POWER

 

 

 

 

 

Student’s Name

Course

 

 

 

Date

POWER

According to Scholvin and Wigell, power in terms of International Relations (IR) is the country’s economic and military status. It is the central idea in the field of IR with a contested meaning. Scholars are debating the most appropriate meaning, but studies indicate that a nation controls outcomes and resources with power. The measurement of power has been the main issue of knowing “too much” or “too little.” It has been a determining factor in the relationship with a person, country, or government. Connolly has identified power as an important aspect of political science. Therefore it may be connected to political leadership and connection to the different aspects, including economic stability, finances, and import and export balance. A country can view power in terms of reduced import and high export.

Further, international relations consider power as a concept for a measure of control and influence, as an objective for states, attaining security, control, and capability with resources. Baldwin argues in a realist perception that working towards military growth goals, economic and cultural growth. Besides, the ability to use once influence over others in an international platform is also considered power. Exacting economic pressure is one way a country can exercise its power on other less powerful nations. Other methods of influence include using threats and force. It is essential to note that nations could band together and form a powerful alliance. Similarly, a country’s capacity to direct their decision and actions over others is also an aspect of power. This power includes the resources a country possess over others.

Bibliography

Baldwin, David A. Power, and international relations: A conceptual approach. Princeton University Press, 2016.

Connolly, William. Political science and ideology. Routledge, 2017.

Scholvin, Sören, and Mikael Wigell. “Power politics by economic means: Geoeconomics as an analytical approach and foreign policy practice.” Comparative Strategy 37, no. 1 (2018): 73-84.