2 The Big Players: Analyzing Traditional Geopolitical Powerhouses through Data
Below is a fully rewritten and substantially restructured chapter, aligned with the tone, scope, and analytical density of a standard academic monograph in geopolitics/geoeconomics. All references are cited in-text using BibTeX keys, and a clean BibTeX block is provided at the end, ready to be pasted directly into references.bib.
The contemporary geoeconomic landscape remains deeply shaped by a small number of actors whose structural influence far exceeds their numerical representation in the international system. These traditional geopolitical powerhouses—the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union—continue to exert disproportionate influence over global economic governance, security arrangements, and technological trajectories. While their historical paths and institutional configurations differ markedly, they share a defining characteristic: each occupies strategically advantageous positions within global economic, financial, military, and diplomatic networks. Understanding how this influence is produced, maintained, and transformed in the twenty-first century requires moving beyond narrative accounts toward analytically disciplined, data-informed frameworks.
This chapter advances the argument that traditional power remains measurable, not merely observable. Economic size, military expenditure, diplomatic reach, and network centrality can be systematically analyzed using contemporary data science tools. Rather than treating power as an abstract attribute, the chapter conceptualizes it as an emergent property of position within interconnected systems—systems that can be mapped, quantified, and compared over time.
2.1 From Globalization Phases to Structural Power
Globalization has not been a linear or uniform process. Its successive phases have redistributed productive capacity, technological capabilities, and bargaining power across regions in uneven ways. The first modern wave of globalization, driven by industrialization in Northern economies, entrenched a sharp divergence between industrial cores and peripheral regions. Productivity gains, technological innovation, and economies of scale allowed early industrializers to consolidate economic dominance, while much of the Global South remained locked into primary production structures (R. E. Baldwin, Martin, and Ottaviano (2001)).
The second phase, catalyzed by advances in information and communication technologies, fundamentally altered this configuration. The fragmentation of production and the rise of global value chains enabled firms to relocate labor-intensive segments of production to lower-cost regions without relinquishing control over design, branding, or intellectual property. Emerging economies such as China and India leveraged these opportunities to industrialize rapidly, closing portions of the productivity gap with advanced economies (R. Baldwin (2016)). These shifts are visible in longitudinal trade and GDP data, which show a steady increase in the contribution of emerging markets to global output and trade volumes.
Yet this rebalancing did not eliminate asymmetries; it reconfigured them. Control over standards, finance, logistics, and technology remained concentrated, reinforcing the strategic importance of network position. As globalization deepened, power became increasingly embedded in infrastructures rather than territories, in rules rather than borders, and in coordination capabilities rather than sheer output.
2.2 Economic Metrics as Indicators of Geoeconomic Power
Economic capacity remains a foundational component of geopolitical influence, but its meaning has evolved. Aggregate indicators such as GDP, trade volumes, and foreign direct investment flows provide necessary but insufficient insights. What matters increasingly is not only how much a country produces, but how its economy is integrated into global systems.
The United States exemplifies this logic. Beyond its economic scale, its influence is amplified by the centrality of its financial institutions, the dominance of the dollar in international transactions, and its agenda-setting role in multilateral economic governance (Helleiner (2014)). These features confer structural advantages that extend far beyond conventional trade metrics.
China’s ascent illustrates a different pathway. Since its accession to the World Trade Organization, China has combined export-led growth with strategic state intervention, industrial policy, and outward investment. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative have extended China’s economic footprint across Asia, Africa, and Europe, reshaping trade routes, infrastructure networks, and diplomatic alignments (Cai (2017); Huang (2016)). From a data science perspective, China’s growing influence can be quantified through network analyses of trade flows, infrastructure financing, and bilateral agreements, revealing increasing centrality in multiple regional systems.
The European Union occupies a distinct position. As a regulatory power rather than a centralized state, its influence derives from the size of its internal market and its capacity to externalize regulatory standards. Analyses of intra-EU trade networks and regulatory diffusion demonstrate how the EU exercises power through rules and norms rather than direct coercion (Jones (2019)).
2.3 Military Expenditure, Geography, and Strategic Reach
Military capacity remains a critical dimension of power, particularly when integrated with economic and technological resources. Global military spending data reveal persistent hierarchies, with the United States maintaining a level of expenditure unmatched by any other actor. However, longitudinal data also show sustained increases in Chinese and Russian military investments, reflecting strategic ambitions and regional security concerns (Kalkman (2020)).
Geospatial analysis enhances understanding of military power by situating expenditures within physical space. The global distribution of military bases, troop deployments, and defense agreements reveals patterns of reach and constraint. The extensive overseas basing network of the United States underpins its capacity for global power projection (Cooley and Nexon (2013)). Russia’s strategic emphasis on neighboring regions and the Arctic similarly reflects a geographically grounded conception of influence (Giles (2019)).
Network analysis further clarifies how military alliances structure global security. NATO, for example, functions as a dense security network that amplifies the collective power of its members, illustrating how institutionalized cooperation modifies individual capabilities.
2.4 Diplomatic Networks and Institutional Centrality
Diplomatic influence operates through institutional participation, coalition-building, and agenda-setting. Multilateral forums such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund provide arenas in which power is exercised through negotiation and rule-making rather than force. Voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly, when analyzed using network methods, reveal persistent blocs and shifting alignments that reflect underlying economic and political ties (Voeten, Strezhnev, and Bailey (2009)).
China’s expanding diplomatic engagement with the Global South, often linked to economic investment, has altered these patterns. Network analyses of aid, trade, and diplomatic exchanges show how Beijing has progressively increased its influence across Africa and Latin America (Alden (2007); Shambaugh (2013)). These developments underscore the complementarity between economic engagement and diplomatic leverage.
The increasing availability of high-resolution economic, military, and diplomatic data has transformed the study of geopolitics. Network theory allows scholars to conceptualize power as relational rather than absolute, emphasizing position, connectivity, and dependence. Predictive analytics enable the modeling of how shocks—such as sanctions, trade wars, or conflicts—propagate through interconnected systems.
Machine learning approaches have been applied to conflict prediction, sanction effectiveness, and alliance dynamics, demonstrating the potential of computational methods to complement traditional analysis (Cederman and Gleditsch (2009)). At the same time, data science sheds light on soft power by analyzing cultural flows, media narratives, and digital influence, expanding the analytical toolkit beyond material capabilities (Nye (2004)).
2.5 Conclusion
Traditional geopolitical powerhouses continue to shape the global order, but the mechanisms through which they do so have evolved. Power today is increasingly exercised through economic networks, institutional positions, and infrastructural control rather than through territorial dominance alone. By integrating data science methodologies into geoeconomic analysis, this chapter has demonstrated how power can be systematically measured, visualized, and compared.
This approach does not diminish the role of history or qualitative judgment. Rather, it complements them by providing empirical grounding for strategic analysis. As subsequent chapters will show, the same tools used to analyze traditional powerhouses can be applied to emerging actors, systemic risks, and future domains of contestation, reinforcing the central claim of this book: in the contemporary world, understanding power requires understanding data, networks, and their spatial organization.