Superpower theories

Changing centre of power

Geo-strategic location theory, stating that whoever controlled Europe and Asia (the world's biggest landmass) would control the world. He also identified a heartland, or the 'world island', from Eastern Europe into Eastern Russia, the centre acting as a 'pivot'.

What determined power in the region? Whoever ruled the most strategic part of Europe would command the heartland > whoever controlled the heartland would command the world island > whoever controlled the world island ruled the world. The further away from the heartland, the less influence it would have, known as the 'Inner or Marginal Crescent' and 'Outer or Insular Crescent'.

Technically, Russia should be the world's superpower but that has never truly been the case; according to Mackinder it was also at risk of attack from a large number of neighbouring countries and the lack of trade via water, since a large proportion of frozen coast in the winter would render some ports useless.

He also thought that the heartland could shift geographically, especially given Britain's industrial rise and how it could dominate everywhere given its geographic position.

Changing centre of power

The changing global economic centre of gravity.

West > East

It shifts with economic change, beginning in the Middle East/Central Asia before 1800 and moving towards:

• British industrial revolution (1820-1913)
• Industrial rise of the USA (1913-1960)
• China's rise since 1990 (arguably the fastest shift in history based on 2025 projections- this has also helped to balance the pre 1800 balance)

Changing patterns of power, World Systems Theory (A capitalist world)

Core vs Periphery

Core regions drive the world economy, developing in the 18th century (UK) and 19th century (Europe, North America, Japan) financed by a wealthy farming sector (enabling transition into secondary/tertiary/quaternary sector). However... Wallerstein ignored that China and the India had the world's largest economies in 1800.

Regardless, this western 'core' owns and consumes 75% of global goods, but the rise of China and India is changing this. (remember, this theory was developed in 1974)

Peripheral areas lie at the other extreme, and rely on the exploitation of core areas. It is largely the result of colonialism, and largely conerns Africa, Asia and Latin America, where trade and labour was unequal, favouring the core areas.

These patterns persist, as peripheral economies rely on primary exports, and are controlled by the production lines of core areas. Decision making and investment therefore lies in the hands of the core areas, and so they maintain the development gap.

Changing patterns of power

To deliver capitalism, modern insitutional reform is fundamental, e.g. through structured banking and a legal system of currencies and investment loans.

What fuelled this? The advance of communism in the 1940s, where Soviet money was reaching India and Southeast Asia; the US in both fear of further expansion and retaliation, formed anti-communism foreign policy which was maintained until the USSR's collapse in 1991.

How did the USA achieve this? Through two organisations established after WW2, the IMF (currency stability) and the World Bank (development loans).

Modernisation theorists argue that capitalism was the solution to poverty. Without this, poverty would remain a trap/cycle and traditional family values would hold back economies.

Investment into countries bordering/near China/USSR, i.e. Japan, India, South Korea etc. would prevent the spread of communism. These policies remained key even when the USSR collapsed, investment and aid became a priority for ex-communist countries.

Changing patterns of power

This argues that developing countries remain dependent on wealthier nations and that this is the cause of poverty.

The terms of trade do not favour the developing countries, through tariffs and duties; this imbalance helps to maintain poverty. Low profits also deter investment and so this becomes a vicious cycle.

To develop, countries need to adopt a virtuous cycle, i.e. retain primary products and invest in processing and manufacturing to create employment. In doing so, they would face tariff barriers in Europe, Japan and the USA.