Blaese International institutions and the power of the EU: How has it been affected by the financial crisis?

1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-3-95489-511-3
Verlag: Anchor Academic Publishing
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 67 Seiten

Power shifts happened several times throughout history, but they do not occur frequently and are often connected with the use of force. Presently, there is a power shift from the western industrialized states, e.g., from member states of the European Union (EU), to Asian states, in particular China. However, in spite of this growth, it is disputed to what extent the rise of these economies already transcended into power and how it will develop in the future. What is clear by now is that the recent global financial and economic crisis was the worst one in post World War II history. The crisis emerged in the United States and then spread to the EU and to other countries. It led to quickly rising public debt levels in western industrialized states. During this time, states like China or India extended their participation within global economic governance foras, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the G20. This raises the question of how the power of the European Union within these international institutions was affected by the crisis? The purpose of this publication is to research this question. Consequently, the examination is situated within the domain of the global financial and economic crisis, the shift of power and the power of the EU in international institutions. In order to give an answer to the above stated question, the power shift in international institutions during the time of crisis is to be assessed. The IMF and the G20 are analyzed in depth in order to shed light on the topic. The results then help to identify the trend of EU power.

In 2010, Jan-David Blaese completed his Magister Artium in Politischen Wissenschaften, Neuerer Geschichte, and Öffentlichem Recht at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. To further deepen his knowledge of international and European politics, he then completed a Master's degree in European Studies at the center for Europäische Integrationsforschung in Bonn. Having completed his MA, the author worked for the Bureau of European Policy Advisors at the European commission in Brussels.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Blaese, Jan-David

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;International institutions and the power of the EU;1
1.1;Table of Contents;4
1.2;1. Introduction;5
1.2.1;1.1 Purpose of this publication;5
1.2.2;1.2 Structure of the paper and state of research;6
1.3;2. Conceptual and theoretical framework;8
1.3.1;2.1 The notion of power;8
1.3.2;2.2 Power concepts of the European Union as an international actor;11
1.3.3;2.3 Institutions in international relations theory;13
1.3.4;2.4 Concluding remarks on the conceptual and theoretical framework;15
1.4;3. The global financial and economic crisis and the reactions of the European Union;16
1.5;4. The power of the European Union in the International Monetary Fund and the G20 during the global financial and economic crisis;20
1.5.1;4.1 The International Monetary Fund;20
1.5.1.1;4.1.1 The function and quota structure of the International Monetary Fund;20
1.5.1.2;4.1.2 Development up to and during the global financial and economic crisis;23
1.5.1.3;4.1.3 The power of the European Union before and after the crisis;25
1.5.2;4.2 The G20;30
1.5.2.1;4.2.1 The structure and function of the G20;30
1.5.2.2;4.2.2 Development during the global financial and economic crisis;32
1.5.2.3;4.2.3 The power of the European Union before and after the crisis;34
1.6;5. Conclusion: How did the crisis affect the Unions’ power in international institutions like the IMF and the G20?;43
1.7;6. Bibliography;47
1.8;7. Annexes;58
1.9;8. List of Abbreviations;67

Leseproben

Text Sample: Chapter 2.,Conceptual and theoretical framework: 2.1, The notion of power: ,International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power' - this is the introductory statement that Hans J. Morgenthau formulated in his famous work 'Politics among Nations'. Not only Morgenthau, but numerous scholars, like Thucydides and Machiavelli, have been concerned with the notion of power. The more recent attempts to explore the term 'power' often build on the definition given by Max Weber: power is the ,opportunity [Chance] to have one's will prevail [durchsetzen] within a social relationship, also against resistance, no matter what this opportunity is based on'. Three main findings can be drawn from this definition: firstly, power is presented as a social relationship, i.e. a relational phenomenon. Secondly, the identification of power allows an identification of the position someone is placed in compared to others. Thirdly, this definition encompasses two oppositional aspects, resistance and cooperation. In order to measure power and power positions of actors in international relations, two broad lines of argumentation have developed. The first one, specified e.g. in the works of Nicholas J. Spykman, Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth N. Waltz is called the 'elements of national power' approach. It claims that power can be measured in terms of resources (e.g. military, population). However, this approach has been challenged over the last half of the twentieth century, because it entails several conceptual difficulties. First of all it is problematic that resources are treated as power itself. Power is expressed through the use of resources in a specific situation and therefore dependent on the perspective in which a situation is evaluated. What may be a power asset in one situation can be a power liability in another. With regard to that, power, in contrast to e.g. money, has a low 'fungibility': resources of power in one dimension can hardly be converted or substituted by power resources in another dimension. With the power definition of Robert A. Dahl, who built upon the work of Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, a second line of argumentation evolved: ,A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do'. This definition not only influenced the evolution of the so-called 'relational power' approach, but also triggered the 'faces of power' debate. It was criticized especially by Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, because Dahl's definition does not take into account that certain decisions may not take place at all. In fact they urged for the analysis of what they called the 'second face of power' and what came to be known as agenda-setting power. This then stands for certain actors, who are able to limit the choice of topics on which decisions can be taken, if they are capable to use the rules of the game to their advantage. This objection moved the focus of the definition of power from the direct power relation between individuals to one within their environment. Expanding this shift, Steven M. Lukes introduced a 'third face of power', which relates to the concepts of Foucault. Lukes argues that there is not only agenda-setting power, but also that power is able to influence the more fundamental 'agreement' on which an agenda must be based. This means that B and A may agree on an agenda but power may be exercised in the sense, that those agreements are constructed by dominant organs of power in society. This 'face of power' debate, which is connected to the 'relational power' approach illustrates that power is relational and multidimensional. The possibilities to exert power are dependent on the context. This means that power can increase in one dimension, while it decreases in another. With regard to David A. Baldwin, there are the following important dimensions of power: Scope; scope refers to the aspect of B's behavior affected by A. Domain; the domain of an actor's power refers to the number of other actors subject to ist influence. Weight; the weight of an actor's power refers to the probability that B's behavior is or could be affected. Costs; is it costly or cheap for A to influence B and for B to comply with the demands of A? Means; there are many means of exercising influence like symbolic, economic, military and diplomatic ones. Building on this relational and multidimensional concept of power the approach of Michael N. Barnett and Raymond Duvall, like Baldwin's, identifies certain dimensions of power: Compulsory power, which allows one actor to have direct control over another. Institutional power, e.g. when states form international institutions to their advantage. Structural power, which is the composition of social capacities and interests of actors in direct relation to each other. Productive power i.e. is the social production of subjectivity in systems of meaning and signification. Barnett and Duvall define power generally as ,[...] the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their own circumstances and fate.' With this definition they identify two core analytical levels. The first one highlights the kinds of social relations through which power works. The second one covers the specificity of social relations through which effects on actors' capabilities are produced. This latter one is focusing on whether the degrees of social relations, through which power works, are direct and socially specific or indirect and socially diffuse. Thus, there are two possible choices. Either there are specific relations of power, which entail some immediate and generally tangible connections between actors. Contrary to that there is the option to see power in indirect and socially diffuse relations, i.e. even if the connections between actors are detached and mediated. This second option highlights the fact that power can be located in the rules of institutions, which are means of mediation between actors, indicating the institutional dimension of power. Actors work with and within the web of rules and procedures that define institutions. Such rules and procedures can shape outcomes in ways that favor some actors over others. Hence, institutional power is actors indirect control over socially distant others. Thereby, an actor affects the behavior or conditions of others through institutional arrangements. Having outlined the argumentation of Barnett and Duvall their definition shall be used in the following. This is because of two key reasons: Firstly, they developed their definition with the reasoning not to focus on a single theory of international relations and, to allow considering the multidimensionality of power. Because in the following, international institutions will be assessed through the analytical lenses of two political theories, neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, the overarching approach is needed. Secondly, their conceptual framework allows to measure institutional power through institutional arrangements. This approach will be taken to analyze the International Monetary Fund and the G20. It presumes that institutional arrangements are of some importance for the power of the European Union as an international actor, which will be reviewed in the subsequent section.