Polycentrism or Multipolarity: Understanding the Contemporary International System – Ünal Çeviköz

• 

---

The post-Cold War international system was dominated
by unipolarity, with the United States as the uncontested hegemon. Over the
past two decades, this structure has faced challenges from emerging powers,
regional organizations, and non-state actors, prompting debates about the
emergence of a multipolar order. The contemporary international system,
therefore, is often described as transitioning from unipolarity to multipolarity.
However, multipolarity, which assumes a system of relatively equal power among
multiple poles, does not adequately describe the current landscape. Instead,
polycentrism—characterized by the coexistence of multiple, differentiated
centres of power—better reflects the realities of the contemporary
international system.

This piece explains the distinctions between multipolarity and
polycentrism, arguing that the latter provides a more accurate framework for
understanding today’s
global order. It examines the key features of polycentrism, critiques the
limitations of multipolarity as an analytical lens, and assesses the
implications of polycentrism for global governance and international relations.

Multipolarity traditionally refers to an
international system with multiple power centres, or “poles,” that possess roughly equal capabilities
in military, economic, and political influence. Historical examples include the
European balance of power in the 19th century (Waltz, 1979; Kissinger, 1994).
Multipolar systems are often characterised by intense competition, alliances,
and shifting balances of power (Morgenthau, 1948). Polycentrism, on the other
hand, denotes a system where multiple centres of power exist but are not equal regarding
their influence, reach, or capacities. This concept has its roots in governance
theory (Ostrom, 1990) but has gained traction in international relations to
describe the current global order (Ruggie, 2014). Unlike the rigid structure of
multipolarity, polycentrism emphasises the diversity and fluidity of power
dynamics, acknowledging the interconnected yet asymmetric nature of global
influence.

While the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia,
and the growing influence of regional powers such as India, Brazil and Turkey
are often cited as evidence of multipolarity, these actors do not possess equivalent
capabilities. The United States retains significant military and economic
preeminence, while China’s
influence is regionally concentrated despite its global ambitions. Meanwhile,
actors like the European Union and international organisations function as
critical centres of governance but lack cohesive military power. The disparity
among these centres undermines the premise of a truly multipolar system. For
example; Russia’s
geopolitical influence contrasts sharply with its economic limitations, India’s global ambitions remain
constrained by domestic challenges and regional competition, and the case with
Brazil and Turkey is not much different.

The contemporary system is better described as
polycentric, with multiple centres of influence operating across different
domains. The United States, China, the European Union, ASEAN, emerging
economies, but also new groupings such as BRICS prevail as economic centres.
NATO, the U.S., Russia, and regional alliances like the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO) and the African Union are considered as security centres.
The United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the OSCE and other global
institutions are characterised as normative and institutional centres.
Moreover, Silicon Valley, global media conglomerates, and transnational tech
firms happen to be technological and cultural centres. These centres of
influence often overlap and compete, but rarely achieve dominance across all
spheres. Hence, there is a rich diversity and pluralism in the structure of
today’s international system.

The multipolarity framework assumes symmetry among
power centres, leading to oversimplified analyses of interstate dynamics. It
overlooks, a) the asymmetry of power, namely the uneven distribution of
military, economic, and institutional capacities, b) the existence of non-state
actors, the growing influence of multinational corporations, non-governmental
organisations, and transnational advocacy networks, c) interdependence, namely
the interconnected nature of the global system, where power is diffuse and often
exercised collaboratively or competitively across domains. By focusing on
state-centric poles multipolarity fails to capture the complexity of
contemporary global governance.

One should also take into account the new
developments which could exemplify the polycentric approach, such as the Belt
and Road Initiative (BRI) of China, as its influence extends through
infrastructure investments, trade networks, and regional partnerships, in spite
of the fact that its reach is limited by political pushback and economic
dependencies. The EU also exemplifies institutional and normative influence,
shaping global norms on trade, climate change, and human rights. Yet, its
military and geopolitical power remains limited. While the U.S. continues to
dominate in military and technological domains, its influence is challenged by
regional powers and shifting alliances, reflecting the interconnected dynamics
of polycentrism.

A polycentric system challenges traditional models of
great-power competition and necessitates new approaches to global governance.
It requires coalitions of actors across regions and domains, moving beyond
rigid alliances or blocs. Furthermore, with no single hegemony or dominant
poles, global governance must embrace shared leadership and collaborative
frameworks. Polycentric systems are inherently dynamic, too, requiring states
and institutions to adapt to shifting power dynamics and emerging centres of influence.

The contemporary international system, therefore, is better understood as polycentric rather than multipolar. The diversity and asymmetry of power among states, organisations and other actors challenge traditional notions of balance and hierarchy. By adopting a polycentric framework, scholars and policymakers can better analyse and navigate the complexities of global governance in the 21st century. Future research, therefore, should choose to focus on refining the concept of polycentrism, exploring its implications for international relations theory, and developing strategies for effective governance in a world characterised by multiple, unequal centres of power.

---

---

---

Bu yazıya atıf için:  Ünal Çeviköz, “BRICS Üyeliğinin Dayanılmaz Ağırlığı”, 21 Haziran 2024, https://www.uikpanorama.com/blog/2024/06/21/brics-uc/

---

Telif@PanoramaGlobal. Çevrimiçi olarak yayımlanan yazıların tüm telif hakları Panorama dergisine aittir. Aksi belirtilmediği sürece, yayımlanan yazılarda belirtilen görüşler yalnızca yazarına/yazarlarına aittir. UİK, Global Akademi, Panorama Yayın Kurulu ile editörleri ve diğer yazarları bağlamaz.