Directory Search
Scroll further down to browse by year.
| 1. | Cooper, Andrew F: “Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries. In: Global Summitry, 4 (2), pp. 64–80, 2019. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: BRICS, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Rising States, Trade Profile) @article{Cooper2019, title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries}, author = {Andrew F Cooper }, url = {https://globalsummitryproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/“Rising”-States-and-Global-Reach-Measuring-“Globality”-among-BRICSMIKTA-Countries.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-07-18}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {2}, pages = {64–80}, abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of an interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection, underscore the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics.}, keywords = {BRICS, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Rising States, Trade Profile}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of an interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection, underscore the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. |
| 2. | Cooper, Andrew F: “Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries . In: Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 64-80, 2018, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: BRICS, G20, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Regional Entrapment, Rising States, Trade Profile, Trajectory, Turkey) @article{Cooper2018, title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries }, author = {Andrew F Cooper}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.5.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {64-80}, abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {BRICS, G20, Global Projection, Globality, MIKTA, Official Development Assistance, Regional Entrapment, Rising States, Trade Profile, Trajectory, Turkey}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. |
| 3. | Cooper, Andrew F: MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own? . In: Global Summitry, 1 (1), pp. 95-114, 2015, (article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: BRICS, Collective Action, G20, G7, global governance, Global Projection, middle powers, MIKTA, Multipolarism, Rise of the Informals) @article{Cooper2015, title = {MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own? }, author = {Andrew F. Cooper}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.6.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv005}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-07-28}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {95-114}, abstract = {Middle powers have long been excluded from global summits. The elevation of the G20 to the leaders’ level in the context of the 2008 financial crisis marks a significant turning point for Middle Power activity in global governance. Although most of the attention in the G20 was targeted on the relationship between the old G7 establishment and the large “emerging” market states, middle powers have been major beneficiaries of this self-selective G20 forum. Yet, despite their lead roles within the G20 as hosts and policy entrepreneurs, middle powers remain distinctive currently by not having a summit process of their own. This article examines the prospect of MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Australia) acting as a platform for such a summit. Formed as a dialogue process, MIKTA remains at an early stage of its development with a cautious club culture. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and India–Brazil–South Africa, the rationale to create a distinct summit process can overcome serious constraints. As a means not only to amplify their roles with respect to the new Informalism of the twenty-first century, but also to ensure that their presence in the hub of global governance is maintained, there is logic to creating a MIKTA summit.}, note = {article}, keywords = {BRICS, Collective Action, G20, G7, global governance, Global Projection, middle powers, MIKTA, Multipolarism, Rise of the Informals}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Middle powers have long been excluded from global summits. The elevation of the G20 to the leaders’ level in the context of the 2008 financial crisis marks a significant turning point for Middle Power activity in global governance. Although most of the attention in the G20 was targeted on the relationship between the old G7 establishment and the large “emerging” market states, middle powers have been major beneficiaries of this self-selective G20 forum. Yet, despite their lead roles within the G20 as hosts and policy entrepreneurs, middle powers remain distinctive currently by not having a summit process of their own. This article examines the prospect of MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Australia) acting as a platform for such a summit. Formed as a dialogue process, MIKTA remains at an early stage of its development with a cautious club culture. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and India–Brazil–South Africa, the rationale to create a distinct summit process can overcome serious constraints. As a means not only to amplify their roles with respect to the new Informalism of the twenty-first century, but also to ensure that their presence in the hub of global governance is maintained, there is logic to creating a MIKTA summit. |
2018 |
Cooper, Andrew F “Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries Journal Article Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 64-80, 2018, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). @article{Cooper2018, title = {“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among BRICS/MIKTA Countries }, author = {Andrew F Cooper}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.5.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz002}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {64-80}, abstract = {Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Global reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country-specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of the interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection underscores the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics. |
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.
2015 |
Cooper, Andrew F MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own? Journal Article Global Summitry, 1 (1), pp. 95-114, 2015, (article). @article{Cooper2015, title = {MIKTA and the Global Projection of Middle Powers: Toward a Summit of Their Own? }, author = {Andrew F. Cooper}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-1.1.6.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guv005}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-07-28}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {95-114}, abstract = {Middle powers have long been excluded from global summits. The elevation of the G20 to the leaders’ level in the context of the 2008 financial crisis marks a significant turning point for Middle Power activity in global governance. Although most of the attention in the G20 was targeted on the relationship between the old G7 establishment and the large “emerging” market states, middle powers have been major beneficiaries of this self-selective G20 forum. Yet, despite their lead roles within the G20 as hosts and policy entrepreneurs, middle powers remain distinctive currently by not having a summit process of their own. This article examines the prospect of MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Australia) acting as a platform for such a summit. Formed as a dialogue process, MIKTA remains at an early stage of its development with a cautious club culture. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and India–Brazil–South Africa, the rationale to create a distinct summit process can overcome serious constraints. As a means not only to amplify their roles with respect to the new Informalism of the twenty-first century, but also to ensure that their presence in the hub of global governance is maintained, there is logic to creating a MIKTA summit.}, note = {article}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Middle powers have long been excluded from global summits. The elevation of the G20 to the leaders’ level in the context of the 2008 financial crisis marks a significant turning point for Middle Power activity in global governance. Although most of the attention in the G20 was targeted on the relationship between the old G7 establishment and the large “emerging” market states, middle powers have been major beneficiaries of this self-selective G20 forum. Yet, despite their lead roles within the G20 as hosts and policy entrepreneurs, middle powers remain distinctive currently by not having a summit process of their own. This article examines the prospect of MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and Australia) acting as a platform for such a summit. Formed as a dialogue process, MIKTA remains at an early stage of its development with a cautious club culture. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and India–Brazil–South Africa, the rationale to create a distinct summit process can overcome serious constraints. As a means not only to amplify their roles with respect to the new Informalism of the twenty-first century, but also to ensure that their presence in the hub of global governance is maintained, there is logic to creating a MIKTA summit. |
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.