4th Global Conference on Social Sciences (GSSCONF 2025) Dubai, 14.12.25

Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen!

We are gathered here at the moment when traditional concepts of national power and State autonomy are going belly up. The world order, which seemed indisputable some ten years ago, is in deep crisis. Geopolitical blocs are being restructured, trade relations are rapidly taking on a new shape, and the very idea of sovereignty requires a radically modified approach.

In such a situation, researchers and political scientists are faced with a question that no longer tolerates delay: namely, how should we measure national power? What indices really reflect the ability of the state to take independent decisions? Yet, what paradoxes are hidden behind the usual statistical data?

Let me show your briefly some important issues we have been working on over the past two years. This is not just another rating index, which is usually the finger in the dike for calculating a position of a country on the market. Not at all. This is a genuine attempt to take a fresh gaze at the concept of sovereignty in all its current complexity, using a comprehensive measurement system that we have called the Sovereignty Index of the International Burke Institute.

Our research model evaluates seven key indices of sovereignty, such as: political sovereignty, economic sovereignty, technological sovereignty, information sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, cognitive sovereignty, and military sovereignty.

There are 700 indicators in total, developed on the basis of data from UN agencies, the World Bank, UNESCO, as well as expert assessments from more than 100 specialists from 50 countries. The index is applied to all UN Member states.

Why does it matter much? Because traditional metrics such as GNP per capita, GDP, and military spending provide a fuzzy picture. They give us the illusion that statistical wealth is automatically transformed into national autonomy ignoring a paradoxical phenomenon that we meet all over the world: oil-rich countries, countries with the largest economies, and countries with advanced armies often demonstrate lesser ability to take independent decisions than the states that supposedly should be subordinated to these giants.

Today I want to share with you three empirical cases that overturn traditional assumptions about how national power works in the 21st century and give an edge to our method instead. Each of these cases demonstrates that sovereignty is not the en bloc phenomenon, but a multi-layered reality in which the size of a country’s economy, the wealth of resources and even technological supremacy can hide deep structural dependence.

THE FIRST PARADOX: POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE PARADOX OF INSTABILITY

Let me begin with a question that sounds like a truism, but upon closer examination reveals deep methodological problems. How to assess the political sovereignty of a state? What indicators really reflect the ability of society to take independent political decisions?

When it comes to political sovereignty, international ratings demonstrate the perceived superiority of some States over others. France ranks 26th place in the Global Democracy Index, and is traditionally classified as a full-fledged democracy. Namibia is significantly lower, it is ranked 44th in the global Rule of law ranking and 6th among 54 African countries.

Admittedly, France's political stability index should be higher, given its status as a leading European power. Namibia, to the contrary, is a relatively young state that gained independence only in 1990. By all formal criteria, France should demonstrate greater political stability and sovereignty.

However, the reality of 2024-2025 nixes this impression. France today is experiencing an unheard political havoc. Over the past year, the country has “copy-pasted” five prime ministers with almost the same result. The government of Sebastien Lecornu lasted only 14 hours before it fell. Since many years The Economist Intelligence Unit 2024 has downgraded Democracy Index France from a full-fledged democracy to an imperfect democracy.

Namibia, on the contrary, maintains a political stability score of 0.54 points, higher than the global average. The country ranks 67th in the world in terms of political stability, ahead of many European countries.

How is it possible that a young African democracy demonstrates greater political sovereignty than one of the oldest European republics?

Decision-Making Ability: Effectiveness vs Deadlock

France can’t build its budget. The last two prime ministers fell due to votes of no confidence related to budget disagreements. Michel Barnier, who was the first to try to present an optimized budget, riled Parliament and lost his position in December 2024.

Francois Bayrou managed to pass the 2025 bill into law, but he too, as Prime Minister didn’t last long due to his 2026 budget lambasted proposal. France barely escaped economic paralysis in 2025 thanks to a special law. The 2026 budget is significantly slimmed down: a target deficit of 4.7% instead of 5.4%, minimal job cuts and symbolic taxation. The country has the largest deficit in the eurozone.

The socialists, whose support is vital for the government, are demanding the abolition of pension reform and the introduction of a tax on billionaires: the idea that the right parties went on a rampage.

Now, Namibia doesn’t face such problems. SWAPO controls the policy-making process through its dominance. In 2019, the party lost its constitutional two-thirds majority for the first time, gaining 65.5% of the vote and 63 of the 104 seats in the National Assembly. However, SWAPO still has an absolute majority and is able to make decisions without the need for complex coalition negotiations. The Government Efficiency Index for Namibia is 0.03 points (higher than the global average). France, in its turn, is stuck in an institutional impasse making effective governance just impossible.

Legitimacy of Power: Popular Trust vs Institutional Distrust

The CEVIPOF Political Confidence barometer shows that France is deeply dissatisfied with its democratic system: only 28% of respondents believe that democracy is functioning well. The last poll, conducted in October 2025, shows that 81% believe that the French democratic system faces a stiff challenge.

Namibia demonstrates stable support for the ruling party. SWAPO has won every national election since 1990. Although the party's support has dropped from 87% in 2014 to 56% in 2019, it still represents a clear majority that French politicians can only dream of.

Historical Sovereignty: the Colonial Legacy vs European Integration

Namibia gained its independence over a 24-year struggle (1966-1990), in which 20,000 to 25,000 people perished. The country survived the German colonial rule marked by huge genocide and the South African occupation. On March 21, 1990, Namibia became independent at a ceremony attended by representatives of 147 countries, including 20 heads of State. Sam Nujoma, a Namibian revolutionary and anti-apartheid activist, was sworn in as the first president in the presence of Nelson Mandela.

The example of Namibia points to a fundamental change in our understanding of sovereignty: from the old model, when a sovereign ruler had the right to govern his territory, to the modern model, when peoples have the sovereign right to independent decision-making.

France is engaged in a dragged-out sovereignty debate in the context of European integration. Thus, President Macron has been actively promoting the concept of European sovereignty since 2017, he states: To cope with the upheavals around the world, we need a sovereignty that is greater than our own, but which completes it: European sovereignty. However, this integration comes with a price.

France can no longer independently set tariffs, control its currency (the euro is managed by the European Central Bank), or pursue an independent trade policy. Many of the laws in force in France are EU directives adopted in Brussels.

So, which country has more sovereignty: the one that won independence in a bloody struggle and preserves it in its more or less pure form, or the one that voluntarily delegates parts of sovereignty to supranational structures?

Constitutional stability: multiple crises against a unified Constitution Namibia adopted its Constitution on February 9, 1990, and it has been in force since then without fundamental changes. Despite the challenges, the Namibian transition from colonial to democratic rule is seen as a success story.

THE SECOND PARADOX: ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY AND THE PARADOX OF DIVERSITY

Let me know to stick to the second case, which explores the economic sovereignty of two states so different in scale that their comparison seems almost absurd at first glance. We are talking about Equatorial Guinea and the Philippines.

Equatorial Guinea is a country located on the western coast of Central Africa. The population is about 1.5 million people. The Philippines is an archipelago with more than 110 million inhabitants, an ancient culture and a diverse economy. It would seem that there is nothing in common between these states.

However, experts analyzing indicators of economic sovereignty find striking parallels. Both countries are on the same level in the Burke Sovereignty Index, although their economic structures are radically different.

This opens up a fundamental question: what is economic sovereignty? It’s not just the ability of a state to make money or be economically large. This is the ability of a country to independently make decisions on managing its resources, developing the economy, establishing trade relations and protecting the interests of its citizens from excessive external influence.

It is a balance between openness to the global economy and the ability to maintain control over key sectors of the national economy. On the surface, it seems that Equatorial Guinea has a clear advantage. The country has significant oil reserves that were discovered in the 1990s.

The oil sector has become the basis of the state’s economic development and a source of foreign exchange earnings. It would seem that this was supposed to make the country powerful and independent, but this is far from being true. And here lies the first paradox: oil wealth, which was supposed to ensure independence, at the same time made the economy vulnerable.

Dependence on a single commodity export is a dangerous situation in the global economy, where oil prices fluctuate under the influence of various lying factors beyond the control of a single state. The Philippines developed in a completely different way. This state has never relied on the en bloc resource wealth.

The Philippine economy is built on diversity: agriculture, textile industry, tourism, electronics manufacturing, and services. It would seem that such diversity should ensure greater economic stability and genuine sovereignty. But in reality, it turns out that the wealth of income sources does not guarantee true independence.

The Philippines, like many developing countries, faces the problem of foreign capital entering key sectors of the economy, foreign debt, and dependence on imports of critical goods. This is where the sovereignty paradox begins to manifest itself.

Can a country with one main export product be ‘more sovereign’ than a country with a diversified economy?

The answer can blow you away. Economic sovereignty is gauged not so much by the number of sources of income as by the quality of management of these resources and the degree of government control over financial flows. So, if a country can confidently manage its oil sector, preventing its complete seizure by foreign companies and directing revenues to the development of other sectors of the economy, then it unmistakably demonstrates genuine sovereignty.

Similarly, if another country can protect its national interests in the face of a multitude of multinational corporations, it also exercises sovereignty. Over the past decades, Equatorial Guinea has developed a specific management model for its oil sector. The state has tried to maintain control over key oil fields, levy taxes on companies operating on its territory, and channel revenues to develop infrastructure and other sectors of the economy.

Traditionally, we have thought of sovereignty as a political concept, however economic sovereignty rather suits in favor of such a concept. It’s not so much the absence of dependence as the management of that dependence. Even the most developed countries cannot completely abandon international trade. The question is, thus, how much they can control the terms of this cooperation.

When experts compare the economic sovereignty of these two countries, they find that both are in a hard situation but for different reasons. Equatorial Guinea, having a valuable resource, has to constantly fight against attempts by foreign capital to seize control. The Philippines, to the contrary, doesn’t have a single dominant resource, but faces a more dispersed threat of loss of control through a set of transnational companies in different sectors.

On the map of global sovereignty, at the current rate of advance these two countries are equal. It means that the indicators measuring sovereignty are not as simple as they might seem at first glance. To put it another way around, neither the size of the population, nor the size of the economy, nor even the amount of oil is a determining factor.

Thus, questions come to the fore: Who really controls the key sectors? How much does the state depend on foreign capital? Can the government protect its interests negotiating with powerful foreign corporations? Once again, sovereignty is not only state ownership of land and enterprises, but also the ability of the State to influence decisions made by private companies.

The size and traditional weight of the state in world politics is not a guarantee of economic independence. A small African country can be as sovereign in its economic decisions as a large Asian archipelago with a huge population.

Let me stress: the above shows that sovereignty is not just a basic feature of power, but also the foundation of management skill depending on political leadership, an effective bureaucratic apparatus, and a deep understanding of the patterns of the global economy.

THE THIRD PARADOX: ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY AND MAGNITUDE

Let me conclude this series of cases with a paradox that concerns economic sovereignty, but from a completely different perspective. Let’s compare two countries, both having access to advanced markets, integrated into the global economy, but achieved economic independence in completely different ways.

One country is Norway, this Scandinavian giant with a population of 5.5 million people, has the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund worth about 1.9 trillion dollars with a per capita GDP in the top 10 global indicators and an excellent reputation in the field of financial stability. In a word, Norway is a benchmark for economic independence.

The second country is Liechtenstein, a tiny state with a population of about 39,000 people, an area of 160 square kilometers, comparable in size to a small city. Liechtenstein does not have its own currency (the Swiss franc in use), no central bank and customs territory of its own (customs union with Switzerland since 1923).

By all formal criteria, Norway should be economically sovereign, while Liechtenstein is not. However, the Burke Sovereignty Index shows that Liechtenstein, with an economic sovereignty index of 94.5, outperforms Norway with an index of 92.1, by 2.4 points. Liechtenstein is on the 27th place in the global ranking, Norway is just on the 8th. However, according to our calculations of deep economic autonomy, Liechtenstein’s sovereignty is a good cut above the Norwegian one.

The Oil Curse When Norway began producing oil on the continental shelf in 1971, the country was on the verge of economic transformation. Over the next half century, prices for North Sea oil soared from $10 to more than $100 per barrel. Oil and gas have become the backbone of the Norwegian economy. In 2024, the total export revenue from crude oil, natural gas and condensate amounted to about 1,100 billion Norwegian kroner, which is 61% of the total Norwegian exports.

The dependence is impressive: the oil and gas sector accounts for about a quarter of Norwegian GDP. Norway covers 20-25% of the European Union’s gas needs. This raises a fundamental question: can a country whose economy is so deeply dependent on one sector, on the volatility of global hydrocarbon prices, be considered economically sovereign?

Research conducted by the Norwegian Central Bank shows that the relationship between oil prices and the krona exchange rate is non-linear: small fluctuations have little effect on the currency, but large movements bring about strong currency reactions. The Norwegian economy is vulnerable to external shocks that are beyond its control. The Sovereign Wealth Fund as an illusion of independence The Norwegian Government Pension Fund (GPFG), established in 1990 to manage oil and gas revenues, is considered a model of financial wisdom.

The fund’s assets exceeded NOK 20 trillion by the end of 2024, almost five times the country's mainland GDP. The Fund owns shares in more than 9,000 companies in more than 70 countries, controlling about 1.5% of the global stock market. But the reality turns out to be even more complicated. In 2025, about 24% of all expenditures of the Norwegian fiscal budget are financed by transfers from the fund. The structural budget deficit, excluding oil and gas revenues, amounted to about 10.7% of mainland GDP in 2024.

The paradox becomes clear: the sovereign wealth fund, which is supposed to protect Norwegian independence, actually makes the state dependent on global financial markets.

Liechtenstein: the Invisible Master of Economic Autonomy

Liechtenstein uses the Swiss franc based on the 1980 currency treaty. The euro is managed by the Swiss National Bank, although Liechtenstein does not have voting rights on its monetary board. Liechtenstein is in a customs union with Switzerland, which turns both countries into a single customs zone. It would seem to be a classic case of economic dependence. But let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

Liechtenstein’s financial sector manages more than 503 billion Swiss francs in client assets, of which 217 billion are located directly on the territory of the principality. Liechtenstein’s investment funds have reached 117.8 billion francs.

There is a critical point here: the financial sector is built on off-balance sheet transactions. Customer asset management does not create direct balance sheet risks for banks. Investment funds do not use leverage.

The gigantic financial sector, which is 100 times larger than GDP, does not generate systemic risks for the economy. Industry remains the largest contributor to the economy. Manufacturing and construction account for 42.2% of GDP. With an industry share of 40% of national production, Liechtenstein is one of the most industrialized countries in the world. Liechtenstein’s per capita GDP is estimated in the range of 136 to 210 thousand dollars, one of the highest in the world. For comparison, Norway's GDP per capita is about 75 thousand dollars.

Risk system Liechtenstein's financial sector is built on off-balance sheet asset management. Assets under management do not pose a direct risk to bank balance sheets. Pawnshop loans are fully secured by collateral. Norway, in its turn, invests 70% in shares of global companies through GPFG, one of the most aggressive portfolios. Thus, any serious drop in global markets has a direct impact on the government's ability to finance its obligations.

In addition, the country provides 20-25% of the EU’s gas needs. This gives influence, but it also creates dependence. Yet, Liechtenstein does not play a significant role in global geopolitics.

This is precisely this ‘unobtrusiveness’ that creates a specific form of independence: Liechtenstein avoids any direct political conflicts and does not get involved in economic wars. Norway, on the contrary, is desperately trying to diversify its economy but its structural adjustment is slow. The economy remains deeply tied to the hydrocarbon sector.

Liechtenstein demonstrates a different model: an economic structure based on a multiplicity of unrelated high-tech industries and financial services. The financial sector accounts for about 20% of GDP, while industry accounts for 40%.

CONCLUSIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Who told you that sovereignty is in size? Who claimed that oil wealth is automatically transformed into independence? Is it true that integration into the European Union only weakens the nation-state?

The three paradoxes, I tried to show you today, point to the urgent need for a radical reconsideration of how we measure national power and State sovereignty. They require us to move from simple quantitative indicators to a qualitative analysis of the structural properties that determine the true autonomy of the state.

The first paradox teaches us that political sovereignty, that is, the ability of the state to consistently take decisions, effectively govern, and enjoy the trust of citizens, cannot be guaranteed by formal democratic institutions. A genuine deep democracy implies a set of systemic transformations: from the ability to form a budget to having a political consensus on key issues.

The second paradox demonstrates that in the era of the global economy, economic sovereignty is not a function of the size of the economy or the number of resources. This is a question of the quality of management and the degree of government control over financial flows and key sectors.

The third paradox shows that structural diversification, fiscal discipline, and independence from price shocks in global commodity markets create a more stable foundation for economic sovereignty than owning the largest sovereign wealth fund.

Our Burke Sovereignty Index, which has become publicly available on the platform of the International Burke Institute, offers a tool to treat all these issues in a much more advanced and accurate way. This is a conceptual model that allows us to analyze the multidimensional nature of national autonomy tracking the paradoxes that hide behind the usual statistical data.

Norway and Liechtenstein, France and Namibia, Equatorial Guinea and the Philippines are becoming not just examples, but key case studies leading us to reconsider fundamental assumptions.

Thank you for attention!

A useful note: The index has already been published, and I invite you to a dialogue and look forward to your critical feedback.