From Wealth to Power

Rating:
Summary: The growth of the American state, and of American power
Review: "What turns rich nations into great powers," asks Fareed Zakaria in his opening line; he attempts to answer that question by examining American foreign policy from 1865 to 1908 observing that the period from 1865 to 1889 featured few expansive ventures, though that from 1890 to 1908 saw plenty expansions.

Mr. Zakaria, now the editor of Newsweek, wrote "From Wealth to Power" for his doctoral dissertation. Hence the tone of the work is largely academic, with plenty of references to academic debates and literature reviews. All the same, the text is accessible and hardly ever esoteric; the academic density is likely to add to rather than subtract from the enjoyment of reading the book.

What of the thesis itself? Mr. Zakaria approaches his period of examination from two alternative angles, both of which are used in the international relations literature to explain why nations expand: realism and defensive realism. The former places emphasis on why and when states choose to expand by focusing on an innate drive to power, tempered by practicability and opportunity; the latter maintains that states expand when they are faced with threats.

Mr. Zakaria, it turns out, is content with neither of the two propositions. What best explains this period of American foreign policy, he contends, is a variation of realism: state-centered realism (SCR). The important qualification of SCR is that it accounts for power conversion-the ability of the state apparatus to convert national resources into stated government objectives. This approach, Mr. Zakaria continues, applies to the American case because although the American nation was strong from 1865 to 1908, only when the state and its bureaucracy were streamlined was America able to pursue an ambitious foreign policy (from 1890 onward).

The thesis is elegant, the argument tightly argued, and the prose clear and concise. Occasionally, Mr. Zakaria attacks defensive realism by refuting arguments that some defensive realists would rarely make; but this is rare and cannot distract from the convincingness of the his overall thesis: that it was the rise of the American state that helped America convert its vast national wealth into international influence. Anyone seeking to understand that period of American foreign policy, or the overall theoretical question, can hardly do better than read "From Wealth to Power."

Rating:
Summary: Nicely done
Review: Being a casual observer and student of affairs international - be it political,economic or foreign policy matters of nations- I must say that I enjoyed the book immensely. In my opinion it is well written, to the point and precise even though I didn't care too much for the 'theories' elicited in the book on the subject, everything else was fascinating and noteworthy.

Rating:
Summary: When Do Nations Become Assertive?
Review: In From Wealth to Power Fareed Zakaria presents two competing theories of foreign policy, applies his own modifications to one theory, and compares them with the actual evolution of American foreign policy from 1865 to 1908. The following three paragraphs summarize his thesis.

1. A theory of foreign policy is a method of understanding past and predicting future motives, intentions or goals of a nation's interactions with others, regardless of the outcomes. This is in contrast with a theory of international politics which seeks to explain and predict outcomes. A primary goal of a theory of foreign policy is to understand and predict when a nation is likely to adopt an expansive foreign policy by increasing its military forces, asserting itself diplomatically, or attempting to annex or conquer territory.

2. The two traditional theories of foreign policy are classical realism and defensive realism. Classical realism holds that a nation will adopt an expansive foreign policy when it has the resources to do so. Defensive realism takes the position that nations develop expansive foreign policies in reaction to perceived threats. Zakaria presents his own modification of classical realism, which he calls state-centric realism. In this variation, he posits that not only must a nation have the resources to implement an expansive foreign policy, but an adequate portion of the nation's resources must be available to the state, the national government, the makers and implementers of foreign policy.

3. Zakaria justifies replacing classical realism with state-centric realism based on (1) logical argument: national resources the state cannot utilize cannot support a larger army and (2) the example of the United States immediately after the Civil War when the US became wealthy as a nation but maintained a minimal national government. He then examines events in US diplomatic history to determine whether they are more consistent with state centric realism or defensive realism. His conclusion is that state centric realism is far more consistent with observed behavior than defensive realism.

In the process of reaching this conclusion, Zakaria touches on several interesting themes in American history in from 1865 to 1908:

1. The federal government's reconstruction of the South following the Civil War was largely a failure. When it was ended as a result of the 1876 election, the old power elite and structures, minus slavery, returned. The real changes in the South came about over the next century as a result of the rise of the national economy and national market starting in the 1880s. As a closed regional market, the market inefficiencies of regionalism and racial discrimination in the South were hidden by the lack of competition. As interregional trade grew, the South had to make better use of all its resources to compete effectively. In the process, it became part of a more united nation.

2. The rise of the national economy and market also transformed the federal government by inserting it into the management of commerce and the economy in the 1880s and 1890s. Key events were the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.

3. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 transformed the federal bureaucracy from a small group of appointees based on political patronage (the practice since Andrew Jackson instituted the "spoils system") to a larger cadre of career bureaucrats.

4. Slowly and step-by-step, Presidents Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and Cleveland clawed back the authority of the presidency as an independent branch of the federal government. Under Presidents Andrew Johnson and Grant, much presidential authority had shifted to the Senate, which expanded its advice and consent role to include the selection of cabinet secretaries and the negotiation of treaties, and to the House, which attached conditions to appropriation bills that made funding contingent on the President adopting specified policies.

These themes increased the power of the federal government by uniting the nation, increasing its role in the economy, and creating a professional bureaucracy. They also provided the conditions necessary (and sufficient, as events have shown) for the US to adopt a more expansive foreign policy under Zakaria's theory of state-centric realism.

Zakaria also notes that the rise of the power of the state in the US, in response to domestic economic development, was notably different that in Europe where state power usually rose in direct response to foreign military threats.

From Wealth to Power is a valuable contribution to the literature of foreign policy and international politics. It makes a particularly good companion volume to Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers which focuses primarily on the historical outcomes of foreign policies. (Zakaria studied under Kennedy as an undergraduate at Yale.)

It was fascinating to see a political scientist / historian carefully and consciously apply the scientific method in his work: Zakaria proposes competing hypotheses then presents and analyzes data with the goal of showing that one of the hypotheses is inconsistent with the data and, therefore, false. Beyond the thesis of his book, he has thereby made a major contribution to making political science a real science.


Rating:
Summary: a great overview of early U.S. foreign policy
Review: the author has two separate agendas. One is to contribute to theoretical debates among academic political scientists; the other is to tell the story of America's rise to global power between the Civil War and World War I. The theoretical stuff seems right but is pretty arcane; the history, on the other hand, is very well told and intelligently structured. It'll definitely make you think. Plus, the whole thing is written beautifully.

Rating:
Summary: A provocative retelling of American history
Review: Zakaria explains why America became a world power in the "unusual," halting, delayed manner that it did. This book puts the events of 1898 and the diplomacy of Teddy Roosevelt in a fascinating light. He restores the fame and reputation of one of the great American statesmen -- William Henry Seward. And I agree with the other reviews -- it's *very* well written with interesting, well chosen anecdotes.

Rating:
Summary: A provocative retelling of American history
Review: Zakaria explains why America became a world power in the "unusual," halting, delayed manner that it did. This book puts the events of 1898 and the diplomacy of Teddy Roosevelt in a fascinating light. He restores the fame and reputation of one of the great American statesmen -- William Henry Seward. And I agree with the other reviews -- it's *very* well written with interesting, well chosen anecdotes.

Rating:
Summary: Good realist perspective but...
Review: Zakaria's insights seem relevant to the on-going debates on offensive/defensive realism. But he has very misguided views on defensive realism. "State-centered realism" is nothing new to the realists' general perspective on state-centered systemic determinism which even most of the defensive realists regard as essential. By combining US foreign policy history with his proclaimed theory - isn't he in fact making a case for defensive realism?

Rating:
Summary: Good realist perspective but...
Review: Zakaria's insights seem relevant to the on-going debates on offensive/defensive realism. But he has very misguided views on defensive realism. "State-centered realism" is nothing new to the realists' general perspective on state-centered systemic determinism which even most of the defensive realists regard as essential. By combining US foreign policy history with his proclaimed theory - isn't he in fact making a case for defensive realism?

Rating:
Summary: Good realist perspective but...
Review: Zakaria's insights seem relevant to the on-going debates on offensive/defensive realism. But he has very misguided views on defensive realism. "State-centered realism" is nothing new to the realists' general perspective on state-centered systemic determinism which even most of the defensive realists regard as essential. By combining US foreign policy history with his proclaimed theory - isn't he in fact making a case for defensive realism?