On September 30, 2024, the Project on Middle Powers at Harvard Kennedy School, moderated by Professor Meghan O'Sullivan, hosted a fascinating discussion on the evolving global landscape. Panelists included notable experts such as Senem Aydin Duzgit, Bernard Haykel, and Moeed W. Yusuf, each offering unique perspectives on how middle powers are navigating the shifting dynamics of international relations, particularly amidst intensifying U.S.-China competition.
The Shifting Global Landscape
O'Sullivan opened the session by framing the discussion around the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. The rise of China and the evolving role of the U.S. have altered the traditional geopolitical order, forcing middle powers to adopt strategic autonomy. These nations, while not aligning exclusively with the U.S. or China, are increasingly seeking to carve out independent paths that balance relationships with both superpowers. The concept of the “Thucydides Trap” – the fear that competition between rising and established powers inevitably leads to conflict – looms large in these discussions, as middle powers look to assert influence in the global order.
Strategic Autonomy and Multi-Alignment
Moeed Yusuf emphasized the importance of middle powers leveraging their collective strength. He described how certain countries, despite being pressured by both the U.S. and China, seek a multi-alignment strategy that enables them to benefit from both without being constrained by either. This balancing act, Yusuf argued, is crucial in today’s geopolitics, where smaller nations are increasingly playing pivotal roles in regional conflicts, energy transitions, and global governance.
Technology, Energy, and Strategic Choices
Bernard Haykel brought a compelling focus on technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), and its implications for middle powers like Saudi Arabia. He highlighted how nations with deep economic ties to China and security alliances with the U.S. face increasing challenges in maintaining this delicate balance. The development of AI, could force nations to choose between technological partnerships with the U.S. or China, impacting their future security and autonomy. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is looking to attract U.S. companies to develop AI infrastructure while maintaining oil trade relationships with China—a balancing act that might become increasingly difficult in the years ahead, he argues.
Turkey's Navigation of a Multi-Polar World
Senem Aydin-Duzgit discussed Turkey’s unique position as a member of NATO, a potential candidate for the European Union, and a close partner of Russia. Turkey’s ability to navigate multiple alliances in a multipolar world showcases how middle powers, through pragmatic and transactional relationships, can pursue strategic autonomy while aligning with different global actors. However, Aydin-Duzgit pointed out the challenges Turkey faces in balancing its deep economic dependence on Europe with its expanding ties to non-Western powers like Russia and China.
Nigeria’s Role in a Changing World
John Kayode Fayemi discussed Nigeria’s position as a rising power in Africa, with a population expected to surpass that of any country except China and India. Nigeria’s responsibility to represent the African continent on the global stage, particularly in peacekeeping and international governance, offers a unique form of middle power diplomacy. Fayemi argued that Nigeria’s pragmatic approach to U.S.-China relations allows it to engage both powers in ways that benefit its national interests while contributing to broader global stability.
Southeast Asia: Pragmatic Engagement
Joseph Liow spoke on Southeast Asia's response to U.S.-China competition, with Singapore exemplifying the pragmatic approach to navigating these global dynamics. Southeast Asian countries, according to Liow, must maintain relationships with both superpowers, using their economic ties to China while relying on the U.S. for security. The region’s strategy is one of calculated pragmatism, reflecting the broader trend among middle powers to engage both the U.S. and China without being pulled into binary choices.
Middle Powers in 2040:
A Positive Impact? The panel concluded by imagining the world in 2040 and discussing whether middle powers will have had a positive impact on resolving major global issues such as climate change, energy transitions, and international security. While middle powers do not form a unified bloc, their collective actions on key global challenges—ranging from the Saudi-Iran rapprochement to climate action—suggest that they will continue to shape the international order in significant ways.
Strategic Autonomy and the Future
The panel explored the future of strategic autonomy for middle powers. As countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Nigeria strive to maintain independence in a world dominated by great power rivalry, the question remains: Can they continue to navigate these relationships without being forced to choose sides? As the global order shifts, middle powers will play a crucial role in shaping the new international landscape, one defined not just by competition but by collaboration and shared responsibility.

References
O'Sullivan, Meghan. (Moderator). (2024, September 30). The Shifting Global Landscape: Middle Powers in a Multipolar World. Project on Middle Powers at Harvard Kennedy School. Panel discussion with Senem Aydin Duzgit, Bernard Haykel, Moeed W. Yusuf, John Kayode Fayemi, and Joseph Liow. Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.
OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.

This post is based on my learnings from the course MLD 201 B: Exercising Leadership: The Politics of Change, taught by Tim O'Brien at the Harvard Kennedy School. Through this course, I am gaining a deeper understanding of leadership in the context of complex challenges. Drawing from foundational texts in adaptive leadership, group dynamics, power, and continuous learning, as well as the insightful readings selected by Tim O'Brien, these ideas are reshaping how I think about leadership, particularly when tackling global challenges such as climate change and energy transitions. These classes often provide an opportunity to reflect on personal leadership challenges, encouraging deeper learning by allowing individuals to 'sit with' the challenges and explore them from a fresh perspective.
​
The Shift Toward Adaptive Leadership
In Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994), Ronald Heifetz introduces the concept of adaptive leadership, a model of leadership that recognizes the difference between technical and adaptive challenges. While technical challenges have known solutions, adaptive challenges require shifts in values, beliefs, and behaviors. Heifetz argues that adaptive leadership is about mobilizing people to face difficult realities, confronting deeply held assumptions, and guiding them through a process of learning and growth (Heifetz, 1994).
A central element of Heifetz’s adaptive leadership framework is disequilibrium. Leaders must create a productive level of discomfort to push people out of their comfort zones and challenge their assumptions without overwhelming them (Heifetz, 1994). This productive tension encourages adaptive learning and innovation, which is especially relevant in the field of climate change, where technical solutions alone cannot address the deep-rooted behavioral and societal changes needed for long-term sustainability.
Tim O’Brien’s inclusion of Heifetz’s work in this course has reinforced the importance of adaptive leadership in complex, high-stakes environments. O'Brien highlights that modern leadership requires more than providing solutions—it demands the ability to guide teams through discomfort, enabling them to develop new capacities to solve evolving problems.

Embracing Conflict: Catalyst for Innovation and Growth
David Williams, in Real Leadership (2005), emphasizes that conflict is not something to avoid but to embrace as a catalyst for innovation. Conflict, when managed effectively, can drive collective problem-solving by forcing groups to re-examine assumptions and rethink strategies. Williams argues that leaders must create environments where conflict leads to growth rather than paralysis, particularly in situations where adaptive challenges require new ways of thinking (Williams, 2005).
Similarly, Smith and Berg, in Paradoxes of Group Life (1987), explain that conflict, while often uncomfortable, can ultimately strengthen teams if managed well. Groups that engage in conflict are able to tap into diverse perspectives, allowing for more robust problem-solving. However, groups also experience work avoidance, where they focus on peripheral tasks to avoid confronting more difficult, adaptive challenges (Heifetz, 1994). Leaders must ensure that their teams stay focused on the core issues rather than shying away from uncomfortable conversations.
Tim O’Brien’s course brought these concepts to life by illustrating how conflict, when handled appropriately, can be transformative. He emphasized the importance of diagnosing the root causes of conflict and using it to foster learning and progress within organizations. This insight is crucial in multinational collaborations, such as the Think 20 (T20), a G20 engagement group, task forces I have worked with, where conflicting national priorities, as well as varying individual perspectives, must be navigated to achieve shared goals.

The Power Paradox: Staying Open to Learning
Jerry Useem’s article Power Causes Brain Damage (2017) explores a critical leadership paradox: as individuals gain power, they often lose the very qualities—like empathy and social awareness—that helped them succeed in the first place. Useem points out that power can dampen a leader’s ability to connect with others and understand their perspectives, which can lead to poor decision-making and a lack of responsiveness to the needs of their teams (Useem, 2017).
Tim O’Brien’s focus on the power paradox during this course highlighted the need for leaders to remain self-aware as they rise in influence. Leaders must actively cultivate humility and seek diverse perspectives to counteract the isolating effects of power. One of the solutions discussed in the course is creating psychological safety, as outlined by Amy Edmondson in her work on learning from failure. Leaders who foster psychological safety encourage open dialogue, risk-taking, and the sharing of ideas, which allows teams to learn from their mistakes and innovate continuously (Edmondson, 2011).In my leadership journey, especially in international governance and sustainability, I’ve learned the importance of staying open to feedback and actively seeking diverse perspectives to remain connected to the needs of those I lead. This has been particularly critical in my work with climate policy, where understanding the viewpoints of various stakeholders is essential for creating inclusive, sustainable solutions. In positions of power, even intellectual power where ideas and positions go unchallenged, we risk losing the humility that comes from continuously seeking truth. The 'comfort' of settling into one’s own conclusions often leads to complacency—the very opposite of fostering innovation and offering fresh, forward-thinking ideas.

Continuous Learning: Key to Adaptive Success
In Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (2006), Carol Dweck outlines the difference between a fixed mindset (the belief that abilities are static) and a growth mindset (the belief that abilities can develop through effort). Leaders with a growth mindset are more likely to embrace challenges, learn from their failures, and adapt to changing circumstances. Dweck’s theory is particularly relevant to leadership in today’s complex environments, where continuous learning and adaptability are essential (Dweck, 2006).
Sharon Daloz Parks, in Leadership Can Be Taught (2005), discusses Ronald Heifetz’s case-in-point teaching method, which helps students learn leadership by engaging with real-world tensions. This experiential approach to learning fosters resilience, adaptability, and the ability to lead in complex, uncertain environments (Daloz Parks, 2005). The emphasis on continuous learning in leadership, highlighted by both Dweck and Daloz Parks, is something that must be integrated into one's own leadership style. By fostering a culture of learning in teams, experimentation, risk-taking, and growth are encouraged—qualities that are essential for addressing the adaptive challenges we face.
Tim O’Brien’s course reinforced the idea that leadership is about facilitating learning rather than providing all the answers. By guiding teams through adaptive challenges and fostering a growth mindset, leaders can ensure that their organizations remain resilient and innovative in the face of uncertainty.

Climate Change as an Adaptive Challenge
As I reflect on these readings and their integration into Tim O’Brien’s course, I see clear applications in my own leadership journey, particularly in the fields of climate and energy policy. Adaptive leadership is essential in these areas because the solutions are not merely technical—they require changes in societal behavior and attitudes. Leaders must create the conditions for learning, experimentation, and the constructive management of conflict to drive innovation and long-term success.
For example, in climate negotiations, managing the conflicts that arise between countries with differing national priorities requires both empathy and the ability to guide groups through complex adaptive challenges. At the same time, we must remain aware of the power paradox, ensuring that we stay connected to diverse perspectives and maintain the humility to learn from others.
Tim O’Brien’s course emphasized the importance of fostering a growth mindset in leadership, and to make it a priority to cultivate that mindset in teams. Encouraging risk-taking, learning from failure, and embracing continuous improvement will be crucial as we work to find sustainable solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.

As I continue to grow in my leadership journey, these insights will be invaluable. By fostering learning, embracing conflict, and staying open to diverse perspectives, I aim to contribute to creating more adaptive, resilient solutions for global challenges, particularly in the fields of climate change and energy transition.

References
Aggarwal-Schifellite, M., & Siliezar, J. (2020). "3 Takes on Dealing with Uncertainty." Harvard Gazette.
Daloz-Parks, S. (2005). Leadership Can Be Taught. Harvard Business Review Press. Chapter 4.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books. Fixed Mindset Vs. Growth Mindset.
Edmondson, A. (2011). "Strategies for Learning from Failure." Harvard Business Review.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Harvard University Press. Introduction and Chapter 1.
McGregor, J. (2017). "Voters Facing Economic Uncertainty."
OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.
O’Brien, J., & Pennock, M. (2002). When Students are the Case Protagonists. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Plato. (1991). The Republic (A. Bloom, Trans.). Chapter 25: Allegory of the Cave, pp. 227-235. Basic Books.
Richardson, K. A., & Tait, A. (2010). "The Death of the Expert?" Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 12(2), 87-97.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of Group Life. Jossey-Bass. Chapter 7, pp. 131-151.
Useem, J. (2017). "Power Causes Brain Damage." The Atlantic.
Williams, D. (2005). Real Leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Introduction and Chapter 1.

Aldy, J. E. Course API 165: Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy. Harvard Kennedy School, Fall 2024. 
​Team Saudi Arabia, Planet Alpha: Aashis Luitel, Lydia Glock, Noura Mansouri, Ruben Figueroa

As part of the course API 165 "Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy" by Joe Aldy at Harvard Kennedy School, we were asked to run a two-week OPEC simulation. This exercise allowed us to step into the shoes of policymakers within the global oil cartel and grapple with the intricate challenges of managing oil supply, pricing, and market stability. The simulation offered a hands-on approach to understanding how OPEC nations collaborate—or defect—within the cartel, and how these decisions have far-reaching consequences for global energy markets. It closely mirrored real-life scenarios, particularly the role of Saudi Arabia as a key stabilizer within OPEC and in global oil markets more broadly.
Participating in the OPEC simulation as part of Saudi Arabia’s delegation on Planet Alpha offered an exceptional learning experience, especially in navigating the complexities of cartel behavior, oil market dynamics, and strategic decision-making. The simulation allowed us to grapple with the challenges of coordinating production quotas among OPEC members and balancing short-term profitability with long-term sustainability. Here, I’ll reflect on the experience and the economic lessons learned along the way.

Saudi Arabia's Role: Leading the Formation of an OPEC Cartel
Saudi Arabia assumed a leadership position right from the beginning. Our strategy was simple yet bold: we proposed the formation of an OPEC cartel, inviting other key oil-producing countries to join forces in controlling production and stabilizing prices. Our objective was clear—to maximize profits for all member countries while safeguarding Saudi Arabia’s interests, given our significant oil reserves.
One of the key dynamics we introduced was the creation of a structured approach for setting production quotas. Each country’s oil reserves and production costs were taken into account to distribute quotas in a way that aligned with their market share. By advocating for a strong cartel, we hoped to control global oil output, prevent market oversupply, and keep prices high enough to secure profitability for all.

A Cooperative Approach, Initially
During the early stages, we prioritized cooperation, closely monitoring other countries’ production levels. By building trust, we aimed to maintain alignment on quotas and communicate openly about any necessary adjustments. Coordination was crucial, and Saudi Arabia facilitated this by creating a WhatsApp group to ensure real-time communication among OPEC members.
Through this group, we could quickly address any concerns and adjust strategies when needed. Our initial strategy included limiting production to maintain a price of at least $80 per barrel, a price guaranteed by the final stages of the simulation. This was inspired by several economic models we discussed during the OPEC meetings, particularly the work of Robert Pindyck, who explored the benefits of cartelization for resource-rich countries (See Appendix 1) .

Shifting Strategies: From Collusion to Retaliation
Despite our efforts to build trust and ensure compliance, some countries deviated from the agreed-upon quotas. Non-compliance among members began undermining the collective effort. To address this, Saudi Arabia issued a warning: if the quotas were violated again, we would retaliate by flooding the market with oil, driving down prices to punish those who overproduced.
This threat proved effective in periods 2 and 3, as it led to an increase in our per-barrel revenue. However, coordination remained imperfect, and by period 4, further defection forced us to follow through on our threat. We flooded the market, contributing to a significant drop in oil prices. Our intention was to make it clear that defection would be costly for everyone involved. However, this strategy only led to greater defections from other countries, forcing us to rethink our approach.

Maximizing Individual Profits Amidst Defection
By period 5, it became clear that long-term cooperation was no longer viable. Saudi Arabia shifted focus to maximizing individual profits, overproducing in order to benefit from our low marginal costs, even if it meant accepting lower prices. Our revised strategy aimed to produce as much as possible while keeping prices above a critical threshold. In periods 5 and 6, this approach worked well, with relatively favorable prices and high production volumes ensuring substantial returns.
However, when prices plummeted in period 7, we cut back production slightly to prevent losses. From there, we maintained a steady output level until the final period, prioritizing profitability despite fluctuating market conditions.

Economic Models and Strategic Decision-Making
Throughout the simulation, several economic models and theories guided our strategic decisions. Inspired by Pindyck’s work on the cartelization of exhaustible resources, we recognized that controlling production and ensuring compliance were key to maximizing long-term profits. Pindyck’s insights into the benefits of cartel behavior—such as controlling supply to maintain high prices—were evident in our initial strategy of quota enforcement (See Appendix 1).

However, the simulation also highlighted the difficulty of sustaining long-term cooperation in the face of individual incentives to defect. This tension between collective action and individual profit-seeking became a central challenge, forcing us to continuously adapt our strategy in response to other countries’ behavior (See Appendix 2).

Key Lessons Learned

1. The Fragility of Cartel Agreements: Despite the clear benefits of working together, maintaining long-term compliance within the cartel proved to be extremely difficult. Trust among members eroded quickly, and defection was inevitable when countries felt their interests were better served by maximizing short-term gains.
2. The Importance of Flexibility: As market conditions changed and countries deviated from agreed-upon quotas, we learned the importance of flexibility. Our shift from a cooperative strategy to a more self-serving approach demonstrated that rigid adherence to a plan can be detrimental if others are not playing by the same rules.
3. The Role of Retaliation: Threatening to flood the market was an effective short-term strategy, increasing our revenue in the initial rounds. However, it also revealed the limits of using retaliation as a tool to enforce compliance, as it ultimately led to greater defection and a collapse of cooperation.
4. Maximizing Individual Profits: In the later stages of the simulation, our focus on maximizing individual profits through overproduction paid off, particularly when prices were still relatively high. This showed that when collective action breaks down, prioritizing self-interest can be the best way to preserve profitability.

Insights on OPEC Dynamics and Saudi Arabia's Role in Global Energy Stability
In the simulation, the role of Saudi Arabia stood out as pivotal, echoing its real-world significance in stabilizing global oil supply, particularly in times of crisis. Saudi Arabia’s ability to quickly increase or cut oil production gives it considerable leverage to influence global oil prices. This aspect became even more pronounced during moments of defection, when member countries chose short-term gains over collective stability. Saudi Arabia, with the lowest marginal cost of production at $6 per barrel, responded by threatening to flood the market with oil—a tactic it has employed historically, as seen during the 2014-2016 oil price war. The 70% drop in oil prices from their 2014 highs to an average of $47 per barrel has heavily impacted oil producers. The price slump is due to factors such as an oil glut, lower demand, and the rise of U.S. shale extraction. 

The simulation also highlighted the tension between short-term energy security and long-term sustainability, although the climate and environment goals were not factored into the simulation, in the real-world, such a challenge exists and adds complexity to energy geopolitics. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has highlighted the growing priority of energy security, particularly in Europe, where countries are relying more on coal to replace Russian oil and gas, contradicting COP26 commitments (Mansouri, 2022). Saudi Arabia plays a dual role in this dynamic: on one hand, acting as a “safety valve” during energy crises by increasing oil production and continuing investments in oil, while on the other hand, reallocating its oil wealth to advance Vision 2030, which aims to diversify energy sources and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Further, geopolitical dynamics continue shaping the global energy landscape. As alliances in the Middle East shift—partly due to the waning influence of the United States and the growing presence of Russia and China—Saudi Arabia has strategically positioned itself through multi-vector partnerships. The alliance between Saudi Arabia and Russia has significantly strengthened their influence over global oil markets, ensuring that they can collectively stabilize prices and mitigate volatility, even during periods of geopolitical upheaval like the Ukraine conflict.

The economic impact of these decisions was also a crucial learning point. Saudi Arabia’s ability to capitalize on high oil prices, as it did during the price surge to over $130 per barrel in early 2022, strengthened its GDP growth and reinforced its economic dominance. The simulation emphasized how oil revenues remain critical for countries like Saudi Arabia, but also pointed to the importance of forward-looking strategies, especially in a world gradually shifting toward sustainable energy. The introduction of a new technology at $80 per barrel in the later stages of the simulation prompted difficult decisions about maintaining short-term oil revenues versus the sustainability of its oil reserves. In real life, this informs a nuanced strategy to delicately balance between carbon management technologies that would become readily accessible in the future and the rising marginal cost of depleting reserves. 

The simulation also touched upon the complexities of cartel behavior. Each member country weighed its self-interest against collective outcomes, leading to cycles of cooperation and defection. As highlighted by Pindyck's (1978) analysis on producer gains from cartelization, cartel members often find short-term temptations difficult to resist. However, Saudi Arabia's capacity to reestablish discipline within OPEC highlighted the country's central role as a stabilizer in global oil markets. By threatening to unleash its full production capacity, Saudi Arabia could realign defection-prone members, ultimately preserving the group's collective interests.

In the article Almutairi et al. (2021) the significant role that OPEC’s management of spare capacity was analyzed, emphasizing its role in stabilizing oil prices and supporting the global economy. The authors examine how OPEC's reserve capacity has historically helped reduce oil price volatility, particularly during market events from 2001 to 2020. OPEC’s ability to maintain spare capacity as a buffer against supply and demand shocks creates substantial economic benefits, lowering the monthly volatility of oil prices from 17% to 11% over the period studied. The paper estimates that OPEC’s spare capacity adds an annual global economic value of $193.1 billion, largely by preventing severe supply disruptions and minimizing GDP losses.

The paper examines three distinct subperiods—commodity boom (2001-2014), market-share campaign (2014-2016), and OPEC+ (2017-2020)—and shows that OPEC's spare capacity was particularly effective during the commodity boom and OPEC+ periods in reducing price fluctuations. However, during the market-share campaign, OPEC focused on protecting market share rather than stabilizing prices, which made the use of spare capacity less impactful.
​
The rise of U.S. shale oil, known for being more price-responsive, is also discussed as a factor that might reduce OPEC's influence on global oil prices. However, the study concludes that, while shale oil helps stabilize prices, its smaller share of global supply limits its overall impact on diminishing the significance of OPEC's spare capacity.

Ultimately, the OPEC simulation provided an invaluable lens through which to analyze Saudi Arabia's role as a stabilizer in global oil markets. Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical and energy strategies have evolved in response to the shifting global order, at the intersection of multipolarity and energy security concerns. The simulation brought insights into these tensions to life, showing how delicate the balance is between cooperation and defection, short-term and long-term goals, and geopolitical influences. It became clear how Saudi Arabia continues to play a critical role in global energy markets. Its leadership within OPEC and its ability to navigate both the current fossil fuel-dominated energy landscape and the transition to sustainability have positioned it as a key player in shaping global energy policy. As the world faces ongoing geopolitical and environmental challenges, Saudi Arabia’s decisions within OPEC will likely remain pivotal to global energy security as it continues to lead in managing global oil supply stability while advancing its Vision 2030 goals, its role in both the present energy landscape and the transition to a more sustainable future remains critical.

References
Aldy, J. E. Course API 165: Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy. Harvard Kennedy School, Fall 2024. 
​Team Saudi Arabia, Planet Alpha: Aashis Luitel, Lydia Glock, Noura Mansouri, Ruben Figueroa
Almutairi, H., Pierru, A., & Smith, J. L. (2021). The value of OPEC’s spare capacity to the oil market and global economy. OPEC Energy Review, 45(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/opec.12199
DALL·E AI (2024). Image representing Saudi Arabia's strategic role in global energy: Lessons from OPEC simulation and real-world dynamics. Image generated using OpenAI's DALL·E model.
Mansouri, N. Y. (2022). The Emerging Saudi Power Momentum: How the Conflict in Ukraine Shapes Saudi Energy Policy. In Energy Politics in the MENA Region: From Hydrocarbons to Renewables? (pp. 75-92). ISPI Report. Available at: https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/energy-politics-mena-region-hydrocarbons-renewables-36797
OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.
Pindyck, R. S. (1978). Gains to Producers from the Cartelization of Exhaustible Resources. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60(2), 238-251. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Climate change is rapidly approaching dangerous thresholds, also known as tipping points, where the effects become irreversible and uncontrollable. 
What Are Climate Tipping Points?
Tipping points are thresholds in the climate system that, once crossed, lead to significant and often irreversible changes. These changes are nonlinear, meaning they accelerate rapidly and can spiral beyond the control of traditional climate mitigation methods. While the science surrounding tipping points is still evolving, emerging evidence suggests that certain critical thresholds, particularly in polar regions, may be crossed as early as mid-century. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming far faster than other parts of the globe, increasing the risk of catastrophic climate shifts.
Global Warming Trends:
Data from July 2024 shows that CO2 concentrations have reached 425.5 ppm, a 35% increase from pre-industrial levels (~280 ppm).
There was a brief pause in emissions during the 1950s and 2010s, but global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, with a slight decline noted in 2023. Yet, the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C is in doubt, with projections showing temperature anomalies of +2.7°C by 2090.
Carbon Removal Techniques:
The presentation outlines the importance of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) alongside solar geoengineering. Technologies like direct air capture, flue gas capture, and geologic sequestration are essential but currently operate at a minimal scale. Scaling these technologies is crucial to achieving net-zero emissions, but financial barriers remain significant.
Solar Geoengineering: A Controversial Potential Solution
Solar geoengineering has emerged as a potential tool to prevent these tipping points. The technique involves reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space, cooling the planet in the process. One of the most discussed methods is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), which mimics the cooling effect seen after volcanic eruptions, where ash particles reflect solar radiation away from Earth.
Wake Smith advocates for more field research into solar geoengineering, despite its contentious nature. He argues that, given the increasing threat of near-term climate crises, this technology may provide humanity with a critical stopgap while longer-term solutions like decarbonization take effect.
The Science Behind Earth's Energy Imbalance
The fundamental driver of climate change is Earth's energy imbalance, which occurs when the amount of absorbed solar radiation exceeds the outgoing longwave radiation. This imbalance results in a net increase in global temperatures. Historical data (1860-2020) show a significant rise in global mean temperatures, and current projections indicate that temperatures will continue to increase unless global CO2 emissions reach net-zero by mid-century, followed by negative emissions later.
However, solar geoengineering is seen as a "peak-shaving" mechanism that could temporarily decouple rising emissions from rising temperatures, buying time for more permanent emission reduction strategies.
Challenges of Solar Geoengineering
While the potential of solar geoengineering is promising, its implementation faces significant technical and geopolitical hurdles. For example:

• Technical Feasibility: Current aircraft are not capable of deploying aerosols at the altitudes required for effective geoengineering. Research is ongoing into platforms like the SAI Lofter, which could theoretically carry 15 tons of materials to 20 kilometers above the Earth’s surface.
• Geopolitical Issues: The complexities of deploying solar geoengineering globally are immense. Only two countries—the U.S. and China—are considered capable of undertaking such a large-scale intervention, both in terms of technology and geopolitical influence. Coordinating a global response or agreement would be incredibly challenging.

Risks and Uncertainties
As with any climate intervention, solar geoengineering carries risks. Manipulating Earth’s climate systems could lead to unforeseen consequences, exacerbating the very issues it seeks to solve. Critics warn of hubris—attempting to "fix" the planet by further altering natural systems could create new, potentially worse problems. Moreover, political conflicts and diverging preferences between nations could intensify as the effects of geoengineering would not be evenly distributed across the globe.
The Case of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
One of the most concerning tipping points is the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a system of ocean currents that helps regulate the global climate. Wake discusses a study by Ditlevsen, P., & Ditlevsen, S. (2023), sharing key findings including:

1. AMOC Tipping Point: Recent observations and models indicate early warning signals (EWSs) of a potential AMOC collapse, with increased variance and autocorrelation in sea surface temperature data. This suggests that AMOC is losing resilience and approaching a critical transition.
2. Timing of Collapse: The paper estimates, with a 95% confidence interval, that the AMOC may collapse between 2025 and 2095, most likely around 2057. This prediction is based on statistical analysis and data-driven estimations using the AMOC's historical "fingerprint" from sea surface temperatures.
3. Risks of Collapse: A collapse of AMOC would drastically affect global climate patterns, particularly leading to more extreme weather events in the Northern Hemisphere and disrupting ocean circulation and heat distribution.
4. Model Uncertainties: While models provide robust predictions, uncertainties remain due to the complexity of AMOC's dynamics and the influence of factors such as freshwater influx and greenhouse gas emissions. The paper calls for more precise monitoring and data collection to refine predictions.

The Path Forward
Although solar geoengineering presents risks, it may offer a critical tool for preventing the worst effects of climate tipping points. Early deployment in the Arctic, where warming is most rapid, could provide valuable insights into the feasibility and consequences of this technology. Ongoing small-scale geoengineering tests, like those funded by the UK, aim to explore these risks in a controlled manner.
As climate tipping points draw closer, the need for innovative, even controversial, solutions like solar geoengineering becomes more urgent. Wake Smith's call for accelerated research into solar geoengineering reflects the growing recognition that traditional mitigation efforts may not be enough to stave off the most dangerous effects of climate change. However, the technical, political, and ethical challenges of geoengineering are immense, and caution is key as humanity considers interventions that could reshape our planet.

Reference: 
Ditlevsen, P., & Ditlevsen, S. (2023). Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Nature Communications, 14, 4254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39810-w
OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.
Smith, W. (2024, September 26). Climate Tipping Points and Solar Geoengineering. Presentation at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.

In his talk to the Mason Fellows, Joe Nye reflected on the rise and evolution of U.S. global power, drawing from insights shared in his memoir, A Life in the American Century. Born at the dawn of what became known as the "American Century," Nye offered a deeply personal account of his experiences in international affairs. He spoke about his lifelong journey witnessing and shaping U.S. foreign policy, particularly through the framework of neo-liberalism, emphasizing his work on understanding the dynamics of both hard and soft power and how these forces have influenced leadership on the global stage.

The American Century: A Historical Perspective
Nye’s career coincides with the U.S.’s ascension to global primacy, which began in the mid-20th century. The term “American Century,” coined by Henry Luce in 1941, encouraged the U.S. to play a more prominent global role after World War I. However, it wasn’t until the attack on Pearl Harbor that the U.S. fully embraced its position on the world stage. Emerging from WWII as both the strongest economy and military force, the U.S. dominated global affairs for decades.
Reflecting on this period, Nye compares the global experience of the last 80 years to the parable of the blind men and the elephant: different parts of history are perceived in isolation, yet they form part of a much larger narrative. Nye argues that reflecting on these decades offers a valuable perspective on current global events and America’s role in shaping the international order.
Soft Power vs. Hard Power: A Lasting Legacy
Perhaps the most enduring contribution of Joseph Nye is his concept of “soft power.” Unlike hard power, which relies on coercion and military might, soft power is the ability to influence through attraction—using culture, political values, and diplomacy.
However, as Nye points out, soft power is not a constant. For instance, U.S. soft power in the Middle East has been undermined by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and Palestine. Shifts in perception and public opinion can weaken a nation's ability to attract and persuade. This highlights the fragility of soft power and the long-term efforts required to maintain it.
Nye’s reflections emphasize that soft power cannot be manufactured or overly controlled. Attempts to manipulate culture too much risk turning into propaganda, which in turn erodes credibility. True soft power comes from authenticity—freedom of expression, diversity, and the ability to allow criticism without repression.
China’s Soft Power Challenge
Nye also touches on China’s growing global influence and its attempts to enhance its soft power. With investments in initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and Confucius Institutes, China has been actively pursuing global appeal. However, Nye argues that China’s efforts remain hampered by its tight control over civil society and its confrontations with neighboring countries.
For China to truly build soft power, Nye suggests it must relax these controls and open itself to the creativity and richness of its people. Only through greater openness can China compete with democracies like the U.S. in terms of cultural and political influence.
Managing U.S.-China Relations: The Future of Power
As U.S.-China relations evolve, Nye advocates for a strategy of “managed competition.” This approach acknowledges the intense geopolitical rivalry between the two nations, yet also recognizes the necessity of cooperation, particularly on global issues like climate change. According to Nye, finding common ground on these shared challenges is essential to avoid conflict.
In a world where global challenges transcend national borders, soft power can be the key to fostering international cooperation and avoiding the pitfalls of hard power rivalries. Nye’s reflections on managed competition highlight the delicate balance between competition and collaboration in shaping future world affairs.
Lessons from History: Political Polarization and AI
Nye also reflects on political polarization, both past and present, noting that while today’s polarization is concerning, it is not unprecedented. The turbulence of the 1960s, with protests against the Vietnam War and widespread social unrest, was arguably even more volatile. Studying history offers perspective, helping us differentiate between what is genuinely new and what is a repeat of past challenges.
Nye also looks to the future, particularly the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), which has the potential to reshape society in profound ways. He draws comparisons between the uncertainty surrounding AI and the historical uncertainty of nuclear power. Just as nuclear energy was once seen as the future, AI carries similar transformative potential, though its timeline and long-term effects remain uncertain.
Conclusion: The Power of Persuasion in a Changing World
​Joseph Nye’s reflections remind us that while the forms of power may change, the importance of persuasion—soft power—remains a constant in international relations. In a world that faces increasing complexity, from the rise of AI to the challenges of global competition, nations that invest in soft power will have a distinct advantage in shaping the future.
As we move further into the 21st century, Nye’s insights into the balance between hard and soft power, and the lessons from his life during the American Century, offer valuable guidance. The ability to attract, inspire, and lead through persuasion will be essential for navigating the global challenges ahead. Whether through culture, diplomacy, or political values, soft power continues to be a vital tool in shaping the future of international relations.
In an era where cooperation on global issues is more critical than ever, Nye’s reflections on power and influence provide a timeless reminder that persuasion, authenticity, and credibility are the keys to maintaining global leadership.

References
Nye, J. S. (2024, September). Reflections on U.S. Global Power and the Evolution of Soft Power. Lecture presented to the Mason Fellows, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.
OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.

OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.The study of economic history is essential to understanding the forces that have shaped our world today. As part of Ricardo Hausmann’s DEV 130 course on Why So Many Countries are Poor, Unequal, and Volatile, two significant readings--The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective by Angus Maddison and The Economy 1.0 (Unit 1: The Capitalist Revolution)—offer compelling insights into the evolution of global economic growth, inequality, and the dynamics of capitalism. Let's break down the key themes from these texts, which provide a rich understanding of how economies have diverged and converged over centuries.
Global Economic Growth Over a Millennium: 

1. Millennial Growth (1000-1998):
   According to Maddison, from 1000 to 1998, the world witnessed an incredible transformation. The global population expanded 22-fold, while per capita income increased 13-fold. Overall, global GDP grew by a staggering 300 times. However, most of this growth occurred after 1820, when per capita income rose 8.5 times, and population increased by 5.6 times.
2. Economic Divergence:
   By the early 19th century, certain regions—namely Western Europe, North America, Japan, and Australasia—outpaced other parts of the world, leading to a significant income gap. By 1998, the richest regions (such as the United States) had an income disparity of 20:1 compared to the poorest (Africa). However, Asia has shown signs of resurgence and convergence in recent decades, demonstrating that global divergence is not a fixed outcome.
3. Population and Welfare:
   Life expectancy saw a dramatic rise, from 24 years in 1000 to 66 years in 1998. The rapid improvement occurred primarily in countries such as the U.S., Japan, and Europe, where life expectancy reached 78 years by 1998. In contrast, Africa and parts of Asia lagged behind with an average life expectancy of 64 years.
4. Explaining Economic Growth:
   Maddison points to several factors behind economic growth, including the conquest and settlement of new lands (like the Americas), international trade (led by European powers like Venice and Portugal), and technological and institutional innovations. These developments allowed Western Europe to emerge as a dominant economic force.
5. Institutional Impact on Economic Development:
   Institutions played a critical role in the divergence of regional economies. For instance, Maddison argues that Iberian institutions in Latin America were less conducive to capitalist development than those in North America, contributing to the persistent income gap.
6. Post-WWII Economic Boom:
   The period from 1950 to 1973 saw a global economic boom, with GDP growing at nearly 5% annually and global trade increasing by 8% each year. This era of prosperity also witnessed convergence, especially in Europe and Asia, though some regions remained mired in economic stagnation.

The Capitalist Revolution and Modern Growth: 

1. The Impact of Capitalism:
   The capitalist revolution, marked by the rise of private property, markets, and firms, fundamentally reshaped global living standards. Technological advancements and specialization enhanced productivity, but these benefits came at the cost of environmental degradation and growing income inequality.
2. Historical Economic Disparities:
   In the 14th century, economic differences between regions were less striking, though social inequality was severe. Fast forward to today, and economic disparities between nations are vast, as illustrated by the differences in GDP per capita. The modern world is far more unequal, both within and between nations.
3. Rising Income Inequality:
   Income inequality has become a hallmark of modern economies. For example, in Singapore, the wealthiest 10% earn substantially more than the poorest 10%, while in Liberia, income disparities are stark. These inequalities explain the global issue of uneven wealth distribution.
4. GDP and Wellbeing:
   Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is commonly used to measure living standards, but it doesn’t capture other vital aspects of wellbeing, such as environmental quality, social relationships, and leisure time. This limitation challenges the notion that GDP alone reflects true economic progress.
5. "Hockey Stick" Growth and Technological Revolutions:
   The "hockey stick" curve refers to the sharp rise in economic growth experienced by countries like Britain, Japan, and China at different points in history. This growth was fueled by technological advancements and political changes, illustrating how economies can take off at various moments in time.
6. Global Comparisons Using PPP:
   Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) allows economists to compare countries’ living standards by adjusting for differences in prices. For example, Sweden and Indonesia may have vastly different incomes, but when adjusted for PPP, the real difference in purchasing power shrinks, providing a clearer picture of economic wellbeing.
7. The Gains from Specialization:
   Specialization, a key feature of capitalist economies, increases productivity by focusing labor and resources on specific tasks. Adam Smith’s ideas about the division of labor and self-interest remain foundational, as these concepts explain how economies grow and evolve through market-driven processes.

A Century of Divergence and Convergence
While Maddison’s analysis focuses on the long-term millennial view of economic growth and divergence, The Economy 1.0 emphasizes the role of capitalism in shaping modern economies. Both works highlight how economic systems, institutions, and technological progress have led to both the widening and narrowing of global income gaps over time. Although some regions have prospered more than others, there remains hope for convergence, as seen in the resurgence of Asian economies.
These readings offer a valuable framework for understanding how we arrived at today’s global economic landscape and what forces will shape the future.
Conclusion: A New Era of Economic Growth
​The conditions that allowed for rapid economic growth during the Industrial Revolution, the colonial era, and post-World War II are not replicable in today’s world. Environmental degradation, the legacy of colonialism, and the evolving global order present significant challenges. Countries can no longer exploit resources and labor unconditionally, and the need for sustainability has introduced new constraints. Additionally, the global order is far more interconnected and competitive, with multiple power centers vying for influence.
The challenge for modern economies is to find new pathways to growth—ones that prioritize sustainability, equity, and long-term wellbeing over the short-term extraction of wealth. Innovation, technological advancements in green energy, and more inclusive governance models will be critical to creating a future where growth can still occur without the exploitation and environmental destruction that defined earlier centuries.
​These insights help us understand both the historical context of economic growth and the complexities of replicating such success in today’s world. While the era of rapid, unbounded growth may be over, the opportunity for sustainable and equitable progress remains if nations can navigate the challenges of our time.
References
Maddison, A. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. OECD Development Centre.
CORE Econ. The Economy 1.0: The Capitalist Revolution. Available at CORE Econ.
OpenAI, ChatGPT. (2024, September). Used for conversational assistance, providing summaries and enhancing the style of writing.