King in the North: evaluating the status recognition and performance of the Scandinavian countries

IF 1.5 3区社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International Relations Pub Date : 2022-07-14 DOI:10.1177/00471178221110135

Pål Røren, A. Wivel

{"title":"King in the North: evaluating the status recognition and performance of the Scandinavian countries","authors":"Pål Røren, A. Wivel","doi":"10.1177/00471178221110135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Scandinavian states’ pursuit of status in world politics is well documented. However, little is known about whether these endeavors have resulted in higher status for these states. In this article, we suggest that the Scandinavian countries represent a useful case to explore whether similar foreign policy profiles and common club membership equalizes or exacerbates the unequal distribution of status recognition in world politics. To measure the status recognition of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, we use a network centrality measure of diplomatic representation and exchange from 1970 to 2010. We also measure how well the states have performed to increase their status recognition given their available status resources (measured by military capabilities and wealth) and their status-seeking effort (measured by relative diplomatic outreach). Our results show that Sweden has received significantly more recognition and performed much better than both Denmark and Norway in the measured period. We offer three explanations for these developments. First, the spoils of seeking status using the Scandinavian brand is akin to a regional zero-sum game in which Sweden, as the most visible state of the three, is the main beneficiary of the status recognition in the direction of the club. Second, status recognition often lags achievements or increases in status resources because the beliefs of foreign policy practitioners are only updated sporadically. This status lag is especially visible when states struggle to convert their resources into status (Norway), or when they succeed in maintaining their status despite experiencing a drop in status resources (Sweden). Third, an increase in status resources will only influence status recognition if it plays into a corresponding narrative. Sweden, in contrast to the nouveau riche Norwegians, has managed to rearticulate its foreign policy in a way that has attracted recognition in world politics.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221110135","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Scandinavian states’ pursuit of status in world politics is well documented. However, little is known about whether these endeavors have resulted in higher status for these states. In this article, we suggest that the Scandinavian countries represent a useful case to explore whether similar foreign policy profiles and common club membership equalizes or exacerbates the unequal distribution of status recognition in world politics. To measure the status recognition of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, we use a network centrality measure of diplomatic representation and exchange from 1970 to 2010. We also measure how well the states have performed to increase their status recognition given their available status resources (measured by military capabilities and wealth) and their status-seeking effort (measured by relative diplomatic outreach). Our results show that Sweden has received significantly more recognition and performed much better than both Denmark and Norway in the measured period. We offer three explanations for these developments. First, the spoils of seeking status using the Scandinavian brand is akin to a regional zero-sum game in which Sweden, as the most visible state of the three, is the main beneficiary of the status recognition in the direction of the club. Second, status recognition often lags achievements or increases in status resources because the beliefs of foreign policy practitioners are only updated sporadically. This status lag is especially visible when states struggle to convert their resources into status (Norway), or when they succeed in maintaining their status despite experiencing a drop in status resources (Sweden). Third, an increase in status resources will only influence status recognition if it plays into a corresponding narrative. Sweden, in contrast to the nouveau riche Norwegians, has managed to rearticulate its foreign policy in a way that has attracted recognition in world politics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

北方之王:评价斯堪的纳维亚国家的地位、认识和表现

斯堪的纳维亚国家对世界政治地位的追求有据可查。然而，人们对这些努力是否提高了这些州的地位知之甚少。在本文中，我们认为斯堪的纳维亚国家代表了一个有用的案例，可以探讨相似的外交政策概况和共同的俱乐部成员资格是否会平衡或加剧世界政治中地位承认的不平等分配。为了衡量瑞典、丹麦和挪威的地位认可度，我们使用了1970年至2010年外交代表和交换的网络中心性度量。我们还衡量了这些国家在提高其地位认可方面的表现，考虑到它们可用的地位资源(以军事能力和财富衡量)和它们寻求地位的努力(以相对的外交外联衡量)。我们的研究结果表明，在测量期间，瑞典比丹麦和挪威得到了更多的认可，表现也要好得多。我们对这些发展提供了三种解释。首先，利用斯堪的纳维亚品牌寻求地位的好处类似于一场地区性的零和游戏，在这个游戏中，瑞典作为三个国家中最引人注目的国家，是俱乐部方向上地位认可的主要受益者。其次，地位认知往往滞后于成就或地位资源的增加，因为外交政策实践者的信念只是偶尔更新。当国家努力将其资源转化为地位时(挪威)，或者当他们在经历地位资源下降的情况下成功保持其地位时(瑞典)，这种地位滞后尤其明显。第三，地位资源的增加只有在符合相应叙事的情况下才会影响地位认知。与暴发户挪威人形成鲜明对比的是，瑞典成功地以一种吸引世界政治认可的方式重新阐明了其外交政策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

6.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.