{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015133876600698487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.37037037037037, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Imagining middle powers

Discussions of middle powers in international relations scholarship are hampered by a lack of clarity about what the term ‘middle power’ actually means. This has not stopped increasing numbers of states that cannot claim great power ranking but resist being categorised as small powers imagining middle power status for themselves in regional and global affairs. In an attempt to shed light on middle power imagining, three concepts of middle power are identified. It is contended that one or more of these concepts influences the foreign policies of states ambitious for middle power recognition in regional and global affairs. Identifying which concept, or which combination of concepts, influences a state's middle power imagining may contribute to deeper understandings of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of its foreign policies.