Australian Journal of International Affairs
ISSN: 1035-7718 (Print) 1465-332X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20
Is Australia a middle power? A systemic impact
approach
Andrew Carr
To cite this article: Andrew Carr (2014) Is Australia a middle power? A systemic impact approach,
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68:1, 70-84, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
Published online: 31 Oct 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7172
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 17 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caji20
,Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2014
Vol. 68, No. 1, 70–84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
Is Australia a middle power? A systemic
impact approach
ANDREW CARR*
This article examines whether Australia is a middle power. It identifies the
three most popular approaches to defining a middle power: by a country’s
position, behaviour and identity. The article tests each definition against
Australia, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. Highlighting an
earlier systemic approach to defining states, an alternative ‘systemic impact’
definition for middle powers is proposed. This approach, it is argued,
provides a more comprehensive manner for identifying whether a country
like Australia is a middle power, along with the implications for interna-
tional security.
Keywords: Australia; international relations theory; middle power
Is Australia a middle power? This seems a simple question, given the extensive
scholarship identifying Australia as a middle power, along with the historical
claims of policy makers going back to the 1940s. In recent years, there has been a
range of studies which describe Australia as a middle power (Beeson 2011; Cotton
and Ravenhill 2012; Gilley 2011; Manicom and O’Neil 2012; Tow and Rigby
2011), as do policy makers, especially the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd
(2008, 2012), and the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr (2012). Upon
what are these judgements based? And what does it mean for Australia to be a
middle power? This article identifies the three main approaches used to define
middle powers and applies them to Australia. It examines what each approach
implies about middle powers and what predictive or analytical tools each
definition offers for improving our understanding of Australia, if we determine it
is a middle power. On this count, the three analysed definitions are consistent in
identifying Australia as a middle power, yet there is a highly contentious debate
within the literature over which of these approaches is most appropriate.
All three of the popular approaches to defining middle powers are contro-
versial. The extent of the debate has led some scholars to question the utility of
the term ‘middle power’ (Frühling 2007, 149; Stairs 1998, 275) or wonder
whether it should be left in the analytical dustbin (Ravenhill 1998, 310). The
debate over defining middle powers is currently considered to be at an ‘impasse
*Andrew Carr is an Associate Lecturer in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian
National University. <>
© 2013 Australian Institute of International Affairs
, Is Australia a middle power? 71
… mired, and without a clear path forward’ (D. Cooper 2011, 323). In
response, this article highlights an earlier tradition and proposes a systemic
impact approach which focuses on the capacity of these states to affect the
international system. The new definition is again tested against Australia to
examine the advantages and drawbacks of the proposed approach. Finally, the
article discusses the implications for future research.
In his classic text Politics among Nations, Hans Morgenthau (1961, 441)
noted that: ‘the distinction between great and small powers … is of course one
of the elemental experiences of international politics’. From this observation
springs the recognition that there are some ‘states weaker than the great powers
in the system but significantly stronger than the minor powers and small states’
(Holbraad 1984, 4). These states are typically identified as middle powers. The
first references to this middle class of states have been traced back at least 500
years to the works of Thomas Aquinas, Giovanni Botero and Hugo Grotius
(Ravenhill 1998, 309; Wight 1995, 298). Yet, moving beyond determining what
middle powers are not (neither big nor small), to identify what they are, has
proven difficult. Some of the key definitions of the concept lack explanatory
power, or simply dissolve into tautology. Therefore, despite the long history of
the term, Ping’s (2005, 3) claim that ‘no commonly accepted definition or
method of definition of middle powers exists’ still holds true.
Arguments over definitions might be a never-ending staple of academic life, one
often seen as far removed from the realities faced by policy makers, but there is a
particular importance when it comes to clearly understanding the term ‘middle
power’. First, many policy makers in both developed and developing countries
use the term in their public rhetoric, seeing political resonance and geopolitical
significance in it. This is especially true in Australia, where the term ‘middle
power’ is seen as ‘one of the most enduring themes in Australian foreign policy
discourse for over sixty years’ (Ungerer 2007, 551). Second, the term ‘middle
power’ represents an important caution to studies of international relations which
are too tightly focused on great power politics. Because of realism’s ‘indeterm-
inacy about the behaviour of secondary or small states’ (Goh 2007, 116), many
scholars have elected to sideline smaller states in their analysis. Or they have been
turned off by the overblown claims of middle power influence and idealism by
policy makers and scholars, especially those suggesting that these states possess a
form of ‘moral superiority’ (Wood 1988, 20), which is an ‘empirically
discreditable’ argument (D. Cooper 2011, 321). This demonstrates the signific-
ance of the question ‘Is Australia a middle power?’ In order to answer it, the
article will now test the three main approaches which define middle powers.
These are by their position, their behaviour and their identity.
The position approach
Position definitions of middle powers focus on quantifiable factors, such as
gross domestic product (GDP), population, military size and defence spending,
ISSN: 1035-7718 (Print) 1465-332X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20
Is Australia a middle power? A systemic impact
approach
Andrew Carr
To cite this article: Andrew Carr (2014) Is Australia a middle power? A systemic impact approach,
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68:1, 70-84, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
Published online: 31 Oct 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7172
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 17 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caji20
,Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2014
Vol. 68, No. 1, 70–84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
Is Australia a middle power? A systemic
impact approach
ANDREW CARR*
This article examines whether Australia is a middle power. It identifies the
three most popular approaches to defining a middle power: by a country’s
position, behaviour and identity. The article tests each definition against
Australia, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. Highlighting an
earlier systemic approach to defining states, an alternative ‘systemic impact’
definition for middle powers is proposed. This approach, it is argued,
provides a more comprehensive manner for identifying whether a country
like Australia is a middle power, along with the implications for interna-
tional security.
Keywords: Australia; international relations theory; middle power
Is Australia a middle power? This seems a simple question, given the extensive
scholarship identifying Australia as a middle power, along with the historical
claims of policy makers going back to the 1940s. In recent years, there has been a
range of studies which describe Australia as a middle power (Beeson 2011; Cotton
and Ravenhill 2012; Gilley 2011; Manicom and O’Neil 2012; Tow and Rigby
2011), as do policy makers, especially the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd
(2008, 2012), and the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr (2012). Upon
what are these judgements based? And what does it mean for Australia to be a
middle power? This article identifies the three main approaches used to define
middle powers and applies them to Australia. It examines what each approach
implies about middle powers and what predictive or analytical tools each
definition offers for improving our understanding of Australia, if we determine it
is a middle power. On this count, the three analysed definitions are consistent in
identifying Australia as a middle power, yet there is a highly contentious debate
within the literature over which of these approaches is most appropriate.
All three of the popular approaches to defining middle powers are contro-
versial. The extent of the debate has led some scholars to question the utility of
the term ‘middle power’ (Frühling 2007, 149; Stairs 1998, 275) or wonder
whether it should be left in the analytical dustbin (Ravenhill 1998, 310). The
debate over defining middle powers is currently considered to be at an ‘impasse
*Andrew Carr is an Associate Lecturer in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian
National University. <>
© 2013 Australian Institute of International Affairs
, Is Australia a middle power? 71
… mired, and without a clear path forward’ (D. Cooper 2011, 323). In
response, this article highlights an earlier tradition and proposes a systemic
impact approach which focuses on the capacity of these states to affect the
international system. The new definition is again tested against Australia to
examine the advantages and drawbacks of the proposed approach. Finally, the
article discusses the implications for future research.
In his classic text Politics among Nations, Hans Morgenthau (1961, 441)
noted that: ‘the distinction between great and small powers … is of course one
of the elemental experiences of international politics’. From this observation
springs the recognition that there are some ‘states weaker than the great powers
in the system but significantly stronger than the minor powers and small states’
(Holbraad 1984, 4). These states are typically identified as middle powers. The
first references to this middle class of states have been traced back at least 500
years to the works of Thomas Aquinas, Giovanni Botero and Hugo Grotius
(Ravenhill 1998, 309; Wight 1995, 298). Yet, moving beyond determining what
middle powers are not (neither big nor small), to identify what they are, has
proven difficult. Some of the key definitions of the concept lack explanatory
power, or simply dissolve into tautology. Therefore, despite the long history of
the term, Ping’s (2005, 3) claim that ‘no commonly accepted definition or
method of definition of middle powers exists’ still holds true.
Arguments over definitions might be a never-ending staple of academic life, one
often seen as far removed from the realities faced by policy makers, but there is a
particular importance when it comes to clearly understanding the term ‘middle
power’. First, many policy makers in both developed and developing countries
use the term in their public rhetoric, seeing political resonance and geopolitical
significance in it. This is especially true in Australia, where the term ‘middle
power’ is seen as ‘one of the most enduring themes in Australian foreign policy
discourse for over sixty years’ (Ungerer 2007, 551). Second, the term ‘middle
power’ represents an important caution to studies of international relations which
are too tightly focused on great power politics. Because of realism’s ‘indeterm-
inacy about the behaviour of secondary or small states’ (Goh 2007, 116), many
scholars have elected to sideline smaller states in their analysis. Or they have been
turned off by the overblown claims of middle power influence and idealism by
policy makers and scholars, especially those suggesting that these states possess a
form of ‘moral superiority’ (Wood 1988, 20), which is an ‘empirically
discreditable’ argument (D. Cooper 2011, 321). This demonstrates the signific-
ance of the question ‘Is Australia a middle power?’ In order to answer it, the
article will now test the three main approaches which define middle powers.
These are by their position, their behaviour and their identity.
The position approach
Position definitions of middle powers focus on quantifiable factors, such as
gross domestic product (GDP), population, military size and defence spending,
