Middle Powers In A Fragmented World

The middle is typically not where you want to be. In American sports, teams in the middle of the standings aren’t contenders for either a championship or a high draft choice. The middle seat on an airplane, subject to incursions from either side, is not very comfortable. The middle manager is accountable in every direction, empowered in none.

In the same spirit, it is of little surprise that governments labeled “middle powers” often resist the term, uneasy about what it signals about their status in the world. But in the past year, the middle powers have been moving to the forefront.

The designation “middle power” traces back to World War II-era debates over the role of countries like Canada and Australia in shaping the postwar order. The phrase returned to the spotlight recently after Canada’s prime minister used his January address to the World Economic Forum to argue that middle powers “are not powerless,” and should coordinate more actively as the world’s major powers go their separate ways.

middle powers

There is no universally accepted definition of a middle power, other than they occupy the tier below the dominant economies of the world. There is consensus in the current day that the roster of middle powers includes Canada, Australia, South Korea, India, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They account for roughly a little over one‑fifth of the world’s economic output. Many are deeply embedded in global value chains, serving as critical hubs for commodities, manufacturing, and logistics.

Broadly, these nations carry meaningful influence through economic size, trade integration, military capacity and participation in multilateral institutions. Many have the ambition and resources to punch above their weights.