Critical realism: A better way to think about middle powers
DOI | 10.1177/0020702019850190 |
Published date | 01 June 2019 |
Author | Monica S Jeong |
Date | 01 June 2019 |
Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
Critical realism: A better
way to think about
middle powers
Monica S Jeong
Department of Endicott Interdisciplinary Studies, Woosong
University, South Korea
Abstract
The fundamental problem in middle power scholarship lies in the research design that
inadvertently permits bias, tautology, and circularity in the process of realizing the final
outcome. Most researchers begin with a presumption that middle powers are countries
in the middle range of the world order, capable and willing to play some constructive
roles beyond their borders. Thus, they tend to select methods and data compatible with
the given presumption, and reach predictable outcomes that determine middle power
status by middle power behaviours, or middle power behaviours by middle power
status. This is an epistemic fallacy where the ontic category of middle powers is defined
by the epistemic knowledge of middle powers. Eventually, any countries with compar-
able characteristics/behaviours to the given presumption can be classified as ‘‘middle
powers’’ conducting middle power behaviours. This article offers critical realism as a
much-needed remedy to the stagnant middle power scholarship. It examines a group of
countries already categorized as middle powers—Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea,
Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA)—under a critical realist framework, and finds that
those countries and their activities cannot be generalized by the conventional middle
power conception. In fact, the middle power rhetoric itself holds both a positive and
negative ideological implication that requires further scrutiny. Yet, what makes the
critical realist research design and its findings invaluable is the commitment to onto-
logical realism, epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationalism that addresses the
recurring epistemic fallacy. Therefore, the research findings are not merely new insights
about ‘‘middle power’’ countries; they are a valid clue that can help uncover the ‘‘real’’
world that causes the so-called ‘‘middle power’’ categorization.
Keywords
Middle powers, theories, critical realism, MIKTA
International Journal
2019, Vol. 74(2) 240–257
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702019850190
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Corresponding author:
Monica S Jeong, Woosong University, Donggu, Dongdaejeonro, 171 Daejeon, 34606, Korea (the Republic of).
Email: monicajeong@woosong.org
The concept of ‘‘middle powers’’ is well established within the international com-
munity. Middle powers are generally known as countries neither ‘‘great’’ nor
‘‘small,’’ but capable and willing to play significant roles that influence and
shape what goes on in the world.
1
These countries’ prominence is often identified
by the roles they play as catalysts, facilitators, and managers in the international
community.
2
Some of the well-known traditional middle powers include Australia,
Canada, Norway, and Sweden, but there is now also some recognition of another
group of ‘‘emerging’’ middle powers, such as Argentina, Malaysia, and South
Africa.
3
In some cases, the middle power concept is utilized as an official foreign
policy posture (e.g., in Australia and Canada) which has been internalized and is
evocative of a particular group of countries with distinctive characteristics and
behaviours.
However, underneath the seemingly straightforward categorization persists an
unresolved question: what exactly makes countries ‘‘middle powers’’? Numerous
studies have sought to answer this question by providing a set of criteria associated
with countries’ material capacity, behaviours, and/or ideological attributes claimed
to cause distinct middle power roles.
4
Yet, there is still no precise definition or
consensus on an explicit measurement, except for the general understanding of
middle powers as middle-sized countries willing and able to play constructive
roles in the world. The fundamental problem in the middle power scholarship
actually lies in its connection of theory with research design. Although there are
currently multiple approaches that can examine what makes countries middle
powers, they often result in predictable outcomes that solidify the existing
middle power conception. Thus, a country’s middle power status is determined
by middle power behaviours, and middle power behaviours by middle power
status. This creates a self-confirming loop that prevents middle power studies
from progressing, since the dependent variables that determine the middle power
1. Carsten Holbraad, Middle Powers in International Politics (London: Macmillan, 1984); Andrew F.
Cooper, Richard A. Higgott, and Kim Richard Nossal, Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and
Canada in a Changing World Order (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1993).
2. Cooper, Higgott, and Nossal, Relocating Middle Powers, 24–25.
3. Eduard Jordaan, ‘‘The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between
emerging and traditional middle powers,’’ Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies 30,
no. 1 (2003): 165–181.
4. Holbraad, Middle Powers in International Politics; Laura Neack, ‘‘Delineating state groups through
cluster analysis,’’ The Social Science Journal 30, no. 3 (1993): 347–371; Bernard Wood, ‘‘Middle
powers in the international system: A preliminary assessment of potential,’’ WIDER Working
Paper (1987): 1–44. Jordaan, ‘‘The concept of a middle power in international relations’’; Laura
Neack, The New Foreign Policy: Power Seeking in a Globalized Era, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2008), 161–164; John Ravenhill, ‘‘Cycles of middle power activism: Constraint and
choice in Australian and Canadian foreign policies,’’ Australian Journal of International Affairs
52, no. 3 (1998): 309–327; Andrew F. Cooper, Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold
War (Hampshire: Macmillan, 1997); Andrew Hurrell, Andrew F. Cooper, Guadalupe Gonza
´lez,
Ricardo Ubiraci Sennes, Srini Sitaraman, Paths to Power: Foreign Policy Strategies of Intermediate
States, Latin American Program Working Papers (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Researchers, 2000).
Jeong 241
To continue reading
Request your trial