Power and the Varieties of Order - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 28

The Distribution of Power
Relations between states are built on foundations of power. International order has come in
many varieties over the centuries, but in each instance it has been shaped and constrained by
the distribution of power. Indeed, the first questions we typically ask about international or-
der are about power. How is power distributed? Does one state or a few dominate the system,
or is power diffused more broadly? What are the material capabilities that matter in world
politics? How do relations between states change as power shifts? In asking these questions,
we are making a distinction between the distribution of power and the political formations
that are built on top of the distributed capabilities of states. The distribution of power refers
to the way in which material assets and capabilities are arrayed among states and other actors.
The distribution of power tells us who has power but not how it will be used. The distribution
of power provides opportunities and constraints for states within the system. But it does not,
in itself, determine the way power is exercised or how order is created.
The international distribution of power can vary widely. Power capabilities can be more
or less concentrated in the hands of one, a few, or many states. 1 These variations are typically
described in terms of polarity. A multipolar system is one in which power is spread out or
diffused among several states. In a bipolar system, power is concentrated in the hands of two
states. A unipolar system is one in which one state possesses substantially more power capa-
cities than other states. In multipolar and bipolar systems, power capabilities among two or
more states are more or less in balance or equilibrium. These multiple “poles” provide com-
peting centers of power, and the character of their cooperation and competition shapes the
overall international order. In a unipolar system, power is concentrated and unbalanced—the
unipolar state has no peer competitors. 2 It alone is a pole of global power.
Realist theory offers the most systematic characterizations of state power and polarity.
In the realist rendering, a pole is a state that is powerful by virtue of its aggregation of
various material capabilities: wealth, technology, military capacity, and so forth. Kenneth
Waltz provides the classic definition of a pole. A state takes on the position of a pole within
the larger system if it possesses an unusually large share of resources or capabilities and if
it excels in all the various components of state capabilities, including, most importantly, the
“size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capacity, military strength,
political stability and competence.” 3
This conception of power and polarity has been invoked by scholars who offer general
depictions of the global distribution of material capabilities over many centuries. In these ac-
counts, the modern state system has tended to be multipolar from its European beginnings in
the seventeenth century into the mid-twentieth century. During these centuries, a small group
of major states organized the system and competed for influence and control. After World
War II, the era of great-power multipolarity gave way to a bipolar global system dominated