Introduction to Geopolitics

not
capable of 
predicting
events. It is a historical model that interprets a wealth of historic
data in a simplified framework. In other words, it is a 
descriptive
model. Also,
Modelski’s model is useful, but only within certain parameters. His view of geopolitics
is limited to conflicts between the major powers; smaller countries and geopolitical
actors that are not countries are not included in his model. However, the model is useful
for introducing the idea of a geopolitical structure and offering a context for current
geopolitical events. We will discuss the pros and cons of the model in greater depth at
the end of the chapter.
Defining a global geopolitical structure: using and interrogating 
Modelski’s model of world leadership
Mahan and Mackinder, as well as Ratzel and Kjellen in Germany, exemplified the state-
centric perspective of geopolitics, and geographical determinism (as discussed in
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
34
Box 2.1 Competition between China and the US
“Chinese Move to Eclipse US Appeal in South Asia” claims the 
New York Times
headline (November 11, 2004, p. A1) for an article by Jane Perlez talking of
university students in Thailand choosing to learn Mandarin over English as a result
of perceptions that China will be the dominant influence in the region soon. The
Chinese have funded and built many language and cultural centers
as part of China’s expanding presence across Southeast Asia and the Pacific,
where Beijing is making a big push to market itself and its language, similar
to the way the United States promoted its culture and values during the cold
war.

---

Chapter 1). From their perspective geographic size and location, and the internal make-
up of a country determined power. Subsequent, and purportedly more scientific,
calculations of power have rested upon the economic, military, and demographic
elements of a particular country. To understand state power and global geopolitical
context, however, these ingredients must be related to the ability of a state to define the
global geopolitical agenda. In other words, the Gramscian notion of power within a
country that we introduced in the previous chapter has relevance for global geopolitics.
Following Gramsci, we would expect the most powerful countries to wield (or at least
attempt to wield) an ideological power over the other countries: the most powerful
country would try to set a political agenda that the rest of the world would, more or
less, follow. Two theories have been particularly influential in the discussion of this type
of global agenda setting: Wallerstein’s concept of hegemony (see Box 2.2) and, the one
we will engage, Modelski’s (1987) concept of world leadership.
Modelski’s model of world leadership is a historically based theory, founded upon
his interest in naval history. Power, for Modelski, is a function of global reach—the
ability to influence events across the world. In history, such power has required 
control of the oceans. Hence, for Modelski, world power rests upon the ability of one
country to concentrate ocean-going capacity under its own control. Ocean-going capacity
is measured by the combined tonnage of a country’s military and merchant navies. 
In this sense, Modelski echoes Mahan’s insistence on the important role of sea-power.
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5111
S E T T I N G   T H E   G L O B A L   G E O P O L I T I C A L   C O N T E X T
35
Box 2.2 Wallerstein’s world-system theory
The sociologist Imanuel Wallerstein profoundly challenged modern social science
through his concept of the historical social system. His argument was that society
should not be equated with a particular country, but rather at a larger scale of the
social system. According to Wallerstein, since approximately 1450 the social
system has been the capitalist world-economy. Within this theory, primary
geopolitical powers are called hegemonies or hegemonic powers. Since the twen-
tieth century, the United States has acted as hegemonic power. The basis for
hegemony is economic strength that translates into a dominant influence in global
trade and finance. Maintenance of the capitalist world-economy in a form that
benefits the hegemonic power requires, at times, military force. Hegemony is seen
as an economic process for selfish goals, and not the global political benevolence
of Modelski’s world leadership. Similar to Modelski’s model, the hegemonic
power emerges from a period of global conflict, but Wallerstein is adamant that
the United States is currently experiencing a relative decline in its global domin-
ance. One other important difference is that in Modelski’s model there is always
a world leader, though its strength is cyclical. For Wallerstein, periods of hege-
mony are rare. So, if the US’s hegemony does decline, according to Modelski a
new leader should emerge after a period of war. Wallerstein’s model suggests that
other political scenarios, without one dominant state, may emerge.

---

However, most significantly, for our understanding of the contemporary world, world
leadership is not defined solely by this material measure of power. Indeed, it is important
to reflect upon the name Modelski gives to dominant and powerful countries—they are
identified as world leaders, not hegemonic or superpowers. Remember, a crucial com-
ponent of geopolitics is representation. Modelski portrays the world’s most powerful
country as a “leader,” implying willing followers, rather than a hegemonic or super-
power with its allusions to dominance and force.
Obviously, Modelski’s definition of power is of the ilk that is strongly criticized by
feminists (see Chapter 1). Power, in the model, is about strength and dominance, it is
about the ability to exercise military force across the globe. This is another way in which
Modelski follows the “classic” geopoliticians. This notion of power leads to an uncrit-
ical belief that the militarization of foreign policy is inevitable and beneficial. It also
ignores gender relations within states and global economic inequities. In other words,
Modelski’s notion of power is uni-dimensional. We may still agree that a feminist
critique of Modelski’s power index is valid and yet still find value in the model. In fact,
in the subsequent chapters we will see that geopolitics is represented in certain gender
specific ways for the power relations Modelski identifies to be sustained. In other 
words, by bringing a feminist critique to bear upon Modelski we can get more out of
the model than was originally intended by its author.
A world leader is a country that is able to offer the world an “innovation” to provide
geopolitical order and security. By innovation Modelski means a bundle of institutions,
ideas, and practices that establish the geopolitical agenda for the world. The power of
the world leader rests in its ability to define a “big idea” for how countries should exist
and interact with each other; an idea that it is able to put into practice through its material
power or naval capabilities. The power of the world leader rests in its agenda setting
capacity and its ability to enforce it.
Modelski’s model of world leadership is dynamic. The strength of the world leader
rises and falls. Over the course of centuries, the mantle of world leadership has passed
from one country to another in a sequence of cycles of world leadership (see Table 2.1).
Each cycle of world leadership lasts approximately 100 years and is made up of four
roughly equal phases of about 25 years (Figure 2.1).
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
36