ABSTRACT
This chapter concentrates on middle powers as an analytical category, and tackles the basic ontological and epistemological assumptions of the two main definitions that the literature has provided so far. This perspective allows us to identify the limitations of both structuralist approaches – which claim middle powers’ inability to affect the international system – and of behaviouralist definitions – which tend to subtract the analysis of middle powers’ foreign policies from structural contexts. Relating such shortcomings to the broader agency-structure debate, the chapter suggests that role theory can bridge the agent-structure divide by proposing an alternative approach to the concept, able to maintain the descriptive accuracy of the latter whilst providing sounder assessments of the role of middle power in the international system. This reflection allows us to shed light on the future trajectories of a number of countries, and contributes to the scholarly attempt to connect the different disciplines of IR theory and FPA.
