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

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.

1. Acharya A., Buzan B. 2010. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. London and New York: Routledge. 242 p.

2. Albert M. 2016. A Theory of World Politics. Cambridge University Press. 254 p.

3. Albert M., Buzan B. 2011. Securitization, sectors and functional differentiation. Security dialogue. 42(4-5). P. 413-425. DOI: 10.1177/0967010611418710

4. Axelrod R., Keohane R.O. 1985. Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics. 38(1). P. 226-254. DOI: 10.2307/2010357

5. Barnett M., Duvall R. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization. 59(1). P. 39-75. DOI: 0.1017/S0020818305050010

6. Beckley M. 2018. The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. 43(2). DOI: 10.1162/isec_a_00328

7. Bially-Mattern J., Zarakol A. 2016. Hierarchies in World Politics. International Organization. 70(3). DOI: 10.1017/S0020818316000126

8. Bijan Z. 2005. China's Peaceful Rise to Great-power Status. Foreign Affairs. 84(5). P. 18-24. DOI: 10.2307/20031702

9. Bull H. 1981. Hobbes and the International Anarchy. Social Research. P. 717-738.

10. Bull H. 1995. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. 329 p.

11. Buzan B. 2021. Russia in the Post-Cold War International Order. Russia in Global Affairs. 19(4). P. 22-35. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-4-22-35

12. Buzan B., Albert M. 2010. Differentiation: a Sociological Approach to International Relations Theory. European Journal of International Relations. 16(3). P. 315-337. DOI: 10.1177/1354066109350064

13. Carr A. 2014. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 68(1). P. 70-84. DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2013.840264

14. Chapnick A. 1999. The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 7(2). P. 73-82, DOI: 10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212

15. Clark I. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooley A. 2003. Thinking Rtionally about Hierarchy and Global Governance. Review of International Political Economy. 10(4). P. 672-684. DOI: 10.1080/09692290310001601939 Cooley A., Nexon D. 2020. Exit from Hegemony: the Unraveling of the American Global Order. New York: Oxford University Press. 281 p.

16. Cooper A.F., Higgott R.A., Nossal K.R. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and

17. Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: Ubc Press. 1993. 248 p.

18. Cox R.W. 1989. Middlepowermanship, Japan, and future world order. International Journal. 44(4). P. 823-862.

19. Diedenhofen B., Musch J. 2015. cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations. PLOS ONE. 10(4). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121945

20. Donnelly J. 2006. Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society. European Journal of International Relations. 12(2). P. 139-170. DOI: 10.1177/1354066106064505

21. Donnelly J. 2015. The Discourse of Anarchy in IR. International Theory. 7(3). P. 393-425. DOI: 10.1017/S1752971915000111

22. Duque M.G. 2018. Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach. International Studies Quarterly. 62(3). P. 577-592. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqy001

23. Dutkiewicz P., Casier T., Scholte J.A. 2020. Hegemony and World Order. New York: Routledge. 276 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781003037231

24. Escudé C. 1998. An Introduction to Peripheral Realism and its Implications for the Interstate System. Neuman S. (ed.) International Relations Theory and the Third World. Basingstoke: Macmillan. P. 55–75.

25. Escudé C. 2012. El realismo periférico (RP) y su relevancia teórica ante el ascenso de China. Desarrollo Económico: Revista de Ciencias Sociales. 51(204). P. 529-542.

26. Fehl C., Freistein K. 2020. Organising Global Stratification: How International Organisations (Re)Produce Inequalities in International Society. Global Society. 34(3). P. 285-303. DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2020.1739627

27. Gecelovsky P. 2009. Constructing a Middle Power: Ideas and Canadian Foreign Policy. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 15(1). P. 77-93. DOI: 10.1080/11926422.2009.9673483

28. Germain R. 2020. Global Hegemony from a Longue Durée Perspective: The Dollar and the World Economy. P. Dutkiewicz, T. Casier, J.A. Scholte (eds.) Hegemony and World Order: Reimagining Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge. P. 118-133. DOI: 10.4324/9781003037231.

29. Glazebrook G.D. 1947. The Middle Powers in the United Nations System. International Organization. 1(2). P. 307-318.

30. Holbraad C. 1984. Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan Press. 233 p.

31. Ikenberry J., Nexon D.H. 2019. Hegemony Studies 3.0: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders. Security Studies. 28(3). P. 395-421. DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2019.1604981

32. Jayne D. 1927. The Classification of Diplomatic Agents The American Journal of International Law. 21(4). P. 737-742

33. Kaiser K. 1968. The Interaction of Regional Subsystems: Some Preliminary Notes on Recurrent Patterns and the Role of Superpowers. World politics. 21(1). P. 84-107. DOI: 10.2307/2009747

34. Keohane R.O. 1969. Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization. 23(2). P. 291-310. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830003160X

35. Koenig-Archibugi M. 2013. International Institutions in a Functionally Differentiated World Society. M. Albert, B. Buzan, M. Zürn (eds). Bringing Sociology to International Relations: World Politics as Differentiation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 182-204.

36. Lake DA 1996. Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations. International Organization. 50(1). P. 1-33. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830000165X

37. Landis J.R., Koch, G.G. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33(1). P. 159-174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310

38. Linklater A. 2016. The ‘Standard of Civilization’ in World Politics. Human Figurations. 5(2). Linklater A. 2021. The Idea of Civilization and the Making of the Global Order. Bristol: Bristol University Press. 323 p.

39. Luhmann N. 1977. Differentiation of Society. The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 2(1). P. 29-53.

40. Luhmann N. 1982. The Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press. 482 p.

41. Milner H. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: a Critique.

42. Review of International Studies. 17(1). P. 67-85. DOI: 10.1017/S026021050011232X Montgomery E. 2016. In the Hegemon's Shadow. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 216 p.

43. Nayar B.R., Paul T.V. 2003. India in the World Order: Seeking for a Major Power Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 270 p.

44. Nye J. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books. 307 p.

45. Organski A.F.K. 1958. World Politics. New York: Brooklyn College. 461 p.

46. Osgood R., Tucker R. 1967. Force, Order, and Justice. Baltimore, Maryland and London: The John Hopkins Press. 387 p.

47. Oye K. A. 1985. Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies. World politics. 38(1). P. 1-24. DOI: 10.2307/2010349

48. Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. 2014. Status in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 320 p.

49. Powell R. 1994. Anarchy in International Relations Theory: the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate. International Organization. 48(2). P. 313-344. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300028204 Renshon J. 2017. Fighting for Status Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton University Press. 328 p. DOI: 10.1515/9781400885343

50. Royal K. D. 2019. Survey Research Methods: A Guide for Creating Post-stratification Weights to Correct for Sample Bias. Education in the Health Professions. 2(1). P. 48-50. DOI: 10.4103/EHP.EHP_8_19

51. Schmidt B. 2020. Hegemony: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis and Its Application to the Debate on American Hegemony. P. Dutkiewicz, T. Casier, J.A. Scholte (eds.) Hegemony and World Order: Reimagining Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge. P. 32-47. DOI: 10.4324/9781003037231

52. Schweller R.L., Pu X. 2011. After Unipolarity: China's Visions of International Order in an era of US Decline. International security. 36(1). P. 41-72. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00044

53. Shettima A.G., Tar U.A. 2008. Farmer-pastoralist conflict in West Africa: Exploring the causes and consequences. Information, society and justice journal. 1(2). P. 163-184.

54. Singer J.D., Bremer S., Stuckey J. 1972. Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965. Bruce Russett (ed.) Peace, War, and Numbers. Beverly Hills: Sage. P. 19-48.

55. Singer J.D., Small M. 1966. The Composition and Status Ordering of the International System: 1815-1940. World Politics. 18(2). P. 236-282. DOI: 10.2307/2009697

56. Sucu A., Safranchuk I., Nesmashnyi A., Iskandarov Q. 2021. Transformation of Middle Powers with the Decline of World Hegemony: The Case of Turkey. Strategic Analysis. 45(4). P. 307-320. DOI: 10.1080/09700161.2021.1950409

57. Teo S. 2021. Toward a Differentiation-Based Framework for Middle Power Behavior. International Theory. DOI: 10.1017/S1752971920000688

58. Thompson W.R. 2011. The United States as Global Leader, Global Power, and Status-Consistent Power? T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, R.G. Baird (eds.) Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics. P. 27-53. DOI: 10.1057/9780230119314_2

59. Vandenbosch A. 1964. The Small States in International Politics and Organization. The Journal of Politics. 26(2). 293-312. DOI: 10.2307/2127598

60. Vayrynen R. 1971. On the Definition and Measurement of Small Power Status. Cooperation and Conflict. 6(1). P. 91-102. DOI: 10.1177/001083677100600109

61. Vital D. 1967. The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 198 p.

62. Volynchuk A.B., Volynchuk Ya.A. 2018. The Geopolitical Status of the State: the Theoretical Basis of the Scientific Category, Тhe Territory of New Opportunities. The Herald of Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service. 10(1). P. 57–67. DOI: 10.24866/VVSU/20733984/2018-1/57-67 (In Russian)

63. Walker R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 233 p.

64. Wallace M.D. 1971. Power, Status, and International War. Journal of Peace Research. 8(1). P. 23-35.

65. Waltz K.N. 1967. International Structure, National Fforce, and the Balance of World Power. Journal of International Affairs. 21(2). P. 215-231.

66. Waltz K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 251 p.

67. Waltz K.N. 2001. Man State and War. New York: Columbia University Press. 263 p. Wendt A. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics. International organization. 46(2). P. 391-425. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300027764

68. Wight M. 1960. Why is There no International Theory? International relations. 2(1). P. 35-48.

69. Wohlforth W.C. 2021. How (Not) to Evaluate US Decline and the Emerging Great Power Rivalry. Journal of International Analytics. 12(3). P. 12–18. DOI: 10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-3-12-18

70. Wohlforth W.C., De Carvalho B., Leira H., Neumann I.B. 2018. Moral Authority and Status In International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies. 44(3). P. 526-546. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210517000560

71. Xuetong Y. 2006. The Rise of China and its Power Status. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 1(1). P. 5–33. DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pol00

72. Zarakol A. 2017. Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 320 p.

73. Zhornist V.M., Nesmashnyi A.D., Kharkevich M.V., Safranchuk I.A. 2022. State Differentiation by Climate Ambition: Implications for World Politics. International Organisations Research Journal. In print.

74. Artyushkin V.F., Kazantzev A.A., Sergeev VM 2021. Balance of Power between the G-20 States: Analysis with Multidimensional Scaling Method. Polis. Political Studies. No2. P. 125-138. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.02.09 (In Russian)

75. Bratersky M., Skriba A., Sapogova A. 2021. The Struggle for Recognition or Enhancement of Status: Conditions for the Stability and Development of Unrecognized States Using the Example of Eurasia. International Organisations Reseearch Journal. 16(3). DOI: 10.17323/1996-78452021-03-09 (In Russian)

76. Degterev D.A., Butorov A.S. 2018. International Status of Post-Soviet Countries: Traditional and Relational Approaches to Hierarchy Assessment. International Relations. No4. P. 95103. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0641.2018.4.28233 (In Russian)

77. Gorelskiy I.E., Mironyuk M.G. 2019. Climbing up the Status Ladder: an Experiment in Empirical Research of Relation Between Status of a State in the System of International Relations and State Capacity. Political science (RU). No3. P. 140–174. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2019.03.06 (In Russian)

78. Komleva N.A. 2010. Geopolitical Status of the State: Essence & Classification. Geopolitika y bezopasnost’ [Geopolitics and Security]. No1. P. 23-28. (In Russian)

79. Melville A.Yu., Mironyuk M.G. 2020. “Political Atlas of the Modern World” Revisited. Polis. Political Studies. No6. P. 41-61. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.06.04 (In Russian)

80. Safranchuk I., Zhornist V., Nesmashnyi A. 2021. Hegemony and World Order: An Overview of the Concept “Hegemony as Complexity”. International Organisations Research Journal. 16(1). P. 172–183. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-01-09 (In Russian).

81. Shakleina T.A. 2011. Great Powers in Global and Regional Politics. International trends. 9(2). P. 29-39. (In Russian)