Soft power has become a key dimension in assessing the comprehensive national power of modern states. Photo: TUCHONG

---

National power has long been a focus of theoretical inquiry. Multidimensional in nature, power manifests differently across historical periods and domains. Amid profound changes in the global landscape, the concept of national power continues to expand, and the methods for measuring it are constantly evolving and being refined.

Conceptual definition and evolution

Traditional international relations theory primarily defines power as control over the mind and actions of others, regarding power as a relationship of control and submission, of command and obedience. Prior to World War II, national power was largely understood as the sum of a country’s military strength and economic resources.

As the field of international studies developed, the definition of power expanded beyond the notion of “possessing resources” to include the ability to “control outcomes.” Scholars also came to recognize that power is not merely an individual attribute but also a relational phenomenon. In the interactions between states, power refers to the capacity of one actor to shape the behavior or decisions of another. This influence can be coercive—where one state directly compels another—or institutional, exercised through rule-making, institutional design, and procedural guidance. The rise of constructivism and critical theory deepened theoretical reflections on power, highlighting its non-material dimensions and social mechanisms. Concepts such as “structural power” and “soft power” further broadened the conceptual scope of national power.

Critique of traditional measurement 

Traditional methods for measuring national power focus on the statistical evaluation of hard power indicators. Among the most representative is the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC), which is calculated using six metrics: military expenditure, military personnel, energy consumption, iron and steel production, urban population, and total population. Some researchers have sought to expand this approach by incorporating non-material dimensions. For example, American intelligence analyst Ray Cline devised a national power formula that integrates critical mass (population and territory), military and economic capabilities, strategic purpose, and the will to pursue national strategy.

While traditional power measurement methods are widely adopted in empirical research due to their functional clarity, they have also drawn criticism. Materially oriented frameworks such as CINC conceptualize power as a static stock of resources, overestimating the significance of population and raw materials while underestimating the role of technological efficiency and institutional quality. They tend to overlook non-coercive forms of power such as norm-shaping and agenda-setting, failing to capture the soft power mechanisms that are increasingly crucial in contemporary international politics.

Innovations in measurement methods

Today, the international system is undergoing profound transformation, with the forms, mechanisms, and effectiveness of national power experiencing fundamental changes. Against this backdrop, the methods for measuring national power must break free from the limitations of traditional frameworks and innovate both in theory and in practice.

From simple quantification to comprehensive evaluation: Traditional measurement methods often rely excessively on definite figures, deriving a single ranking through simple summation or weighted averages while neglecting the contextual variability in how national power manifests. In contrast, emerging measurement models exhibit a clear trend toward multidimensional assessment, contextual interpretation, and reflective analysis, offering more balanced frameworks.

From resource possession to conversion efficiency: Beyond mere resource accumulation, the actual effectiveness of national power depends more on a state’s capacity to convert its resources into real-world influence. For instance, the “net power” measurement approach emphasizes that national power lies not only in what a country possesses but also in what it can achieve with those assets. According to this view, power is not defined by gross resources alone, but by the “net resources” that remain after accounting for the costs of production, welfare, and security.

From single actors to relational networks: In the contemporary international system, the formation and distribution of power are deeply shaped by the global production structure, which determines whether a country occupies a core, semi-peripheral, or peripheral position within the international hierarchy. These positions define distinct national roles and levels of national power. Recent developments in network analysis conceptualize power as an actor’s centrality within a relational network, placing emphasis on a country’s strategic position and structural control capabilities in the international system. This approach more clearly reveals the dynamics of national power amid complex interdependence.

From system rankings to institutional embeddedness: National power can also be assessed within specific institutional contexts. For instance, a country’s discourse power and influence in global governance can be more comprehensively evaluated by analyzing its ability to shape key elements in international organizations, such as funding flows, decision-making processes, and personnel composition. In particular, two forms of institutional power are crucial: the power of initiative—the capacity to set agendas and introduce new proposals—and the power of obstruction—the ability to block resolutions that run counter to national interests. 

Li Boxuan is a lecturer from the School of International Organizations at Beijing Foreign Studies University.

Edited by WANG YOURAN