Introduction
This paper is about how innovation has influenced the power of states in global politics. Indeed when innovation is mapped across history a notable trend is that states which have been able to gain global preeminence or hegemony have had innovations ahead of others in terms of industrialization, military and economic growth. A case in point is a number of global powers that have at a time ascended to the position of being a leading regional or world power because of being ahead in innovations. For instance the Roman Empire, Egypt, Britain, USA and contemporary China all have a history of cutting edge innovations in science and technology which propelled them to the realm of global powers. The thesis of this paper is that innovation contributes to a state’s power in global politics. This paper seeks to interrogate some of the narratives and nuances about the relationship between innovations and projection of a state’s power globally. For instance has innovation been a positive or negative phenomenon in international politics? What has been driving innovation? Is it quest for power or human survival or bettering the standard of life for human beings? In what ways has innovation influenced states’ pursuit, accumulation and projection of power? Can power undermine innovation? To explore answers to these questions, the paper is structured in three broad themes. First is operationalization of key terms namely, innovation and power; then second is an assessment of the link between innovation and global power, which involves a review of cases and scholarly debates; and finally is the conclusion encompassing a critical view about the subject of the paper.
Operationalization of terms
Independently, the term innovation has thousands of definitions. Generally as an English word, the Oxford dictionary defines innovation as “make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.”[1] Similarly, the Cambridge dictionary defines innovation as “a new idea or method or the use of new ideas and methods.”[2] But perhaps the definition by Webster is more apt where it defines innovation as a “new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method”[3]This definition is more comprehensive because it looks at innovation as including both the idea and the technology or what it refers to as the ‘device’. Accordingly this paper views innovation as the application of creative or better ideas and technology to provide solutions that meet needs of a state or society.
Scholarly literature is also replete with various definitions of innovation. For instance, Frankelius defines innovation as “something original and more effective…”[4] while Bhasin for instance, in defining innovation, endeavours to distinguish it from invention. Bhasin suggests that “innovation is related to, but not the same as invention, arguing that invention is the creation or introduction of something for the first time, while innovation is improving or making significant contribution to something that has already been invented.”[5] As such, “innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention to make a meaningful impact and not all innovations require an invention.[6] Just to note, in commerce opposite of innovation is exnovation; a term developed by John Kimberly and Sandeep.
Generally, most definitions of innovation focus on business or corporate sector as well as science and technology. The political element of innovation has received limited attention in literature. Indeed most literature treats science and technology and innovation as related but independent concepts. Organizations such as USAID, WB and Kenya’s NACOSTI (national commission for Science, Technology and Innovation) talk of science, technology and innovation as a concept or a theme. STI are viewed mainly as drivers of economic and social development.
In international relations or politics military innovations led to the international security phenomenon of security dilemma. That is an arms race between global powers, especially during the Cold War period on who is more innovative to come up with the best military weapons?
Indeed innovation in IR has been linked to power capabilities globally not only through military prowess but also diplomatic or foreign policy tactics such as propaganda or employment of innovative ways in manipulating large audiences. For instance Karl Deustch observes that states overestimate the immediate military value and power of a single technological innovation as a way of showing their power globally[7]. He further states that governments tend to claim specific national and ideological credit for technological innovations which might have originated from foreign countries. For example, he reveals that most American school children do not know that an automobile was originated by a German and Penicillin by an Englishman.[8] Generally a key diplomatic way of demonstrating power is to overestimate a state’s inventiveness and ability to innovate, hence national technological and scientific power while at the same time understating the innovations and scientific and technological power of other states.[9]
It is also argued that developed nations have used their power globally to undermine or even suppress innovation in other states. For instance scholars and scientists have engaged in the so called politics of knowledge production to give a blackout to innovations from certain parts of the world and highlight innovations from global powers. For example, since 1950’s American scientists and scholars have developed a trend of citing on average about three American sources for every one foreign source.[10] And this is the trend for journals published in English or other powerful states like China.
Drivers of innovation
Certain factors have informed the progress of innovation. Among them is the need for human survival or ‘making life possible’ for human beings such as invention of fire, agrarian revolution, the traditional irrigation and other ancient agricultural practices in northern Ethiopia (Tigray) since 500 B.C.[11] , the need for security led to innovations like the Assegai spear of Shaka Zulu, the gun powder and modern war weapons, industrialization and general innovation for the sake of power politics.
Historically, theoretically various scholars have different explanations for drivers of innovation and ultimate power of a state. For instance, to realists the power and primacy of Britain in the C19, especially naval and commercial superiority was based on its leading role in industrialization, while Gramcians and Marxists emphasized that Britain’s power was due to innovations driven by the growth of a capitalist world led to a new form of international politics that emphasized innovations so to compete in the world market.[12] This saw innovations in currency exchanges, transport and shipping; factors that made some states to wield more power globally, for example, Britain and USA.
Notably, competition globally or among sectors has driven innovation yet this competition has also undermined innovation. For instance, innovation in one sector or part of the world may threaten power or entrenched status in other parts thus attracting resistance or counter-innovation. It is argued that innovation which threatens to disrupt the deeply entrenched status and power of professions is very likely to meet with strong resistance.[13] Common examples include resistance of Trade Unions against use of robots and innovative technology that threatens to replace human employment.
The Concept of Power
It is often argued that it is easier to experience than to define or measure power for, in as much as the subject of power has been an interest of social scientists and philosophers for many centuries, there are still notable academic debates its definition. The Cambridge Dictionary defines power as ‘the ability to control people and events.’[14] Robert Dahl, a prominent political analyst, looks at power as the ability to get others do what they otherwise would not do.[15] Hans Morgenthau seems to be in agreement with Dahl as he asserts that power, in the context of international politics, does not refer to man’s control over nature, over self (as in self-control) or over an artistic medium such as sound, speech, colour or language. To him, power refers to man’s control over the minds and actions of other men. He further views international politics as a constant struggle for power and suggests that military strength in actuality or potentiality is the most vital determinant of the political power of a nation.
Joseph Nye defines power as the ability to effect the outcomes you want, and if necessary, to change the behavior of others. He adds that this can be achieved either by coercing through use of threats, inducing through use of payments, or by attracting and co-opting of the targeted group.[16] Nye thus categorized Power as either ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ and explains that military and economic power are but examples of hard command power that can be used to get others to change their position. Hard power, he argues, is based on threats (otherwise referred to as sticks) and inducements (also referred to as carrots). Conversely, he proceeds to explain, ‘soft power is anchored on the ability to establish preferences based on intangible power resources such as an attractive culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority.’[17] Soft Power this lies in the ability to get the outcomes one wants by attracting others rather than manipulating their material incentives. It co-opts people rather than coerces them.[18]
It is evident that soft power cannot be the best path to take with regard to all political situations. While some foreign policy objectives are better attained by employing soft power strategies, others may demand hard power tactics or even, the delicate application of both soft and hard power strategies. This brings about the third concept of power known as Smart Power. As expounded by Joseph Nye, this is the balance and effective mixture of soft and hard power skills.[19] Mandip Singh therefore defines smart power as the capacity of an actor, entity or a nation to effectively combine the elements of hard and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing or mutually complementary so as to achieve the desired aim effectively.[20]
A most recent conceptualization of power has been in the form of Sharp Power. Christopher Walker in his article titled, What is Sharp Power? defines it as a tactic to international affairs that includes efforts at censorship, or the use of manipulation to water down the integrity of independent institutions. The term ‘sharp’ depicts it ability and objective to “pierce, penetrate, or perforate” the political and information environments of particular societies. [21] Sharp power primarily targets crucial societal sectors such as culture, academia, media, and publishing for the purpose of influencing the perceptions of the targeted audiences and their comprehension of their environment.
In this regard, and having conceptualized power and innovation, the paper embarks on demonstrating the intricate but important relationship between power and innovation.
Power and Innovation
The significance of innovation in international politics is self-evident. Societies that are able to effectively harness and manage the new capacities brought about by innovations and technological advancements are conferred with considerable advantage over those that lack such ability. This is because revolutionary innovations have had an outstanding influence on the economic and political progress and human conditions of different peoples due to their varied applications in war, commerce, energy, agriculture, diplomacy, medicine, intelligence, security, finance, food and water supply, health, weaponry, among others.[22] Consequently, the capability of a military to innovate so as to adequately neutralize the threats of its time influences the state‘s capacity to maintain great power status.
Furthermore, an examination of the resource sector reveals that investments in commodities or assets results in returns that are normally diminishing. On the contrary, investments in innovation have the capacity to produce sustainable and scalable returns.[23] As such, innovation presents, especially for a continent such as Africa, the opportunities for sustainable and inclusive economic growth. Indeed, the future, and particularly ‘Africa’s future is dependent on minds and not on mines.’ [24]
The search for power, in the military sense, has been evidenced by the ever continuous efforts at improving available weaponry. Weapons can be said to be special devices, arguably artifacts of the greatest significance in Man’s history, designed to achieve the primary objective of pursuing and retaining power, as realists would have it. Certainly, the affiliation between man and his weaponries is very profound.[25]
Military innovation can be defined as the adaptation of militaristic inventions to the organization, doctrine and strategy of the military for the purpose of maximizing the use of the inventions. For lethal, far-reaching and sustainable results, the innovations may include the incorporation of soft and sharp power too. As inventions, adversaries can easily imitate and use the same against the inventors, but as innovations, the technology and tactics will aligned to their way of life, drawing from their unique strengths and reducing their equally unique shortcomings hence making it difficult to imitate.[26]
Innovation is therefore more of an evolutionary process than a one-time event. For instance, the accounts regarding the use of the horse in combat is divided into three phases: The first phase was that of the charioteer, followed by that of the mounted warrior who hang to his horse by pressure of the knees. The last phase is that of the rider equipped with stirrups to improve on the horseman’s stability. Thus each improvement in the military use of the horse has rendered the horseman more lethal. [27]
Finally, it is important to note that, for purposes of pursuit of power, states in the post-World War II age were largely preoccupied with weapon technology and adoption of science and technology in national security strategies.[28] Presently, the possession of nuclear weapons and capabilities, as illustrated recently by North Korea, significantly raises the coercive bargaining power of states thus becoming the symbolic criterion to great power status.[29] Despite its relatively weak economy, North Korea’s advancements in nuclear and missile capabilities have made it a focus-point for the US and the United Nations Security Council. It is presently engaged with the US, a superpower, in a series of negotiations in what is termed as nuclear diplomacy.
The paper will now embark on a case study approach, drawing lessons mainly from the ancient period in history with the purpose of highlighting how innovation has been a significant factor in determining the rise and fall of renowned powers. This period was unique in history since it is, by and large, regarded as the moment when the first concepts of power and warfare came into being. For the purposes of either survival, enhancement of livelihoods or pursuit of power, civilizations made innovations in technological, doctrinal and organizational realms. For instance, with regard to the organizational realm there was a move towards establishment of standing armies while doctrinally there were continued efforts at professionalizing the militaries.[30]
Egypt (3100 BC–1069 BC)
Egypt was one of the first and greatest civilization to have ever been. It existed for more than 2000 years. To what extent did innovation in technology, doctrines and organization contribute to its rise and dominance?
With regard to hard power, it is important to note that encounters between various cultures and civilizations during this period were often marked by conflict. The military profession in Egypt was therefore highly rated, not only among the nobles, but across all classes. In addition, each member of the military was accorded eight acres of land by the Pharaoh. Egypt prided in the existence of special military schools where extensive military training was conducted even as from childhood.[31] This doctrinal and organizational innovation of ensuring a standing army and professionalizing it ensured that the Egyptians were always ready to defend their interests. The same doctrinal and organizational advantage contributed immensely to the rise and maintenance of power by the Roman Empire more than a millennium later.[32]
The technological innovation of chariots and its consequent application in war in equal measure was a critical determinant of Egypt’s military power. Bothwell Gosse illustrates that the chariot ordinarily contained the charioteer (the driver), one or two warriors and various weapons at their disposal. However, the archers, having the reins of the horses round their waists, were skillful enough to operate their bows and arrows while controlling the movement of the horses using their voices.[33]
Apart from militaristic capabilities, ancient Egypt also attributed much of its power to significant innovations in art, trade, writing, and construction that made it a remarkable and exceptional civilization. The dazzling cultural achievements of ancient Egypt, its breathtaking opulence and artistic patronage generally made it attractive to the outside world. The pyramids at Giza are, for example, the sole surviving wonder of the ancient world and have been variously described as an extraordinary product of superhuman authority. [34]
With all this attractiveness and its strategic geopolitical location, Egypt became a melting pot of peoples and cultures. The area also received immigrants who were escaping harsher arid conditions from their homelands. As such, successive waves of immigrants enriched and renewed Egyptian civilization in terms of industry, technology and customs.[35]In this manner, Egypt aptly made use of technological, doctrinal and organizational innovations to enhance its hard and soft power alike.
Egypt’s ascendancy to power was, by and large, anchored on agriculture. Their mastery of nature, in terms of their immediate environment, contributed to creation of innovative ways of subduing their environment to their advantage. The invention of the wheel, for instance, helped in transportation of farm inputs and produce; the plough helped in tilling of the land while the shadoof and canal irrigation methods ensured steady supply of water to their farms.
Lastly, and certainly not the least, sharp power in Egypt was attained through the use of the pen, the sculptor’s knife and word of mouth to extend the notion of preeminence of Egyptian’s way of life. Egyptians (just like Americans today) had a natural superiority complex, regarding themselves as uniquely blessed and a civilization apart. They advanced this notion of greatness and superiority in their literature, architecture and works of art. Egyptian rulers, for example, conveniently applied the idea of deific kingship and constructed monumental architecture to exhibit and retain power.
The Assyrians (934 BC–605 BC)
The history of Assyria has otherwise been described as the history of war for they were under constant attack and were also regarded as a barbaric, warring and tyrannical people. Assyria glorified military strength and by use of its state-of-the-art weaponry managed to conquer territories and become, at one point, the greatest power in Southwest Asia. After they clutched control of Egypt, for instance, the Assyrian king is known to have declared, “I tore up the root of Kush, and not one therein escaped to submit to me.”[36]
Apart from technological innovation, the Assyrians also displayed superiority in organizational innovation. Early and well laid out strategies executed with dexterity allowed the Assyrians to bring enemy cities under their control. They sought to weaken city walls before attacking cities by digging beneath them. The infantry advanced towards the city walls and volleyed wave upon wave of arrows while others struck the city’s gates with huge, iron-tipped battering rams. For cities surrounded with water, as a defensive mechanism, the Assyrian engineers spanned the rivers with pontoons, or floating structures used to support a bridge.[37]
Administratively, the Assyrian leaders came up with a parallel system that expedited taxation of their subjects for the sole purpose of supporting the army. This consequently translated into enhancement of military capabilities. Similarly, it is said that it is the Assyrians who came up with the model of military rank in the army for purposes of clearly delineating who should lead and who should follow.[38]
For purposes of facilitating the use armored cavalry, two non-military, technological innovations took place. To begin with, they sought to breed horses that would be huge and strong enough to support an armored rider. Secondly, they commenced cultivating the alfalfa forage crop solely for the horses. This marked the first time that crops were cultivated exclusively as forage and did not contest with the crops grown for human consumption[39]
In this manner, the Assyrian militarily innovated in all three realms—organization, doctrine, and technology—to sustain an empire for over seven centuries, despite being mistrusted by its neighbors and being under constant attack.
The paradox in the Assyrian case is that while this great power first consciously merged social and military innovation in a symbiotic cycle, it was unable to create the soft power capability to sustain its civilization. Technological innovations in society, such as larger horse breeding, alfalfa cultivation, and taxation directly supported the military power of the empire, but did not translate to creating a society that others wanted to emulate.[40] Furthermore, the ruthlessness with which it treated its conquered territories earned it enemies from all over. Unlike Egypt, therefore, Assyria failed to employ innovative technology in pursuing soft, smart and sharp power. This eventually led to is decline and destruction.
The Greeks (776 BC–323 BC)
Early Greece may be regarded as a small scale representation of the ancient period as a whole. In the 5th Century B.C, the area was dominated by two main powers: Athens which embraced the democratic system of governance and Sparta which was largely an oligarchy By virtue of this region comprising of sea-fairing states, it is argued that the most incredible innovation of this period was the invention and effective use of the warships known as the triremes for conquering adversaries.
Athens and Sparta highly contrasted in the way of life just as Egypt and Assyria. Athens is regarded as the commencement of western civilization, its culture associated with the rise of a democratic culture and the blossoming of art and literature. The Athenian military‘s, just as the Egyptian’s, main role was the preservation and protection of the civilization. It also sought to expand its soft power influence. Conversely, the Spartans, just as the Assyrians, were more of a martial people; military power was for them was not a means but an end in itself. In fact, the Spartan and male children were bred specially for war.[41]
The Peloponnesian Wars of 431–404 B.C.E. (an ancient Greek military conflict, fought by Athens and its empire against the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta) resulted in Sparta briefly taking power, but the soft power of Athenian ideas persisted through the time of Alexander the Great, and beyond.
As a consequence of the available democratic space in Athens and since the Athenians glorified the search for knowledge (emphasis was put on the study of subjects such as history, philosophy, and science), Athens blossomed of new, innovative and significant ideas. Life for the citizens of Sparta was rigid; their devotion to creation of a military state left little time, and space, for the arts or literature.[42] However, the territories conquered by Sparta, such as Messenia, found the regime under the Spartans so oppressive that they launched frequent revolts, thereby weakening the empire.[43] It seems Sparta lacked proper appreciation of the significance soft power techniques for pursuit and maintenance of power.
Lastly, the history of Greece is incomplete without mentioning Alexander the Great of Macedonia. He is considered to be one of the greatest military leaders that the world has ever known for, at a young age of 33, he had created an empire that covered the entire eastern Mediterranean world.[44] Alexander managed to fuse his political shrewdness with a military instinct for quick and proper decisions. It is said that of all the leaders of his times, Alexander understood very well that military power was only but one component of the state. In battle he only sought to conquer territories but not to revenge, completely destroy or subject the conquered to torture and misery. He therefore co-opted the territories he conquered, an innovative strategy which allowed him to create the largest empire in history.
Lessons from this period
Some of the most militarily innovative civilizations established the most powerful empires, like the Assyrians and the Spartans. However, the record of history is written by civilizations that possessed the social influence and strategic coherence to persist through time. The ancient powers that successfully coupled military innovations with the administrative mechanisms to support them were successful in extending their power. Egypt, as the first ‘great power,’ was able to couple soft power with hard power innovations—the chariot and the doctrinal and organizational innovations that maximized it use—to maintain power preeminence.
Conclusion
One factor that continues to influence IR is innovation as reflected in the growing field of science and technology in international politics. Altogether, emerging from the discussions in this paper, innovation has a strong link with global power. Evidently, states that are not just innovative but often ahead of others in this aspect have been identified to possess relative power capabilities in international relations.
A historical assessment of global powers reveals that states that ascended to global power leadership were also ahead in terms of innovation in science and technology at the relevant period in time. From Egypt with its innovations in science and technology mainly in medicine, mathematics, irrigation, use of ox-drawn plough; to Roman Empire with its concrete, calendar, road and bridge engineering and military innovations; Britain with its innovations in naval and industrialization to America’s modern innovations in military and economics.
Indeed as discussed earlier in this paper, not all innovations require an invention,[45] though innovation is related to, but not the same as invention, since innovation may improve or contribute to an invention.[46] In this way, innovation has often involved powers rising on the science, technology and innovation of other states. For instance a clear trend is evident where historically the Greeks rose on the innovations of Egypt and overtook Egypt in terms of global power, and same happened with Romans rising on the innovation of Greeks and later the English learning from the Romans whom they overtook, and the Germans and later Americans gaining their global power leadership by learning from the British. Today, China is emerging as a global power by hinging on the innovations the USA.
As a policy recommendation, this paper suggests that states, especially developing ones, need not compete to invent or ‘re-invent the wheel’ to gain global power, nor should they wait to replicate innovations in science and technology from other states, instead they need be innovative enough to utilize for the innovations in science and technology of leading powers to suit their own needs and context.
REFERENCES
Ancient Civilization, ‘Ancient Greece.’ http://www.ushistory.org/civ/5a.asp
Benjamin A. Taylor, ‘Military Innovation in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Lessons For America.’ Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Defense Analysis From the Naval Postgraduate School. June 2011
Bhasin, Kim (2 April 2012). “This Is The Difference Between ‘Invention’ And ‘Innovation'”. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation-2012-4?IR=T accessed 05/05/2019
Bothwell Gosse, The Civilization of The Ancient Egyptians, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1915)
Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/power (Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/innovation, Accessed, 06/05/2019)
Charles Weiss, ‘How Do Science and Technology Affect International Affairs?’ Springer Science, 19 November 2015. 416.
Christopher Walker, ‘What Is Sharp Power?’ Journal of Democracy. Volume 29, Number 3. July 2018.
Deutsch, Karl W. “The Impact of Science and Technology on International Politics.” Daedalus 88, no. 4 (1959): 669-85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20026535.
Drazin, R. “Professionals and innovation: Structural- functional versus radical structural perspectives.” Journal of Management Studies, 1990, 27(3).
Frankelius, Per (2009). “Questioning two myths in innovation literature”. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 20: 40–51. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2009.02.002.
Gill S and Mittleman J, Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997
Habtu, S. & Yoshinobu, K. J. “Traditional irrigation management in Betmera-Hiwane, Ethiopia: The main peculiarities for the persistence of irrigation practices” Journal of Mountain Science, (2006) 3: 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-006-0139-0 (accessed 06/05/2019)
Innovation as a New Driver of Growth in Africa Summary of discussions: Deloitte breakfast at the World Economic Forum on Africa Kigali, May 2016
“Innovation”. Merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Accessed 6/05/2019
Joseph S. Nye Jr, The Powers to Lead, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
Joseph S. Nye Jr, Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization, (New York: Routledge, 2004)
Mandip Singh, ‘From Smart Power to Sharp Power: How China Promotes her National Interests,’’ Journal of Defence Vol. 12, No. 3, July-September 2018,
Marshall Cavendish, Ancient Greece: An Illustrated History. (New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2011).
Mayer, M, Carpes, M and Knoblich, R, The Global Politics of Science and Technology – Vol. 1 (New York: Springer Heidelberg, 2014).
O’Connell Robert, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)
Oxford Learners’ Dictionary,
The Assyrian Empire, http://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/727162/ch4_2.pdf(Available at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/innovation, accessed 05/05/2019)
Toby Wilkinson, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, (New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 2010).
“What’s the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?”. Forbes. 10 September 2015.
White, L. Townsend, Medieval Technology and Social Change, (California: Clarendon Press, 1962)
[1] Oxford Learners’ Dictionary, ( Available at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/innovation, accessed 05/05/2019)
[2] Cambridge Dictionary ( Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/innovation, Accessed, 06/05/2019)
[3]“Innovation”. Merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Accessed 6/05/2019
[4] Frankelius, Per (2009). “Questioning two myths in innovation literature”. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 20: 40–51. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2009.02.002.
[5] Bhasin, Kim (2 April 2012). “This Is The Difference Between ‘Invention’ And ‘Innovation'”. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation-2012-4?IR=T accessed 05/05/2019
[6] “What’s the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?”. Forbes. 10 September 2015.
[7] Deutsch, Karl W. “The Impact of Science and Technology on International Politics.” Daedalus 88, no. 4 (1959): 669-85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20026535. Pp.670-672
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid. p. 670
[10] Ibid
[11] Habtu, S. & Yoshinobu, K. J. “Traditional irrigation management in Betmera-Hiwane, Ethiopia: The main peculiarities for the persistence of irrigation practices” Journal of Mountain Science, (2006) 3: 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-006-0139-0 (accessed 06/05/2019)
[12] Gill S and Mittleman J, Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997
[13] Drazin, R. “Professionals and innovation: Structural- functional versus radical structural perspectives.” Journal of Management Studies, 1990, 27(3), 245 – 263.
[14] Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/power
[15] Joseph S. Nye Jr, Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization, (New York: Routledge, 2004), 53.
[16] Joseph S. Nye Jr, The Powers to Lead, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 27
[17] Joseph S. Nye Jr, Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization, (New York: Routledge, 2004)
[18] Opcit
[19] Ibid, 29.
[20] Mandip Singh, ‘From Smart Power to Sharp Power: How China Promotes her National Interests,’’ Journal of Defence Vol. 12, No. 3, July-September 2018,
[21] Christopher Walker, ‘What Is Sharp Power?’ Journal of Democracy. Volume 29, Number 3. July 2018.
[22] Mayer, M, Carpes, M and Knoblich, R, The Global Politics of Science and Technology – Vol. 1 (New York: Springer Heidelberg, 2014), 4.
[23] Innovation as a New Driver of Growth in Africa Summary of discussions: Deloitte breakfast at the World Economic Forum on Africa Kigali, May 2016
[24] Ibid
[25] O’Connell Robert, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons and Aggression, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)
[26] Benjamin A. Taylor, ‘Military Innovation in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Lessons For America.’ Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Defense Analysis
From the Naval Postgraduate School. June 2011
[27] White, L. Townsend, Medieval Technology and Social Change, (California: Clarendon Press, 1962)
[28]Mayer, M, Carpes, M and Knoblich, R, The Global Politics of Science and Technology – Vol. 1 (New York: Springer Heidelberg, 2014), 39
[29] Charles Weiss, ‘How Do Science and Technology Affect International Affairs?’ Springer Science.
19 November 2015. 416.
[30] Benjamin A. Taylor, ‘Military Innovation in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Lessons For America.’ Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Defense Analysis
from The Naval Postgraduate School. June 2011
[31] Bothwell Gosse, The Civilization of The Ancient Egyptians, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1915), 23
[32] Opcit
[33] Ibid, 24
[34] Toby Wilkinson, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, (New York :The Random House Publishing Group, 2010), 85
[35] Ibid, 174
[36] The Assyrian Empire, http://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/727162/ch4_2.pdf
[37] Ibid
[38] Benjamin A. Taylor, ‘Military Innovation in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Lessons For America.’ Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Defense Analysis
from The Naval Postgraduate School. June 2011
[39] Ibid
[40] Ibid
[41] Ibid
[42] Ancient Civilization, ‘Ancient Greece.’ http://www.ushistory.org/civ/5a.asp
[43] Marshall Cavendish , Ancient Greece: An Illustrated History. (New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2011), 52
[44] Ibid
[45] “What’s the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?”. Forbes. 10 September 2015.
[46] Bhasin, Kim (2 April 2012). “This Is The Difference Between ‘Invention’ And ‘Innovation'”. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation-2012-4?IR=T accessed