Chapter 1 – Introduction
2.3. Lessons learnt: presenting five theoretical building blocks
In order to provide a sound basis for the theoretical argument and model that are to inform the empirical analysis of the thesis, this section will distil a distinct set of insights from the investigative itinerary outlined above. Together, these insights will form the theoretical foundations for the conceptual tool and explanatory framework that will be introduced in the next chapter. Overall, the above reflections can serve to make five points. To begin with, it is essential to acknowledge how power over the last few decades has changed in light of the deep transformation of the international realm owing to enhanced interdependence and globalisation, as well as the end of the Cold War. Indeed, being increasingly diffuse and involving a whole new range of (non-state) actors, the exercise of power at the international level has become much more difficult to observe, its dimensions being less visible and less clearly delineated. Among other things, this implies that the analysis of power can no longer focus solely on the state-to-state level, but also needs to consider transnational relations and the role and involvement of non-state actors. At the same time, the recent transformation of the international system also entails that the use and/or possession of structural power has gained more momentum.
This brings us to a second, related insight. That is, the analysis of power, as a comprehensive account of a power phenomenon, can no longer adopt a purely agent-focused approach, and instead also needs to account for the structural dimensions of power. Structural power is less tangible than agent-based power, and involves more than coercive capacity, as it includes unstated assumptions about standards and rules. As explained by Strange, the
- 37 -
possessor of structural power can “change the range of choices open to others, without apparently putting pressure directly on them to take one decision or to make one choice rather than others” (1988: 31). However, in drawing simultaneously on agent-focused and structural perspectives, it is important to consider that agency and structure are complementary and, even mutually dependent in that they may have a reinforcing effect upon each other. Therefore, it is essential to develop an integrative analytical framework, which, on the one hand, incorporates the relational and structural level on which power is exercised, and, on the other, considers the interplay between both levels. In essence, whereas the relational level captures the relational interaction of the agents involved, the structural level depicts the context within which this interaction takes place. Or to use the power typology, while „relational power‟ concerns the ability to obtain a certain outcome or affect the behaviour of others (cf. to get them do something they would not otherwise do), „structural power‟ refers to the ability to shape and control the structures within which the others operate and which determine the range of options available to them (cf. the rules of the game). As suggested by Keukeleire and MacNaughtan (2008), it is not a matter of possessing or not possessing structural power, but rather a matter of gradation, in the sense that relational and structural power form the two sides of a continuum. As Keukeleire (2002) puts it:
At one side of the continuum, an actor can possess structural power in the sense that this actor can indeed decide what the rules of the game are (with the other actor having only one option to choose). At the other side of the continuum, an actor can possess only limited structural power in the sense that this actor can only influence to a limited extent the rules of the game that will be used by other actors.
Moreover, as Strange asserts, since structural power can be defined in gradual terms - both conceptually and in practice, it can be interpreted as influence, which leaves some degree of freedom for the actors subject to it (Strange, 1988: 25-31, emphasis added). Building on this insight, Keukeleire and MacNaughtan define their notion of structural foreign policy as a foreign policy that “conducted over the long-term, seeks to influence or shape sustainable political, legal, socio-economic, security and mental structures” (2008: 25; emphasis added; also see Therborn, 2001: 92). In other words, the terms „influence‟ and „structural power‟ can - under the right conditions - be used interchangeably.
A third basic insight that can be distilled from the above literature review is that structural power exists in more than one form. Indeed, to follow Holden‟s (2009: 12-13) typology, structural power is either „purely structural‟ or „agent-based‟. Capital, for instance, possesses structural power that is purely structural, as capital automatically constitutes power, independent of intentional agency. In this case, a structure thus implicitly empowers certain
- 38 -
actors - whilst possibly disempowering others - without the involvement of conscious agency. Conversely, agent-based structural power, as the term suggests, involves agency in the sense that the origin of the produced power effect is located at the agent-level. In this case, an actor intentionally shapes or affects the structures within which others operate.
Fourthly, in defining structural power - whether in its agent-based or purely structural form - as the control over structures, it is important to discern the nature of these structures. In this respect, three broad categories of structures can be identified: material structures (social- economic, financial and security), institutional structures (political and legal/contractual), and ideational/mental structures (values, norms, beliefs, identity and culture).34 Crucially, this categorisation can only be based on a perception of structures as not constraining, but enabling or facilitating. Perceiving structures in terms of an enabling environment thus suggests that control over the structure(s) provides advantages and opportunities to the possessor of structural power - in contrast to the actor(s) subject to it - including for his/her use of relational power.
While the four preceding points relate mainly to the study of power in IR more broadly, a fifth and final reflection specifically regards the integration of structural perspectives in the study of the EU‟s external power. In the review presented above, it was demonstrated that structure-oriented approaches, when embedded in a comprehensive, integrative framework, offer a much-needed and useful tool to arrive at a more profound analysis of the EU‟s external impact. In this regard, two sorts of conceptual tools stand out: the notion of structural power, and the structural modes of EU external governance. As Holden (2009) aptly argues, the concept of structural power is well-suited for analysing the EU‟s external relations policies, not least since it captures the complexity and fragmentation that characterise the EU, as well as the depth and comprehensiveness of its external involvement. Moreover, the concept also provides a stronger and more nuanced alternative to predominant social constructivist approaches to study EU influence, as the notion goes beyond the impact of the EU‟s export of norms and values to also account for more material configurations of power and the broader political impact of the EU‟s engagement with third countries. In turn, the emergent literature on EU external governance proves to have substantial potential in opening up the analysis of EU power beyond accession conditionality. As a more structural alternative to the traditional perspectives of EU influence, EU external governance approaches highlight the indirect impact on third countries that may derive from the EU‟s internal market and the EU‟s establishment of sectoral governance networks,
34 The idea of heuristically categorising structures draws mainly on Strange (1988) as well as Keukeleire and
MacNaughtan (2008) (see supra). However, the three-structure categorisation proposed here clearly diverges from the categorisations offered in these two studies. For more on the proposed categorisation, see chapter 3.
- 39 -
notably as a basis for regulatory approximation. In sum, both conceptual approaches may provide for the structural perspectives required in order to analyse the EU‟s power over third countries through a more integrative analytical lens, which accounts for both the relational and the structural level on which its power is exercised, as well as the interplay between them.
Drawing on these five theoretical insights, the next chapter will introduce the conceptual tool and explanatory model that will be used to guide the subsequent, empirical study.
- 40 -