Hard Power

Hard Capability. GINC's Emerging National Assessments

Hard Capability. GINC's Emerging National Assessments
QUICK TAKE · AI Summary
  • Hard-power frontiers are scarce: only a small number of states combine high-tier technology, infrastructure, and security, while most cluster below clear structural ceilings.
  • Position reflects balance, not standout strengths: countries with consistently strong profiles outrank those excelling in only one domain.
  • Regional structure shapes outcomes: Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America each display distinct capability patterns that explain rankings beyond headline power.

This article presents a domain-based assessment of hard power using three foundational pillars—Critical Technologies, Strategic Infrastructure, and National Security—evaluated through Pareto tiering rather than composite indices. Countries are placed into domain-specific tiers, and relative ordering is derived using an Olympic-style competition ranking that rewards concentration of higher-tier placements without collapsing them into a single score.

The core analytical device is a single matrix chart showing countries as rows, domains as columns, tier placement in each cell, and rank applied only where profiles differ. This structure reveals not only who leads, but how power is composed—exposing asymmetry, structural ceilings, and regional variation. Applied globally and across multiple regional groupings, the framework demonstrates that frontier power is scarce, while meaningful differentiation persists well below Tier 1.

Contents


Introduction
National Assessments
Regional Profiles
National Case Studies
Scenarios and Sensitivity Analysis
Data and Definitions

Introduction

Hard power is assessed across three irreducible domains:

  1. Critical Technologies
  2. Strategic Infrastructure
  3. National Security

Each domain is evaluated independently. No aggregation, weighting, or averaging is applied across domains.

Rather than producing a single index, each country is assigned a tier within each domain based on Pareto dominance. This preserves multidimensional structure and avoids allowing excellence in one domain to mask weakness in another.

Overall rank is derived, not calculated.

  • Countries are ordered by the number of Tier 1 placements, then Tier 2, then Tier 3.
  • Countries with identical domain-tier profiles share the same rank.
  • Competition ranking is applied (e.g. 1, 1, 3, 4).

Rank never determines tier placement, and tiers are not scores.

Figure X. Top 20 Hard Power Nation

Posn Country Critical Tech Strategic Infra National Security
1🇺🇸 United StatesTier 1Tier 1Tier 1
2🇨🇳 ChinaTier 2Tier 1Tier 2
2🇮🇱 IsraelTier 2Tier 2Tier 1
4🇰🇷 South KoreaTier 2Tier 1Tier 3
5🇳🇱 NetherlandsTier 2Tier 1Tier 4
5🇸🇪 SwedenTier 2Tier 1Tier 4
7🇨🇭 SwitzerlandTier 2Tier 1Tier 5
8🇯🇵 JapanTier 3Tier 1Tier 3
9🇳🇴 NorwayTier 4Tier 1Tier 4
9🇸🇬 SingaporeTier 4Tier 1Tier 4
11🇫🇮 FinlandTier 4Tier 1Tier 5
11🇦🇪 United Arab EmiratesTier 5Tier 1Tier 4
13🇫🇷 FranceTier 3Tier 2Tier 2
14🇩🇪 GermanyTier 2Tier 2Tier 4
15🇬🇧 Channel IslandsTier 4Tier 2Tier 3
16🇸🇦 Saudi ArabiaTier 6Tier 2Tier 4
17🇩🇰 DenmarkTier 5Tier 2Tier 5
18🇶🇦 QatarTier 7Tier 2Tier 5
19🇬🇧 United KingdomTier 4Tier 3Tier 3
20🇦🇺 AustraliaTier 5Tier 3Tier 4

Source. GINC Data Laboratory, January 2026

  • The scarcity of Tier 1 outcomes
  • Tier 2 clustering and internal differentiation
  • Structural ceilings in Tier 3
  • Why some countries are tied—and why others are not

Using a G20-style reference set, the chart highlights:

  • A very small frontier at the top
  • A dense competitive middle
  • A long tail of partial and specialised powers

The ordering reflects structure, not marginal differences.

Regional Analysis


Intro

Asia

The Indo-Pacific shows the widest dispersion of outcomes, spanning frontier powers, competitive middle states, and partial powers within the same region. The chart makes visible sharp contrasts between technology leaders, infrastructure-heavy states, and security-centric actors—highlighting why the region is strategically consequential and analytically complex.

Figure X.

Posn Country Critical Tech Strategic Infra National Security
1🇨🇳 ChinaTier 2Tier 1Tier 2
2🇰🇷 South KoreaTier 2Tier 1Tier 3
3🇯🇵 JapanTier 3Tier 1Tier 3
4🇸🇬 SingaporeTier 4Tier 1Tier 4
5🇦🇺 AustraliaTier 5Tier 3Tier 4
6🇮🇳 IndiaTier 6Tier 4Tier 3
7🇹🇼 TaiwanTier 6Tier 4Tier 5
8🇭🇰 Hong KongTier 6Tier 3Tier 8
9🇳🇿 New ZealandTier 7Tier 4Tier 6
10🇲🇾 MalaysiaTier 9Tier 4Tier 6
11🇮🇩 IndonesiaTier 9Tier 7Tier 6
12🇻🇳 VietnamTier 10Tier 7Tier 6
13🇹🇭 ThailandTier 9Tier 6Tier 7
14🇵🇰 PakistanTier 10Tier 9Tier 4
15🇲🇵 Northern Mariana IslandsTier 8Tier 8Tier 5
16🇬🇺 GuamTier 10Tier 7Tier 5
17🇵🇭 PhilippinesTier 12Tier 9Tier 7
18🇲🇴 MacaoTier 12Tier 6Tier 7
19🇱🇰 Sri LankaTier 13Tier 11Tier 8
20🇳🇨 New CaledoniaTier 13Tier 8Tier 8

Europe

Europe shows a security-heavy and infrastructure-strong profile, with relatively fewer Tier 1 outcomes in critical technologies. Several countries cluster with similar tier profiles, producing shared ranks and underscoring the limits of marginal differentiation within an otherwise advanced region.

Figure X. Top 20 Europe

Posn Country Critical Tech Strategic Infra National Security
1🇳🇱 NetherlandsTier 2Tier 1Tier 4
1🇳🇴 NorwayTier 4Tier 1Tier 4
1🇸🇪 SwedenTier 2Tier 1Tier 4
4🇨🇭 SwitzerlandTier 2Tier 1Tier 5
5🇫🇮 FinlandTier 4Tier 1Tier 5
6🇫🇷 FranceTier 3Tier 2Tier 2
7🇩🇪 GermanyTier 2Tier 2Tier 4
8🇨🇭 Channel IslandsTier 4Tier 2Tier 3
9🇷🇺 RussiaTier 5Tier 3Tier 3
10🇬🇧 United KingdomTier 4Tier 3Tier 3
11🇧🇪 BelgiumTier 5Tier 3Tier 5
12🇪🇸 SpainTier 5Tier 3Tier 4
13🇮🇹 ItalyTier 5Tier 4Tier 3
14🇵🇱 PolandTier 6Tier 4Tier 4
15🇨🇿 CzechiaTier 6Tier 4Tier 6
16🇵🇹 PortugalTier 7Tier 4Tier 5
17🇱🇹 LithuaniaTier 7Tier 4Tier 6
18🇭🇺 HungaryTier 7Tier 4Tier 6
19🇸🇮 SloveniaTier 8Tier 4Tier 7
20🇸🇰 SlovakiaTier 8Tier 4Tier 7

Source.

Latin America and the Caribbean

The region is characterised by infrastructure-led Tier 2 placements alongside persistent Tier 3 outcomes in critical technologies and security. The chart highlights a small number of regional leaders and a broad middle where rank differences are driven by single-domain strengths rather than balanced power.

Figure X.

Posn Country Critical Tech Strategic Infra National Security
1🇨🇱 ChileTier 8Tier 4Tier 5
2🇧🇷 BrazilTier 7Tier 5Tier 5
3🇵🇪 PeruTier 12Tier 8Tier 5
4🇹🇹 Trinidad & TobagoTier 13Tier 5Tier 8
5🇺🇾 UruguayTier 11Tier 5Tier 9
6🇲🇽 MexicoTier 9Tier 6Tier 7
7🇨🇴 ColombiaTier 11Tier 8Tier 6
8🇨🇷 Costa RicaTier 11Tier 6Tier 8
9🇦🇷 ArgentinaTier 9Tier 8Tier 7
10🇵🇷 Puerto RicoTier 10Tier 8Tier 7
11🇵🇦 PanamaTier 12Tier 7Tier 8
12🇳🇮 NicaraguaTier 9Tier 9Tier 7
13🇬🇷 GrenadaTier 12Tier 11Tier 7
14🇰🇳 Saint Kitts & NevisTier 13Tier 12Tier 7
15🇨🇺 CubaTier 8Tier 9Tier 8
16🇩🇴 Dominican RepublicTier 14Tier 8Tier 9
17🇪🇨 EcuadorTier 14Tier 10Tier 8
18🇻🇪 VenezuelaTier 15Tier 12Tier 8
19🇭🇳 HondurasTier 17Tier 12Tier 10
20🇧🇸 BahamasTier 15Tier 13Tier 10

Middle East and North Africa

The GCC exhibits high structural similarity across states. Strategic infrastructure dominates regional strength, while critical technologies remain Tier 3 across the board in this simulation. Shared tier profiles result in shared ranks, reinforcing that the ranking reflects structure rather than fine-grained scoring.

Figure X.

Posn Country Critical Tech Strategic Infra National Security
1🇮🇱 IsraelTier 2Tier 2Tier 1
2🇦🇪 United Arab EmiratesTier 5Tier 1Tier 4
3🇸🇦 Saudi ArabiaTier 6Tier 2Tier 4
4🇶🇦 QatarTier 7Tier 2Tier 5
5🇰🇼 KuwaitTier 10Tier 3Tier 7
6🇴🇲 OmanTier 10Tier 4Tier 6
7🇧🇭 BahrainTier 11Tier 4Tier 6
8🇮🇷 IranTier 8Tier 7Tier 4
9🇲🇦 MoroccoTier 11Tier 6Tier 5
10🇪🇬 EgyptTier 10Tier 7Tier 5
11🇩🇿 AlgeriaTier 12Tier 8Tier 5
12🇯🇴 JordanTier 12Tier 7Tier 7
13🇮🇶 IraqTier 15Tier 9Tier 7
14🇸🇾 SyriaTier 19Tier 16Tier 7
15🇹🇳 TunisiaTier 12Tier 9Tier 8
16🇩🇯 DjiboutiTier 13Tier 9Tier 9
17🇱🇾 LibyaTier 18Tier 12Tier 9
18🇱🇧 LebanonTier 16Tier 14Tier 10
19🇵🇸 PalestineTier 18Tier 16Tier 10
20🇾🇪 YemenTier 22Tier 18Tier 10

Sub Saharan Africa

Africa displays a flat but structured distribution, with no Tier 1 outcomes in this illustrative simulation. Differentiation emerges through selective Tier 2 placements in strategic infrastructure or national security. The matrix demonstrates that even in the absence of frontier states, relative ordering remains meaningful and analytically grounded.

Figure X.

Posn Country Critical Tech Strategic Infra National Security
1🇿🇦 South AfricaTier 8Tier 6Tier 6
2🇲🇺 MauritiusTier 13Tier 6Tier 10
2🇳🇬 NigeriaTier 13Tier 10Tier 6
4🇰🇪 KenyaTier 12Tier 8Tier 7
5🇷🇼 RwandaTier 15Tier 8Tier 8
6🇬🇭 GhanaTier 14Tier 9Tier 8
7🇧🇼 BotswanaTier 15Tier 8Tier 9
8🇨🇮 Côte d’IvoireTier 16Tier 8Tier 9
9🇦🇴 AngolaTier 15Tier 11Tier 8
10🇪🇹 EthiopiaTier 15Tier 11Tier 8
11🇸🇳 SenegalTier 15Tier 11Tier 8
12🇲🇷 MauritaniaTier 14Tier 12Tier 8
13🇨🇬 Congo (Rep.)Tier 19Tier 12Tier 8
14🇹🇩 ChadTier 23Tier 19Tier 8
15🇳🇦 NamibiaTier 14Tier 10Tier 9
16🇨🇲 CameroonTier 17Tier 13Tier 9
17🇲🇬 MadagascarTier 18Tier 15Tier 9
18🇨🇩 DR CongoTier 19Tier 15Tier 9
19🇸🇩 SudanTier 19Tier 15Tier 9
20🇬🇳 GuineaTier 20Tier 15Tier 9

Cross-Domain Insights

1. Asymmetry Is the Norm

Balanced strength across all three domains is rare. Most countries exhibit pronounced asymmetry, which explains why many stall in Tier 2 despite excellence in one pillar.

2. Tier Transitions Are Domain-Constrained

Advancement requires closing the weakest domain gap. Further optimisation of an already-strong pillar does not change tier position.

For Alliances and Coalitions

  • Complementarity is visible at a glance
  • Tier 3 states may be strategically pivotal despite low rank

For Analysts

  • Rankings without tiers mislead
  • Tiers without ordering under-differentiate
  • The matrix resolves both problems

Read more