-
national relations.2 A comparison of the two measures is performed using two sets of analyses:
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and correlation analyses (Pearson and Spearman). The first
part of this article suggests the theoretical justification for the new power measures. The second
provides the results and discussion of the CFA of the measurement models of CINC and SNPI. The
CFA evaluates the performance of a particular factor structure through a measurement model that
assesses the fit of the structure with the data. In other words, the analysis is used to examine the
structure of each national power index (CINC and SNPI) by comparing its models with the data,
allowing for measurement errors in the indicator variables. The analysis provides insight into
which index of national power provides the better fit in its measurement model. The third part of
this article provides the results and discussion of the Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses
for the two power measures. The analyses indicate the strength and direction of a relationship
between the two measures over time.
To continue reading
Request your trial