Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age
It was easier in the old days. Scholars could put together statistics on a country's population, its steel and coal output, and the size of its armed forces -- and one could then roughly measure its place in the hierarchy of nations. This think-tank monograph represents an interesting way of coming up with more sophisticated measures. Riddled with charts, taxonomies, and diagrams, the book concludes with the perennial call for further research while getting to some useful points. The authors' premise that the postindustrial world requires new ways to assess national power is surely correct; their approach is quantitative enough to include measures for "ideational resources" and "diffusion of innovation." This study is useful but merits some caution: power is so contextual that all-encompassing indices and the hubris they may breed can mislead as much as they inform.
Related
Jean Monnet's dream that European integration would eliminate conflict may have been a delusion. France and other countries do not share Germany's fixation on sound money -- or its hegemonic vision. A European central bank would be unresponsive to local unemployment, while political union would remove competitive pressures within Europe for structural reform, prompting protectionism and conflict with the United States. A Europe of 300 million people and an independent military might be a force for world peace, but war is also a distinct possibility.
No, it is not a silly question -- merely one that is not asked often enough. Odd as it may seem, the country that is home to a fifth of humankind is consistently overrated as an economy, a world power, and a source of ideas. Economically, China is a relatively unimportant small market; militarily, it is less a global rival like the Soviet Union than a regional menace like Iraq; and politically, its influence is puny. The Middle Kingdom is a middle power. China matters far less than it and most of the West think, and it is high time the West began treating it as such.
Advocates of "Europe" -- a united, federal European state -- tout their project as at once a noble political ideal and a pragmatic economic strategy. Both arguments are wrong. The European Union's bureaucrats will stifle the continent's economy, and its politicos will breed corruption and nationalist resentment. Letting the EU handle security matters would be equally disastrous, as the fiasco in Bosnia demonstrates. Despite all this, the partisans of "Europe" warn the skeptical that the train is pulling out of the station. Those who care about Europe will let it go.
