International Hierarchy and Functional Differentiation of States: Results of an Expert Survey

Abstract

This article investigates the existing international hierarchy employing expert survey as its primary method. 'Authority hierarchy' and 'power status hierarchy,' the two existing research traditions of hierarchy studies, are briefly introduced. We demonstrate a gap between basic research on power status, emphasizing its social nature, and applied case studies, primarily relying on purely material indicators of a country's capabilities, such as the GDP and CINC. In times of rapid hierarchical shifts, there is a need for a more nuanced and holistic approach. The article suggests placing hierarchy studies onto the ontological foundation of Niklas Luhmann's Differentiation Theory to overcome these problems. We trace the international society's segmentary differentiation, stratificatory differentiation (status hierarchy), and functional differentiation (specialization). The paper argues that the functional roles of states and their positions in the international hierarchy are interconnected. The hierarchy of states' roles, resulting from functional differentiation, is understood in terms of authority hierarchy. In order to lay the ground for further research, three valuable insights of states in the international hierarchy. Firstly, we categorize 26 countries as belonging to one of the power status categories (small power, middle power, great power, superpower) as of autumn 2021 based on the survey results. We calculate indices operationalizing power, roles, public goods provision, and revisionism for the states in the survey. Secondly, the paper presents experts' evaluations of the importance of various valued attributes (such as the size of the economy, military might, international prestige, autonomy, etc.) for different power status categories. Thirdly, we suggest a novel approach linking a country's position in the international hierarchy to its functional roles. We use correlation analysis to test the hypothesis and compare the roles index to other popular power status indicators.

Counterintervention Success: Analyzing Russian and US Involvement in Syrian Crisis

“…The Global Coalition against Daesh brought together 68 states, including Western and Arabic countries. The coalition sought to eliminate the Islamic State and terrorist groups with a close connection to Al-Qaeda 25 from Syria and Iraq 26 . Today the coalition consists of 86 members, 11 of which participate in airstrikes, and only 4 contribute ground troops (US, UK, France, Australia), while others' participation is formal and symbolic.…”

“…Available at: https://www.aljazeera. com/news/2013/9/18/syria-hands-russia-new-gas-attack-evidence (accessed 22 September 2023) 25. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization prohibited in the Russian Federation 26.…”

European Security Crisis and U.S. Hegemony: Reversing the Decline?

“…These examples alone reflect one of the main elements of the U.S. strategy of the last thirty years: the U.S. prefers to create club benefits for itself and its allies, rather than public goods for the whole world. However, what is important is not what happens to emerging regimes but how the structure of global governance changes around key functions: ensuring security and conditions for economic development (Nesmashnyi et al, 2022).…”

A Reverse Cuban Missile Crisis: Fading Red Lines

“…The U.S. is employing the same tactic of denying red lines in the case of Taiwan. A superpower-and China is widely recognized as one (Nesmashnyi, Zhornist and Safranchuk, 2022)-lacking control over part of its own territory is an anomaly. Eventual reunification with Taiwan is a red line for China, although it has demonstrated flexibility over its time framework and format.…”