Understanding American Power: Conceptual Clarity, Strategic Priorities, and the Decline Debate
| Author | Nicholas Kitchen,Adam Quinn |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12609 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
Understanding American Power:
Conceptual Clarity, Strategic Priorities,
and the Decline Debate
Adam Quinn
University of Birmingham
Nicholas Kitchen
University of Surrey
Abstract
What does it mean for the United States to be powerful? The prospect of a decline in American power, especially relative to a
rising China, has attracted considerable scholarly and political attention. Despite a wealth of data, disagreements persist
regarding both the likely trajectory of the US-China balance and the most effective strategy for preserving America’s advan-
tage into the future. This article locates the source of these enduring disputes in fundamental conceptual differences over the
meaning of power itself. We map the distinct tracks of argument within the decline debate, showing that competing positions
are often rooted in differences of focus rather than disputes over fact. Most fundamental is a divide between analyses dedi-
cated to national capabilities, and others that emphasise mechanisms of relational power. This divide underpins how strate-
gists think about the goal of preserving or extending American power. We therefore construct a typology of competing
understandings of what it means for America to be powerful, to show that a strategy suited to bolstering American power
according to one definition of that goal may not support, and may even undermine, American power understood in other
ways.
Policy Implications
•Policymakers should be cognisant that the ‘power shift’debate is not reducible to simple differences in forecasts regard-
ing material capabilities. It also encompasses fundamental differences over what it means for the United States to be
powerful.
•When evaluating claims regarding the future balance of national capabilities, insist on clarity as to what of type of argu-
ment is being made. Does it:
oForecast a trend in conventional metrics, such as GDP or military spending?
oDispute the adequacy of these metrics to capture qualitative differences?
oPredict that a specific policy intervention will succeed/fail in altering present trajectories?
oPosit a critical weakness in economic, military or political infrastructure that could bring about a collapse in the
capabilities of the US or its rivals?
•When developing strategy, prioritise between alternative understandings of power. Which is more important:
oThe size of the gap in material capabilities between the United States and its nearest rival?
oThe United States’ability to dominate others coercively?
oThe United States having sufficient influence to obtain preferred outcomes consensually?
oThe entrenchment and longevity of a world order with liberal characteristics?
•Strategists should acknowledge that while sometimes the policies best fitted to pursuing these different ends may be
complementary, often they are not. Necessary trade-offs therefore ought to be identified and evaluated in a deliberate,
calculated and strategic manner.
When was the last time you’ve seen our country
win at anything? We don’t win anymore... No mat-
ter what it is, we don’t seem to have it.
-Donald Trump, 18 April 2015 (Reuters, 2015).
Global Policy (2019) 10:1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12609 ©2018 The Authors. Global Policy published by Durham University and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 1 . February 2019 5
Research Article
To continue reading
Request your trial