I recently attended a presentation by Professor Miles Kahler
who is currently working on a project on emerging economies and global
governance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. His
presentation on the three biggest leading emerging economies, China, India and
Brazil, reminded me of our reading on the notion of social power by Peter van
Ham. Van Ham defines social power as “the ability to set standards, and create
norms and values that are deemed legitimate and desirable, without resorting to
coercion or payment” (p.15). Essentially, social power is the ability to set
the rules of the games. Van Ham describes paradigm-shifting events, such as
financial or economic crises, as opportunities to define new norms. Leading
emerging economies like China are gaining attention because they survived and
recovered from the Great Recession of 2008 faster than advanced economies. The
global worry is that, rather than accepting and complying with the rules, these
emerging economies may weaken or reject the rules in favor of their national
policies. China, India and Brazil have the potential to become the
rule-makers, rather than the rule-takers, in global governance.
Professor Kahler stated that, for now, these emerging
economies appear to be working within the rules of the game. He cited that
their domestic problems (problems pertaining to persistent poverty, growing
inequality, domestic fragility, etc.) serve as obstacles to mobilizing their
capabilities. Van Ham suggests that “social power is derived from social
capital” (p.8), of which these emerging economies would need to accumulate. Although
they have tried to expand their capabilities through regional coalitions, that
has its limitations, as well. Moreover, combined with counter-strategies from
leaders like the U.S., emerging leaders have a difficult time leveraging their
social power.
Can China and India re-claim their share of the global GDP
and social power? As these emerging economies move towards economic convergence
and gain more power, the likelihood of global conflict increases. Does this
create a stronger need for public diplomacy?
Kristie, great post! I think it is a very interesting tie-in between social power and really, a pursuit for institutionalization of what these countries believe to be the best rules for their economies. In that sense, I believe we see that clearly happening with China and their investment in public diplomacy and their Confucius Institutes. This hopes to build more room for western countries to understand Chinese values and the basis for their political system. We have spoken in class of how the Chinese government would like to the West to understand certain key definitions in the way they see, for instance, the concept of sovereingty - so the West would not object to their interest in certain contested areas like Tibet. While China, India and Brazil certainly seem to be on a path for long-term growth, I think the 'rules of the game' need a far longer process to be changed. It'll certainly be interesting to watch and see how and if they evolve.
ReplyDelete