Search results

Most theorists on international relations agree on recognizing natural resources, economic strength, technological development, political stability, & military strength as the five bases of a state's power. This unanimity is in sharp contrast with the divergences in the operationalizations of the power of states. Most operationalizations use only one or two bases of a state's power & thus are very limited in scope. Therefore, the demand for an operationalization sticking as closely as possible to the unanimity among theorists forces itself on the researcher. An attempt is made to transform the theoretical unanimity into an operational measure. Each power basis represented by partial indicators is listed: (1) natural resources--area, population, production of energy, (2) economic strength--gross national product, energy consumption, monetary stability, (3) technological development--level of alphabetization, number of students in higher education, scientific production & infrastructure, (4) political stability--length of independence, internal stability, & (5) military strength--number of men in the armed forces, conventional weapons, nuclear strength. The operationalization was obtained by granting all five power bases an equal share in the index & by giving an equal weight to the sums of the arithmetical values for fifteen partial indicators & thus, for the five indicators. The nation's power-index, thus obtained, was applied to 110 nation states as they existed at the beginning of the '70s. On this power scale, ratings differ from 29,046 indexpoints of world power (IWM) for the US to 276 IWM for Gambia & even less for a number of the smaller states that could not be investigated. Modified HA.

The development of a strict methodology of observation & analysis in soc sci has always met with resistance. In the current debate on this topic in the US, 2 positions can be distinguished. There are the 'theorists,' who find their inspiration in the work of recent philosophers such as H. Marcuse & J.-P. Sartre; they rate the formation of a pol'al theory as a 1st priority. Then there are the 'behaviorists,' whose first care is for sci'fic method. This contrast is reviewed on the basis of the document, "Political Science at Berkeley, An Invitation to a Discussion," which was published anonymously by a group of students. The criticism of these students can be summarized under the headings 'commitment' & 'relevance.' As far as commitment is concerned, the critics reproach the behaviorists for not taking stands in important contemporary moral issues, & for identifying with the status quo. It is argued here that what leads to acceptance of & identification with the existing pol'al order is not behaviorist methodology as such, but rather the mood of the behaviorists. As far as 'relevance' is concerned, the critics are impatient with the futile detail analysis & data collecting of the behaviorists. The behaviorists' use of a strict methodology of explanation by generalization leads to a reduction of the scope of analysis. Then only the 'easy' aspects ('easy' to quantify, 'easy' to collect, etc) are analyzed, & discontinuous developments are neglected. The argument presented here is that the lack of a dynamic theory of the pol'al process is an impediment indeed for pol'al sci, but that, again, behaviorism as such cannot be accused of being 'conservative' or 'conformistic': the refutation of race theories, for example, was rather a radical undertaking. It is concluded that for the time being it is not necessary to lay other bounds on pol'al sci than those that follow from the claims of rational debate & intellectual honesty. HA.