acemoglu25_photographer is my life_getty images_globe

The Case for a Quadripolar World

Dec 3, 2020 Daron Acemoglu

According to the conventional wisdom, the twenty-first century will be characterized by the global shift from American hegemony to Sino-American rivalry. But a bipolar international order is neither inevitable nor desirable, and we should start imagining and working toward alternative arrangements.

CAMBRIDGE – Having diminished America’s global role while refusing to accept China’s growing clout, Donald Trump’s presidency represents the last gasp of a unipolar epoch. But while many assume that the unipolar post-Cold War world is giving way to a bipolar international order dominated by the United States and China, that outcome is neither inevitable nor desirable. Instead, there is every reason to hope for, and work toward, a world in which Europe and the emerging economies play a more assertive role.

To be sure, as the world’s most economically successful autocracy, China has already achieved significant geopolitical influence in Asia and beyond. During the two most recent global crises – the 2008 financial collapse and today’s pandemic – the Communist Party of China quickly adjusted the country’s political economy in response to changing circumstances, thereby solidifying its grip on power. Because countries that do not want to toe the US line now routinely turn to China for inspiration and, often, material support, what could be more natural than China emerging as one of the two poles of global power?

In fact, a bipolar world would be deeply unstable. Its emergence would heighten the risk of violent conflict (according to the logic of the Thucydides Trap), and its consolidation would make solutions to global problems wholly dependent on the national interests of the two reigning powers. Three of the biggest challenges facing humanity would either be ignored or made worse.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Surveillance Capitalism PS OnPoint
Getty Images

Surveillance Capitalism

Shoshana Zuboff explains why Big Tech's business model represents the advent of an unprecedented political economy.

3
How Europe Rules the Digital Economy PS OnPoint
Thierry Monasse/Corbis via Getty Images

How Europe Rules the Digital Economy

Anu Bradford shows how the European Union has become the de facto global leader in tech and data governance.

2
How Do Populists Win?
Tolga Akmen/AFP/Getty Images

How Do Populists Win?

Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson identify the three structural factors that have been crucial to right-wing nationalists' success.

9

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 in all 14 Comments on this article

Frederic Darthenay Dec 10, 2020

Thanks for this thought-provoking article, that builds on the pitfalls of head-to-head bipolar rivalry.

One moot point (also pointed at in other comments) is the potential effectiveness of the proposed “E10”, quite a very disparate bunch. This would be plagued by the same lack of common purpose than the BRICS (by the way, you go from BRICS to E10 by 1/ considering China one main player on its own, 2/ adding a little bit to the list & ... 3/ eventually disqualifying Russia !).

Could it not be more effective to “push forward”/encourage the role a few regional organizations (ASEAN, African Union, UNASUR) on the global scene (or arena, if you consider we are in a time of growing frictions) ? Among other things, they could be integrated into the G20 (in a way comparable to EU, even if they have not the same degree of integration). India would rather play a (growing ?) role on a stand-alone basis, based on its economic growing weight & demography.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Declan Murphy Dec 10, 2020

Thought provoking article. My only comment is that we should not underestimate the willingness of Americans to rein in Big Tech. Big Tech cannot and should not disappear. But it is quite possible to regulate it in the public interest. I think there is a lot more support for such a project among the voting public than one would suspect.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Borget Dec 8, 2020

Neat categorizations into polar groupings will not work because of the diversity of conflicting interests within each group and the need of each government to take whatever advantages it can get from any other government in any other polar group to further its own national interests. China understands this and is successful operating independently.
The immediate future is more likely to be an ad hoc, transactional approach by all countries that have enough flexibility to resist pressure from the 2 major powers, the US and China. This will benefit everyone as competition promotes development throughout the world, as the Belt and Road has been showing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hans Van Mameren Dec 7, 2020

Mr. Acemuglu you declined to call Geography a decisive vector. For a part that is right. But it cannot be excluded either. Mr. Kaplans book has this very good title: “The Revenge of Geography”. And geo-political matters cannot be seen without this geography.

“Better to have a good neighbour then a far friend” is an old saying. For nearly each country the biggest trading partner, cultural and economic, is its neighbour. Some in Europe understood that and start working together. That’s how we got EU. A unipolar world leads to domination, a bi-polar world to war. A multi polar world cannot afford a war. It’s too complicated. But take care it does not float back into bi-polar as happened in WW2. We need this multi-polar world of several independent blocks in order to keep the balance. But each block needs to be geographically connected. Brazil, South Africa and Turkey have not enough mutual interest. Middle East is important for Turkey. African nations for SA and Brazil be better friends with its neighbours. The multi-polar world can consist of several blocks. But they need to be in about equal size and be adjacent. EU is a neighbour of Russia and Russia is a neighbour of China. Just like ASEAN is to China. As India to ME and ASEAN. All those who live on the same island are better to peacefully co-exist. US better returns to Monroe and only engages with America. They only have 2 neighbours and are big enough to do it on their own. So is Latin America, Africa. And Eurasia.

EU, Russia, India, ME, ASEAN and China are on the same island. Each have to take care they are independent and strong. And live together. “The strong have many friends, the weak have many enemies”. When you are small, find an equal friend and be strong together. That’s what EU is. Europe needs to disentangle itself from US. US is on another island. Like it or not but Europe has to live with Russia and better with a prosperous Russia as with a marginalised angry neighbour. What US tries to make it, because it is on another island.

The statement that Brexit is the biggest political blunder since Caligula promoted his horse Consul, is very much illustrates the above. Never go against your Geographical position. You will be hurt, very much.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ven ze Dec 7, 2020

If a bipolar world (US versus China) does not seem to work. go for a multi-polar world based on multilateralism as currently promoted by a few major powers. If that does not work again, what else can?
Surely, nobody would want a single hegemonic power.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Madurai Padmanabhan Dec 6, 2020

Old wine in new bottle/s! Same initial conditions- democracy, human rights, nation states, power structures etc.

This will just shift the nature of alliances without creating constructive breakdowns in power balance.

Any revised governance ought to distribute global finance, security, global health, environment, technology and justice preferably supranationally.

The EU or ASEAN or Association of African Nations models, albeit unproven, points to issue based non- elected committees clustered around common challenges can pave the way for interests and voices beyond the incumbent elites to be reckoned with. Of course, not the toothless UN jurisprudence, but enforceable framework.

The basic tenet should be a networked architecture based on themes that matter for all of humanity and reset the current order that just incrementally creates new winners& losers; or new us and them of late.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kamesh K Dec 4, 2020

The E10 is confusing, trying to develop another term like BRIC? Not sure what these countries all have in common? India is democracy with right wing government, doesn't make it authoritarian.Such blanket satements are not helpful.
Is BigTech as practiced in the US really so powerful? I think it is overstated, subservient is too strong a description. China is a different issue, Don't believe that any Chinese company is independent they are all comrades of the party talking corporate language. That is definitely a threat.

The biggest threat is climate change. It is about survival. Human rights are not so important if we don't survive. Here, it is not helpful to paint developing economies as victims and the others as perperators. Developed countries won't survive as well, we have seen what a small known virus can do. Let's prepare for unknown knowns.
We need a multipolar world and we tried it in the form of UN which failed. Time for another one.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Dec 4, 2020

Daron Acemoglu believes a quadripolar world made up of the US, China, the EU and a group of emerging economies, something like a group of an “E10” - comprising Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, South Africa, and others - would have a stabilising effect on world peace. “Less conducive to a new cold war,” such a new international order “would bring more diverse voices to global governance.”
Since China’s rise, the US-dominated unipolar world that replaced the bipolar US-Russian geopolitical regime following the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, is unravelling, especially under Trump, who has focused on his “America First” agenda. In recent years there has been much talk about the twenty-first century being characterised by the global shift from American hegemony to a bipolar global order, marked by Sino-American rivalry.
But such an “outcome is neither inevitable nor desirable.” According to the author there are in fact “alternative arrangements” worth considering, arguing “there is every reason to hope for, and work toward, a world in which Europe and the emerging economies play a more assertive role.” A quadripolar world “would offer more hope than the bipolar alternative. Bringing these countries to the international table might make them more willing to countenance opposition at home.”
Such a scenario would allow emerging economies to “cooperate as a united front.” But for the moment, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Turkey are run by authoritarian leaders “intent on silencing their opponents, independent media, and civil-society groups.” Europe would inevitably “find itself at odds with this bloc when it comes to human rights and democracy.” If these countries could “abandon their most authoritarian, nationalistic, and destructive behavior,” no doubt “ushering in a quadripolar world may thus yield unexpected dividends.”
The author sees the danger of a bipolar world order, with China “emerging as one of the two poles of global order.” Beijing does not hesitate to use its economic might to bully weaker countries, “that do not want to toe the US line.” They now “routinely turn to China for inspiration and, often, material support.” The world’s” most economically successful autocracy,“ wants to convince emerging economies that its success model - authoritarian capitalism - is worth emulating.
China’s ambition for global hegemony would divide the world into two spheres of influence, exacerbating the US-China rivalry and escalating geopolitical tensions. It “would heighten the risk of violent conflict (according to the logic of the Thucydides Trap), and its consolidation would make solutions to global problems wholly dependent on the national interests of the two reigning powers.”
Three of the biggest challenges - the concentrated power of Big Tech; advocacy for human rights and democracy; and climate change - “facing humanity would either be ignored or made worse.” These challenges would be better dealt with “in a world with two additional poles, represented by the European Union and a consortium of emerging economies” mentioned above.
When it comes to “the concentrated power of Big Tech,” which has become “a key front in the US-China conflict, there is considerable congruence between the two countries. Both are committed to the pursuit of algorithmic dominance over humans, whereby digital platforms and artificial intelligence (AI) are used as tools by the government and corporations for surveilling and controlling the citizenry.”
Yet there are differences. While “the US government has adopted Big Tech’s own vision and become subservient to the industry, Chinese tech giants remain at the mercy of the government and must abide by its agenda,” like delivering big data and surveillance technologies that shape Chinese AI creators’ research and development.
As neither the US nor China “is likely to strengthen privacy standards and other protections for ordinary people, much less redirect the trajectory of AI research so that its benefits are unambiguous and widely shared,” the EU “has already emerged as a standard-bearer for privacy protection and regulation of Big Tech, and it is well positioned to push back against algorithmic automation.”
Emerging economies would benefit from joining forces with the EU, which would ensure that they would not bear the brunt of automation, as human labour would be replaced by AI. “Europe and the emerging world also can form a powerful constituency against fossil-fuel emissions. While the EU has become a world leader in decarbonization, emerging economies have an acute interest in climate action, because they will suffer disproportionately from global warming (despite having contributed the least to the problem).”
Emerging economies ruled by autocratic leaders need time to get their act together, before they have the incentives to focus on foreign affairs. It is important that the EU and the US strengthen their Transatlantic alliance, while cooperating with China on pressing issues that affect the entire world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Dec 3, 2020

I know the entire PS class has a down on Modi, but classing India as an authoritarian nation is just plain ludicrous - and this type of narrative is why you lose audiences, because people who can see the situation on the ground know such labels bear no resemblance to reality, and they will thereafter question the validity of everything else you have to say.

For a start, India is far too chaotic and fragmented with geographic power groupings to be classed as authoritarian - it's more akin to a bunch of rowing city states under an overarching papacy. States and state leaders have huge amounts of autonomy. But even if authoritarianism were the instinct of the incumbent (and in truth Modi is much more complex than that), if Modi loses the next election (which verifiably won't be doctored), he will be out, no ifs no buts. Y'all really need to stop buying your narratives from Arundati Roy and suchlike, and instead go and see for yourselves instead. And you know what? If you walk into India and go and speak to people across the nation to solicit their opinions of their rulers, ain't nobody gonna stop you or them from asking and saying what you or they please. Try that stunt in China and you will see the difference.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Dec 3, 2020

I don't agree with most of the countries listed for the 'E10' - India certainly, Brazil just about, but none of the others. The other likely members in my view are: Japan, S. Korea, Russia (yes, I know, rolls eyes), Israel, Canada and Australia.
- Prashant Kotak Dec 3, 2020
  
  And guess which was the pivotal nation I left out of the list? The UK. Such a grouping can work with the UK in it (at least, for a couple of decades), I doubt it can otherwise.
  I realize the author made his list of nations based on *need*, but need is an irrelevance, it's about which group of nations can viably maintain their independence without being forced to align with a Titan in a Bi or Tri polar world, and I don't believe nations like Turkey, SA etc, can. The logic of such a grouping that attempted to maintain independence from the hegemons would be brutal: it could not afford any passengers. Unless every member pulled their weight, they would be a burden.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prashant Kotak Dec 3, 2020

I think the 'Nation State' model is going to come under severe pressure everywhere as the decade progresses, including the US and China. I accept it doesn't look remotely like this is the case for China right now. The trend that is becoming clearer is the fact that the elite of global talent is increasingly distancing itself from narratives of the 'Nation State', and instead buying into a particular form of Global Cosmopolitanism - born in one country, educated another, careers, businesses and assets distributed across multiple countries. Obviously small as a percentage of total global population, but nevertheless hefty enough - perhaps a couple of hundred million. This shift of power is the result of the hardest of 21st century currencies - talent pools and talent hubs. The strata is a symbiosis of two sectors: Capital and Knowledge - serial entrepreneurs, investors, etc on one side and the top end of STEM researchers, IT specialists, complex-plus management experts on the other. This strata is increasingly mercenary and is starting to call the shots across the west, and it is only a matter of time before it does so across the east, even in China. Driven by the fact that their services are bid, and any nation that loses it's talent pools will stall. The outlooks of people in this class have significantly more in common with each other across nations than with the bulk of their own fellow citizens. The instinctive inclination of this class is to resent boundaries anywhere to the movement of capital and services (essentially people, although the physical movement of people is perhaps less important than the free movement of data, as big tranches of services can be supplied remotely; and they are less bothered about the movement of physical goods).

And counter to this class are the majority of everyday people and the incumbent ruling stratas within Nation States who will preserve the status quo if they can, but can switch sides if things are not going well. Naturally, neither the large numbers of people rapidly losing ground in terms of their voice being heard and their independence and prosperity, nor their representatives within governments, ie the embodiments of Nation States, will give way without a fight, so the potential for a violent counter reaction exists, especially in authoritarian nations. But I don't believe this trend is resistable because you cannot prevent people from moving - especially if they are'moving' remotely. Perhaps China will attempt to put shackles on in a few years in the form of golden handcuffs to prevent it's talent pools from draining out.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edwin Hoffman Dec 3, 2020

“But America’s principled commitment to democracy and human rights is thin and generally not taken seriously abroad.” - And yet, one can freely express such opinions while residing within and enjoying the standard of living of such a country.
- Leto Atreides Dec 6, 2020
  
  There is no contradiction. Comparing countries to people, a person can be handsome, rich, and smart, and use his superiority as justification to rob others because he thinks he is more deserving. Nor does he want to see another person like him that can compete with him for the spoils. The freedom accorded to a nation's citizens does not mean that the nation will treat citizens of other nations as equals. If it was the case for the US, it would have allowed its soldiers to be tried by international or foreign courts for crimes committed on foreign soils.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/lcm6oG9

Cookies and Privacy

The Case for a Quadripolar World

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Surveillance Capitalism

How Europe Rules the Digital Economy

How Do Populists Win?

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

The Case for a Quadripolar World

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification