Download - LSE Theses Online - London School of Economics and ...

As noted by Taliaferro, however, neorealism, by avoiding analysis of the internalcharacteristics of states, completely overlooks their differential capacity to respondto shifts in the balance of power:“Waltz’s theory assumes that units have an unlimited capacity to extract andmobilize resources from domestic society. For balance-of-power theory, what matters is astate’s aggregate power, the sum of its economic, potential, and military capabilities”. 165Nonetheless, this relative distribution of power among states is whatdecision-makers perceive when they consider the state’s position in the internationalsystem. The distribution of power in the system affects the extent to which statescan attain their goals. Their goals, in turn, are determined by their own nationalcapacity and the extent to which this can be mobilized and extracted by central decisionmakers.166Mobilisation, recall, refers to economic measures to enhance national wealth, while‘extraction’ refers to the conversion “of wealth into power by taxing, requisitioning,or expropriating social resources”. These resources are directed toward militaryexpenditure, aid donations, dues payable to international organisations and otherinternational activities. 167State goals range from the bare essential ‘survival’ to aggrandizement of nationalpower. Emerging powers seek recognition from established powers; improvedaccess to overseas markets; and, the increased ability to participate in systemaffectingdecision-making. Therefore, threats can also be framed in terms of thesegoals. However, in providing dynamism to the framework, it is posited, withZakaria, that where states experience significant growth in their material resources,they tend to redefine their political interests abroad, “measured by their increases inmilitary spending, initiation of wars, acquisition of territory, posting of soldiers anddiplomats, and participation in great-power decision-making”. 168 Thus, growth inmaterial resources links the classical measure of state strength – physical resources –with a conception of changing national interests in response to this growth, throughthe mechanism of perception.165 Taliaferro, “State Building for Future Wars”, 478.166 Zakaria, From Wealth to Power. Zakaria illustrates how the US emerged as a worldpower at the turn of the twentieth century in response to the consolidation of executiveand state power domestically, rather than as a response to external threats.167 Mastanduno et al., “Toward a Realist Theory of State Action”, 462-463.168 Zakaria, From Wealth to Power, 3.88