Measuring the concentration of military power in the international geopolitical system: Singer’s methodology using only military indicators

This study quantitatively examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the concentration of military power within the international geopolitical system from 2014 to 2023. Utilizing a modified Composite Indicator of National Capability (mCINC) based on defense budgets and military personnel, this study analyzes the relative concentration of military capabilities among 145 states. Derived from the Correlates of War Project, our methodology enables an examination of variations in military capability concentration, especially during the pandemic years. The results trend towards the dispersion of military capabilities, with notable variations observed during the COVID-19 period, reflecting a more equitable distribution among states, notably major powers. These variations are attributed to a decrease in military capabilities among democracies, particularly the United States, and an increase in Russia’s military power. The study concludes that the pandemic years have led to a nuanced adjustment towards greater multipolarity, hinting at potential instability and uncertainty in geopolitics.

Introduction

Over the past 3 years or so, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had shaken up the world and unprecedentedly claimed millions of lives. The impact of the pandemic among nations was not merely about contagious diseases and public health. Many scholars postulated that it would have repercussions on the politics among nations (Babić, 2021). Systemically, they presumed that the worldwide pandemic would have significantly impacted the “relative distribution of power”—more precisely, referred to as the “relative concentration of power”—in an international geopolitical system (Duggan and Grabowski, 2021; Hrabina, 2021; Alhammadi, 2022). Thereby, power concentration would be dispersed more equally among major powers, inevitably reshaping major-power relationships (Yang, 2020a,b; Hicken et al., 2021). Additionally, some scholars anticipated that the COVID-19 effects might lead to greater degrees of instability and uncertainty in world politics, affecting international issues, such as United Nations peace operations (de Coning, 2021).

Nevertheless, scholars, like Drezner (2020), disagreed with the above-stated arguments. He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic did not produce profound ex-post consequences on the concentration of power in the international geopolitical system; therefore, major-power relations and world affairs would remain the same. This opinion held true for geopolitics as well (Drezner, 2022). Yet, to verify whether the pandemic has had a significant impact on the international system requires quantitative research measuring variation in the system concentration. Among the existing literature on this and related topics, only Hrabina (2021) touched upon how to evaluate international power configuration scientifically, indicating that methodologies constructed by the Correlates of War (COW) Project should be performed. Without quantitative evidence, one could not empirically prove the extent of the variation the pandemic introduced into the international geopolitical system.

As a result of the earlier debate, our research question is straightforward: Has the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the international geopolitical system? Based on the majority of the cited literature, we formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis: The COVID-19 pandemic has substantively impacted the international geopolitical system in terms of the concentration of power.

This study is descriptive and, to some extent, explanatory. Its principal objectives are:

• Measuring the concentration of military power in the international geopolitical system between 2014 and 2023.

• Describing system characteristics—specifically, power polarity—during the same period.

• Explicating any ex-post changes in the concentration of military power during the pandemic years and quantitatively testing the hypothesis.

• Addressing the implications for understanding major-power relations and broader geopolitics.

The time span from 2014 to 2023 should be sufficient to reveal trends in the international geopolitical system, thereby enabling meaningful comparisons.

Definitions

Before proceeding further, some key terms used throughout this article are defined a priori to prevent any confusion between the authors and readers. Additionally, defining these terms in advance is advantageous for constructing the argument. They are as follows:

• Definition 1. Power is a state’s military capability, measured by defense personnel and spending. At the systemic level, power is the total military capabilities of all states in the international geopolitical system.

• Definition 2. The international geopolitical system is a three-component structure consisting of anarchical ordering, survival-seeking states as constituent units, and the concentration of military capabilities. The first two components are functionally static, whereas the concentration of military capabilities varies over time (Chatterjee, 1997). Given that the military is the sole dimension of power, the system is inherently geopolitical in nature (see Cohen, 1994; Levy and Thompson, 2010).

• Definition 3. The concentration of power, or power concentration, is the degree to which military capabilities (i.e., military power) are concentrated in a relatively small number of states (Hart, 1985).

• Definition 4. Polarity, or power polarity, is the number of autonomous power centers, also referred to as power poles, within the international geopolitical system. This is a function of the concentration of military power predominantly among major-power states (Modelski, 1974; Farmer, 1992; Suporn et al., 2021).

Method

This study adopted a case study research design (Gerring and McDermott, 2007; Gerring, 2017). The aforesaid design was selected because it enabled us to explore “variation through time and across space while maintaining ceteris paribus assumptions” (Gerring and McDermott, 2007, p. 688). To identify general patterns in the concentration of military capabilities within the global geopolitical system, we employed quantitative techniques to analyze numerical data, thereby illuminating key system features. The present study relied primarily on variables developed by J. David Singer’s COW Project, including methodologies for indexing the Composite Indicator of National Capability (CINC) and the capability concentration of an international system (Singer et al., 1972; Singer, 1988, 1990). This, in turn, enabled the drawing of implications for geopolitics, notably major-power relations.

Military capabilities

Measuring the concentration of an international geopolitical system first requires the measurement of the military capabilities of the states constituting the system. The capability of each state was computed using a similar calculating method as the COW Project’s CINC (Singer et al., 1972, Singer, 1990); however, unlike the original CINC index relying on six indicators (see Singer, 1988), our modified version of it (hereafter, mCINC) is built on two military indicators, namely, defense budgets and military personnel.

The mCINC is derived by aggregating observations related to each of the two military indicators for a specific year, transforming each country’s absolute values within these indicators into a proportion of the international geopolitical system, and then calculating the average value across the two indicators. Specifically, we present below the notation for mCINC’s two military indicators:

DB_i = state i’s defense budgets.

MP_i = state i’s military personnel.

Next, the total number of states constituting the international geopolitical system (i.e., the unit of analysis) is identified. After that, we put a figure to a single state’s share of a separate military capability. For example, in a 4-state system, X’s share of total defense budgets (i.e., %DB_x) is given by the following equation:

$\%D{B}_x=\frac{D{B}_x}{D{B}_w+D{B}_x+D{B}_y+D{B}_z}$

The same is used to compute state X’s share of the remaining indicator of military power, thereby determining a value for %MP_x. Each share ranges from zero to one. Averaging combines the shares into a unitary indicator:

$\mathit{mCIN}{C}_x=\frac{\%D{B}_x+\%M{P}_x}{2}$

The concentration of military capabilities

Relying on the mCINC scores, the military capability concentration of an international geopolitical system, denoted as MILCON, is computed using Singer et al.’s (1972) formula:

$\mathit{MILCON}=\sqrt{\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^N{\left(Si\right)}^2-\frac{1}{N}}{1-\frac{1}{N}}}$

In this systemic-concentration formula, N equals the number of states in the international geopolitical system; Si equals the state i’s share of the system’s military capabilities. The value of MILCON ranges from 0.00 to 1.00. The MILCON value is zero in the hypothetical scenario when the system’s capabilities are perfectly equally distributed. Contrariwise, the MILCON value is 1.00 in the hypothetical scenario when one state holds 100% of the system’s capabilities (Singer et al., 1972).

Data and operationalization

The raw data for calculating mCINC scores and MILCON values were extracted from The Military Balance Plus (MB+), an online subscription database of defense information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Although MB+ has been highly regarded for its comprehensiveness, it did not cover the information of all nations. In the period 2014–2023, data on defense budgets and active military personnel of approximately 150 states were available. Despite that, our analysis included only states with complete data (N = 145) in that time.

Therefore, operationally, we assumed that the international geopolitical system consisted of 145 states, of which seven were designated as major powers according to the COW Project: (1) United States, (2) United Kingdom, (3) France, (4) Germany, (5) Russia, (6) China, and (7) Japan (Sarkees and Wayman, 2010). Meanwhile, the military power or capability of each state, including major powers, was operationally represented by its mCINC score.

All computations and visualization used Microsoft Excel 2019 and SPSS Statistics 20.0 software.

Limitations of the study

There are several caveats concerning the design of this study. The research design focuses narrowly on a military dimension of power, quantified by defense budgets and military personnel. Dimensions, such as population, are deliberately omitted, deriving from the fact that today’s warfare does not hinge on the number of conscripts but on military technologies, whose innovations need large defense budgets. Concurrently, modern military equipment has become substantially automated, reducing the size of active armed personnel. Other dimensions, such as socio-economy, are also omitted. The underlying reason is simple and straightforward, namely: “military power” is the “currency” of international relations and geopolitics (Schweller, 1997). Thus, our interpretation and discussion are strictly based on military capability, and we do not consider socio-economic dimensions.

Aside from the above limitations, as we relied solely on IISS MB+ for data, our assessment and analysis are not a complete picture of the international geopolitical configuration. Nonetheless, the total number of 145 states includes all key actors in world affairs. Apart from seven major powers, medium-sized powers, such as India and South Korea, are included. Given the large-N samples, the findings reported here are fairly deemed scientifically valid, albeit limited to a certain degree.

Lastly, this study focuses exclusively on “power polarity” and does not explore “alliance polarization” or “cluster polarity” (see Suporn et al., 2021). Therefore, further in-depth research is essential to comprehensively understand the implications of polarization on geopolitics. Moreover, it is recommended that future studies address the limitations of the present research and conduct comparative analyses on the impacts of similar, albeit not identical, viral outbreaks.

Results

The mCINC scores for 145 states during the period 2014–2023 were computed based on defense budget and military personnel data. The defense budgets and active military personnel of major powers during the same period are reported in Tables 1, 2 for reference purposes. The United States ranked first in terms of both military expenditures and personnel, followed by China in second place. Russia ranked third, but only in terms of active military personnel.

Table 1

Table 1. Defense budgets of major powers (in constant 2015 USD, millions).

Table 2

Table 2. Active military personnel of major powers.

Then, the MILCON index for the same period was calculated using Singer et al.’s (1972) formula. The result of the calculation is reported in Table 3. The concentration of military power in the international geopolitical system was generally dispersed. In 2015, the MILCON index dropped by 0.01. But since then to 2019, the military capability concentration fluctuated only trivially. During the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to mid-2023, the MILCON index had steadily become more dispersed, indicating that the system’s total military capabilities had been distributed more equally.

Table 3

Table 3. The concentration of military power in the international geopolitical system.

The trend of dispersion in the years of the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to be caused by the shrinking military capabilities of the major democratic powers, particularly the United States, while the military capabilities of Russia increased substantively (see Table 4). Table 4 reports the military capabilities of major-power nations between 2014 and 2023.

Table 4

Table 4. Military capabilities of major powers, 2014–2023.

Overall, the MILCON index had been roughly between 0.27 and 0.28 during the entire period. In the global pandemic period, the MILCON index dropped from 0.28 in 2020 to 0.27 in 2023. Ergo, the results reported here did not support the hypothesis derived from the majority of the cited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on geopolitics. Specifically, the global pandemic did not substantially impact the international geopolitical system, at least in terms of the concentration of military power.

Discussion

In the period 2014–2023, fluctuations in the concentration of military power in the international geopolitical system were of little consequence to world politics. During the COVID-19 pandemic years, the concentration became more dispersed, as the MILCON index dropped by about 0.01 from 2020 to 2023 due to the decreased proportion of military capabilities among democracies, especially the United States and its allies, and the increased size of Russia’s military power. The authors, however, did not find statistically significant evidence indicating the impact of COVID-19 on military capabilities. Rather, the probable cause is Russia’s expansion of military power for the war in Ukraine (Rustamova, 2023).

Considering the MCINC scores of major powers, it is justified to interpret that the system has been “multipolar” at least since 2014. This situation is because the mCINC scores held by the two strongest powers were less than 0.50, or 50% of the system’s total military capabilities (Farmer, 1992). The recent global pandemic did not alter this proportion. Accordingly, geopolitics should be interpreted based on the fact that multipolarity has been a systemic characteristic of the international power configuration since 2014.

Theoretically, multipolar power configuration, characterized by power dispersion, tends to be conflict-prone. Multipolarity reduces stability while escalating uncertainty, thereby creating a condition leading to conflict and war (Singer et al., 1972; Modelski, 1978; Thompson, 1986; Waltz, 1988). According to Waltz (1988), in multipolarity, dangers are prevalent and unclear to states in general and policymakers in particular. Instability and uncertainty have made international politics—above all, major-power chessboard—murkier and more unpredictable. This situation is contrary to bipolarity, such as during the Cold War years, when geopolitics was easier to read, as threats were clear and existential. Since no large-scale war took place, the Cold War era was named by one renowned historian as the “Long Peace” (Gaddis, 1986).

Practically, today’s geopolitical Great Games, especially among major powers, come with higher stakes than before, not only for major-power nations but also for smaller powers. For smaller nations, vulnerability to geopolitical tensions is prominently exemplified by the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Unilateral use of force by a major power makes a “chain-ganging” scenario—the root cause of the First World War (Quackenbush, 2015)—more likely. That is to say, a group of states have to be involved in war, even if without political will, as they are chained by alliance bonds (Christensen and Snyder, 1990).

Given all the aforementioned, geopolitics has tended to become riskier due to the systemic repercussions of multipolarity. The situation has been intensified by the power transition, wherein China, a revisionist power, has endeavored to be treated as an equal to the United States (Pisciotta, 2023). Moreover, concurrently, Russia had strongly signaled the U.S.-led democracies to respect its sphere of influence via a series of armed interventions on Ukrainian soil several years before the war against Ukraine occurred (Kurth, 2022). The global viral spread appeared to create favorable conditions for such armed interventions, as all democracies had to allocate resources to domestic public health emergencies. Hence, the more uncertain world for all nations.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

PB: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Resources. ST: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Supervision. PF: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft. PK: Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This was supported by the Thailand Science Research and Innovation’s Fundamental Fund FY2023 (Grant No. TUFF 08/2566).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2024.1412260/full#supplementary-material

References

Alhammadi, A. (2022). The neorealism and neoliberalism behind international relations during COVID-19. World Affair 185, 147–175. doi: 10.1177/00438200211065128

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Babić, M. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis of the liberal international order: geopolitical fissures and pathways to change. Glob. Perspect. 2:24051. doi: 10.1525/gp.2021.24051

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chatterjee, S. (1997). Neo-realism in international relations. Int. Stud. 34, 39–58. doi: 10.1177/0020881797034001004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Christensen, T. J., and Snyder, J. (1990). Chain gangs and passed bucks: predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. Int. Organ. 44, 137–168. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300035232

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen, S. B. (1994). “Geopolitics in the new world era: a new perspective on an old discipline” in Reordering the world: Geopolitical perspectives on the twenty-first century. eds. G. J. Demko and W. B. Wood (Boulder: Westview Press), 15–48.

Google Scholar

de Coning, C. (2021). The future of UN peace operations: principled adaptation through phases of contraction, moderation, and renewal. Contemp. Sec. Policy 42, 211–224. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1894021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Drezner, D. W. (2020). The song remains the same: international relations after COVID-19. Int. Organ. 74, E18–E35. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000351

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Drezner, D.W. (2022). Turns out COVID-19 didn’t reshape geopolitics. Foreign Policy. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/29/covid-19-pandemic-geopolitics-international-relations-economics/ (Accessed April 3, 2024).

Google Scholar

Duggan, N., and Grabowski, M. (2021). The influence of Covid-19 on the power transition between the United States and China: the case of Southeast Asia. Ir. Stud. Int. Aff. 32, 83–102. doi: 10.1353/isia.2021.0047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Farmer, B.R. (1992). World power and polarity assessment. Master’s thesis. Lubbock: Texas Tech University.

Google Scholar

Gaddis, J. L. (1986). The long peace: elements of stability in the postwar international system. Int. Secur. 10, 99–142. doi: 10.2307/2538951

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerring, J. (2017). Case study research: Principles and practices. 2nd Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Gerring, J., and McDermott, R. (2007). An experimental template for case study research. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 688–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00275.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hart, J. A. (1985). “Power and polarity in the international system” in Polarity and war: The changing structure of international conflict. ed. A. N. Sabrosky (Boulder and London: Westview Press), 25–40.

Google Scholar

Hicken, A., Jones, P., and Menon, A. (2021). The international system after trump and the pandemic. Curr Hist 120, 3–8. doi: 10.1525/curh.2021.120.822.3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hrabina, J. (2021). The year of сrises: how 2020 will reshape the structure of international relations. Russia Glob. Affairs 19, 174–199. doi: 10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-1-174-199

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kurth, J. (2022). From the Baltic to the Black Sea: NATO’s drive to the east versus Russia’s sphere of influence. Orbis 66, 577–596. doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2022.08.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Levy, J. S., and Thompson, W. R. (2010). Balancing on land and at sea: do states ally against the leading global power? Int. Secur. 35, 7–43. doi: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Modelski, G. (1974). World power concentrations: Typology, data, explanatory framework. Morristown: General Learning Press.

Google Scholar

Modelski, G. (1978). The long cycle of global politics and the nation-state. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 20, 214–235. doi: 10.1017/S0010417500008914

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pisciotta, B. (2023). Regional and global revisionism: Russia and China in a comparative perspective. Int. Spect. 58, 96–112. doi: 10.1080/03932729.2023.2194161

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Quackenbush, S. L. (2015). International conflict: Logic and evidence. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press/SAGE.

Google Scholar

Rustamova, F. (2023). How Russian officials plan to recruit 400k new contract soldiers in 2024. The Moscow Times. Available at: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/12/22/how-russian-officials-plan-to-recruit-400k-new-contract-soldiers-in-2024-a83509 (Accessed April 2, 2024).

Google Scholar

Sarkees, M. R., and Wayman, F. W. (2010). Resort to war, 1816–2007. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Google Scholar

Schweller, R. L. (1997). New realist research on alliances: refining, not refuting, Waltz’s balancing proposition. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91, 927–930. doi: 10.2307/2952176

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singer, J. D. (1988). Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. Int Interact 14, 115–132. doi: 10.1080/03050628808434695

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singer, J. D. (1990). “Reconstructing the correlates of war data set on material capabilities of states, 1816-1985” in Measuring the correlates of war. eds. J. D. Singer and P. F. Diehl (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press), 53–71.

Google Scholar

Singer, J. D., Bremer, S., and Stuckey, J. (1972). “Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965” in Peace, war, and numbers. ed. B. Russett (Beverly Hills: SAGE), 19–48.

Google Scholar

Suporn, T., Bunyavejchewin, P., Faugchun, P., and Sukthungthong, N. (2021). The cold war, old and new: a preliminary comparative study of polarity, polarisation, and elements of (in)stability. Pertanika J Soc Sci Hum 29, 903–922. doi: 10.47836/pjssh.29.2.09

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thompson, W. R. (1986). Polarity, the long cycle, and global power warfare. J. Confl. Resolut. 30, 587–615. doi: 10.1177/0022002786030004001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waltz, K. N. (1988). The origins of war in neorealist theory. J. Interdiscip. Hist. 18, 615–628. doi: 10.2307/204817

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, J. (2020a). “The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on contemporary international relations” in How COVID-19 is changing the world order (Beijing: China Institute of International Studies), 18–26.

Google Scholar

Yang, J. (2020b). Major power relations in a post-pandemic world order. China Quart Int Strat Stud 6, 1–18. doi: 10.1142/s2377740020500074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar