THE MAKING OF INTERNATIONAL STATUS | Oxford University Press (Forthcoming)
With great power rivalry on the rise again, many worry that struggles for status among states could lead to war. As a growing consensus indicates, status-dissatisfied states are more prone to conflict. Yet, a fundamental question remains: how do states achieve status? Scholars traditionally assume that status is a function of state attributes, especially material capabilities, but do not put this assumption to the test. Drawing on interdisciplinary research, this book develops a network theory of status. It argues that status depends on patterns of state relations, rather than on the properties of states. To understand how international hierarchies of status are made, the book traces their origins back to key transformations that magnified global inequality in the nineteenth century. As Europeans made a turn to imperialism, status distinctions legitimized inequality by drawing a boundary between “civilized” Europeans entitled to sovereignty on the one hand, and “uncivilized” non-Europeans unable to govern themselves on the other hand. Once established, status distinctions reinforced inequality via cumulative advantage mechanisms: the higher standing a state enjoys, the more it attracts additional recognition. It is no coincidence that, to this day, status evaluations rely on governance ideals associated with the West. Conducting a network analysis of diplomatic relations since the early nineteenth century, this study reveals relational patterns in status recognition that had not been examined empirically. By distinguishing status from the properties of states, the book aims to move status to its rightful place as a concept central to the study of international politics.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: How Do Countries Achieve Status? [click for chapter summary]
Although scholars rely on status to explain important phenomena in international politics—such as hegemonic wars and the foreign policies of emerging powers—existing research pays little attention to the question of how countries achieve status. Researchers traditionally assume that status is a function of the qualities of states, especially their material capabilities. However, this assumption remains like a folk theory of status, taken to be true even though it has not been put to the test. And while previous research acknowledges the relational and symbolic dimensions of status, such dimensions remain under-theorized. This book builds on previous studies by specifying the relational processes that shape status recognition in the international system. By showing that status emerges from relational processes that cannot be reduced to the qualities of states, the book highlights the analytical usefulness of status for theories of international politics.
Chapter 2: A Network Theory of Status
Drawing on interdisciplinary research, this chapter posits that status depends on patterns of state relations. As such, status recognition is subject to nonlinear effects or emerging properties that cannot be reduced to state attributes. Once established, status distinctions reinforce inequality, independently from material conditions, via cumulative advantage mechanisms. In the international system, three mechanisms make status self-reinforcing. First, status involves social closure, or the establishment of a social boundary between an established group—deemed superior and therefore entitled to privileges—and outsiders. Second, consensus effects shape status recognition: the more a state receives recognition, the more others deem it worthy of recognition. Finally, status involves privileges that beget more status: high-status states act as standard-setters, shaping the criteria for status recognition; and as gatekeepers, shaping recognition decisions. By defining the rules of the game, high-status states enjoy considerable advantage in the process of status recognition.
Chapter 3: A Relational Empirical Strategy
To investigate the sources of status, this book examines diplomatic networks. Social network analysis is ideally suited to investigate the observable implications from a network theory of status because it detects relational patterns that are not observable using conventional methods. The chapter first justifies the measurement strategy used based on international law, introduces the data, discusses the operationalization criteria used, and explains why embassy exchange is preferable to other potential measures of status. The chapter then addresses potential concerns associated with embassy exchange, dispelling common misconceptions about its use as a measure of status. Finally, the chapter validates the proposed measure using qualitative and quantitative evidence from multiple sources. As a comprehensive analysis of the network of embassies shows, embassy exchange adequately captures both recognition and hierarchy, the two necessary dimensions in the concept of status. Moreover, states' positions in the network are not determined by their material capabilities.
Chapter 4: A Network Model of Diplomatic Status
This chapter examines the implications of the book’s argument for the formation of ties in the diplomatic network. Leveraging inferential network analysis, which enables researchers to directly test hypotheses involving network effects, the chapter assesses why states send embassies to certain destinations and not others. The analysis demonstrates that a relational model performs much better than attribute-based explanations in theorizing the underlying dynamics of the diplomatic network. To begin, a state’s existing relations affect its ability to achieve status: states prove more likely to recognize states that recognize them in return or that share diplomatic partners with them. Moreover, status is self-reinforcing: the more a state receives recognition, the more it attracts additional recognition. Finally, it is attribute similarity—rather than the possession of attributes per se—that drives recognition: states recognize those states that are like them, rather than the states with the largest share of attributes.
Chapter 5: The Core-Periphery Structure of the Diplomatic Network
This chapter examines the implications of the book’s argument at the structural level of the diplomatic network. First, the analysis shows that the network has a core-periphery structure—whereby states can be divided into a well-connected core, comprised mostly of Western or Western-aligned states, and a sparsely connected periphery. Regardless of their position in the network, states are more likely to send embassies to states in the core rather than to states in the periphery. As a result, the size and the composition of the network's core remain stable over time, even as the number of states in the system increases. Second, the analysis shows that membership in the network's core depends on a Western way of life that includes fundamental values like liberal democracy. Predominant conceptions of state competence thus involve not only the ability to fend for oneself under anarchy, but also a Western standard of civilization.
Chapter 6: Do Nuclear Weapons Confer Status?
While existing studies typically treat nuclear weapons as a symbol of international status, the relationship between nuclear weapons and status remains unexplored. This book posits that state attributes matter for status recognition because of their symbolic value, which depends on the social context, rather than because of their functional value or their destructive capacity. Therefore, since nuclear weapons became stigmatized under the nonproliferation regime, nuclearization should not improve a country's standing after 1970. Using the synthetic control method, the analysis first demonstrates that the acquisition of nuclear weapons does not increase the recognition a state receives. Using network analysis, the analysis then shows that the acquisition of nuclear weapons does not evoke recognition from existing nuclear weapons states more specifically. Results are consistent with qualitative evidence for each case, which indicates that under the nonproliferation regime, nuclearization tends to evoke international condemnation rather than praise.
Chapter 7: Conclusion
This chapter concludes the analysis in two steps. The first two sections summarize, respectively, the theoretical and the empirical contributions made by this study. Based on these contributions, the chapter's last section then offers general lessons for research in three areas. First, the analysis demonstrates that international hierarchies of status are far from meritocratic systems. Because status depends on a state’s relations, it is easier to maintain status than to gain it. Second, the analysis indicates that, while the search for status may exacerbate conflict, it may also promote international order. Because great powers also lead by example, continued global leadership requires upholding the existing standards of state competence, which in the US-led international order include liberal democracy. Finally, the analysis suggests that the peacefulness of power transitions depends on whether established and emerging powers share similar conceptions of state competence. Crucially, disputes over status are disputes for legitimacy.