The (future) Redistribution of Power

On June 16^th, Foreign Affairs published an article titled “The Age of Entropy” by Randall Schweller.  Schweller argues that we will likely move from our current age of predicable order led by a single or small group of superpowers, to an age of uncertainty characterized by a number of smaller powers that differ in nature and manner of leadership.  In a rather frank statement, Schweller says,   

“rather than asking themselves which country is most likely to replace the United States, they ought to be asking themselves whether the concept of global hegemony still applies in our era.”

Schweller mentions nations, corporations, ideological movements, crime and terrorist groups and human rights organizations as examples of new potential powers that will be able to lead and influence the global realm.   Schweller anticipates that our future will be characterized by frequent cold threats and increased problems between these smaller powers.  Further, cooperative resolutions will be harder to attain.  Through the redistribution of power, dominance will instead be asserted through cold threats and physical violence avoided. 

Wars of the past, in Schweller’s perspective, were “a good thing in some sense, because they replenished the international system with new energy in service of world order and lasting peace.”  From a purely objective perspective, this statement makes sense.  Fresh from the field of battle, state actors would want to do everything they could to avoid future loss.   Partnerships would be strengthened, resolutions passed, and disagreements settled amicably.  However, without the threat of a hot war, actors may not feel the urgency needed to promote lasting peace.  We may instead see a rise in the manipulation of economic assets, boycotts, and trade restrictions as these smaller powers wield their authority unchecked by a hegemonic power. 

While reading this article, I was reminded of Prof. Jackson’s lecture this week.  In his lecture, he says that states successfully hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory.  If Schweller’s perspective is correct and power shifts to entities such as organizations, corporations, or terrorist groups, I would anticipate that this monopoly would end.  The legitimate use of force by states may likely pass along to privatized security forces supported by those in power, such as the PSCs seen in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. 

Considered in its entirety, Schweller’s perspective is not a positive one, in fact stating that we are on the “cusp of an eternal purgatory.” Confusion and instability are not adjectives we necessarily want describing the global realm, despite the positive growth of global peace.  He seems to think this result is inevitable, but is it too late to change course?