Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Jaschob, Lena and Wurm, Iris 2017. Revisionismus in der internationalen Politik. p. 143.

    Jaschob, Lena and Wurm, Iris 2017. Was frustriert die Gewinner?. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Vol. 10, Issue. S1, p. 143.

    Duque, Marina G 2018. Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 62, Issue. 3, p. 577.

  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: June 2014

11 - Why Status Matters in World Politics


The Stakes

According to traditional theories of world politics, peaceful power transitions only happen when the rising power continues to profit from the institutional order held together by the material capabilities of the declining power. Peace today depends on whether states such as China can remain satisfied as they rise within the existing hierarchy of power and authority. Traditionalists, including some in this volume, reject an independent role for status in major power conflict for structural and rationalistic reasons, based on either material power or legitimate material power. So why bother studying international status? This chapter considers these arguments, and in so doing draws in and amplifies the contributions this volume makes in explaining why status matters in world politics and what further needs to be done to understand its role.

A state’s status is fundamentally different from its material position in the international system, because status is a product of social construction. The editors of this volume define status as “collective beliefs about a given state’s ranking on valued attributes (wealth, coercive capabilities, culture, demographic position, socio-political organization, diplomatic clout).... Status is collective, subjective, and relative” (Chapter 1, pp. 7–8). The material positionality so central to structural theories, such as those of William Thompson (Chapter 9) and David Lake (Chapter 10), is insufficient to explain the import of status or the politics surrounding it. For explanations, we must include other approaches that focus on how the self adopts identities that entail particular statuses, and those that emphasize the social institutions that shape the legitimacy and appropriateness of status claims. As the editors stress, status cannot be objectively inferred from the distribution of material capabilities in the system. Status is not fixed; it is a contingent and dynamic concept dependent on perceptual judgments of the self and others, social institutions, and the interaction of actors over time.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Status in World Politics
  • Online ISBN: 9781107444409
  • Book DOI:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990)
Blau, Peter, “Critical Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Authority,”American Political Science Review 57, no. 2 (June 1963), 307
Hurd, Ian, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 61
Darrington, Jeremy, “Authority,” in Encyclopedia of Governance, Volume I, ed. Bevir, Mark (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2007), 41
Zelditch, Morris, Jr., “Theories of Legitimacy,” in The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, eds. Jost, John T. and Major, Brenda (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 44
Cast, Alicia D. and Burke, Peter J., “A Theory of Self-Esteem,”Social Forces 80, no. 3 (March 2002), 1041–1068
Burke, Peter J. and Stets, Jan E., “Trust and Commitment through Self-Verification,”Social Psychology Quarterly 62, no. 4 (December 1999), 347–360
Stets, Jane E. and Burke, Peter J., “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory,”Social Psychology Quarterly 63, no. 3 (September 2000), 224–237
Bandura, Albert, “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective,”Annual Review of Psychology 52, no. 1 (February 2001), 1–26
Searle, John, Social Construction of Reality (New York: Free Press, 1995)
Clunan, Anne L., The Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 37–38
Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 3–33
Larson, Deborah Welch and Shevchenko, Alexei, “Shortcut to Greatness: The New Thinking and the Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy,”International Organization 57, no. 1 (Winter 2003), 77–109
Spinner-Halev, Jeff and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, “National Identity and Self-Esteem,”Perspectives on Politics 1, no. 3 (September 2003), 515–532
Bandura, Albert, “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,”American Psychologist 37, no. 2 (February 1982), 122–147
Coggins, Bridget, “Friends in High Places: International Politics and the Emergence of States from Secessionism,”International Organization 65, no. 3 (Summer 2011), 433–467
Oakes, Penelope, “Psychological Groups and Political Psychology: A Response to Huddy’s ‘Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory,’”Political Psychology 23, no. 4 (December 2002), 818
Brewer, Marilynn B., “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, no. 5 (October 1991), 475–482
Brewer, Marilynn B., “Social Identity, Distinctiveness, and In-Group Homogeneity,”Social Cognition 11, no. 1 (March 1993), 150–164
Searle, John, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)
Schroeder, Paul, “19th-Century International System,”World Politics 39, no. 1 (October 1986), 1–26
Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977/1995)
Ruggie, John Gerard, Multilateralism Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)
Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)
Philpott, Daniel, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)
Clunan, Anne L., “Redefining Sovereignty: Humanitarianism’s Challenge to Sovereign Immunity,” in Negotiating Sovereignty and Human Rights, eds. Shawki, Noha and Cox, Michaelene (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2009), 7–26
Clunan, Anne L. and Trinkunas, Harold A., “Conceptualizing Ungoverned Spaces: Territorial Sovereignty, Contested Authority and Softened Sovereignty,” in Ungoverned Spaces, eds. Clunan, Anne L. and Trinkunas, Harold A. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010), 17–33
Wheeler, Nicholas, Saving Strangers: Humanitarianism in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Karaganov, Sergei, “Russia and the International Order,” in What Russia Sees, ed. Lynch, Dov (Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2005), 33
Slaughter, Anne Marie, A New World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004)
Lake, David A., Hierarchy in International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009)
Hopf, Ted, “Commonsense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics,”International Organization, 67, no. 2 (April 2013), 317–534
Meyer, John W. et al., “World Society and the Nation-State,”American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 1 (July 1997), 144–181
Finnemore, Martha, “International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: UNESCO and Science Policy,”International Organization 47, no. 4 (Autumn 1993), 565–597
Ikenberry, G. John, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 6
Moltz, James Clay, Asia’s Space Race: National Motivations, Regional Rivalries, and International Risks (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011)
Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983)
Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J., The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)
Jervis, Robert, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989)
Mueller, John E., Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War (New York: Basic Books, 1989)
Sagan, Scott and Waltz, Kenneth N., The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003), 24