ICR Research #20: Non-State Actors (the Hidden Architecture of Global Soft Power)
Author: Stuart MacDonald
An informal exercise in mapping the non-state actors that shape our lives more than most governments
We live in a world where a single company's algorithm determines what billions see when they search for information. Where a university's alumni network includes eight U.S. presidents and shapes global economic thinking. Where a thousand-year-old religious institution commands considerable moral authority, and where a Swiss gathering of elites helps set global economic agendas.
Yet our foreign policy thinking remains largely focused on state-to-state relations, as if the most consequential power still flows primarily through embassies and treaty negotiations. The evidence suggests we need to think more widely.
This is an attempt—admittedly subjective and inevitably incomplete—to map an alternative architecture of global influence. Not the formal one taught in international relations courses, but the networked, transnational, and often less visible system that may actually shape how billions of people live, work, and think.
Why This Exercise Matters
International relations scholarship increasingly recognises that "the premise of the state as the primary actor is under enormous challenge" and that "the influence by non-state actors and individuals is growing in world politics" (Balbi, 2024). Yet we lack a clear picture of who these actors might be and how their power potentially operates.
This isn't merely academic theorising. As governments grapple with everything from pandemic responses to climate action, from economic crises to information warfare, they're discovering that influential players often aren't other governments at all. They may be tech platforms, philanthropic foundations, consulting firms, universities, and media companies that operate across borders with resources and reach that rival many nation-states.
Understanding this matters for several reasons. First, our theories of international relations may be increasingly inadequate for understanding 21st-century power dynamics. Second, this could have profound policy implications for how governments protect national interests or democratic governance when influential actors operate beyond traditional sovereignty. Third, there appears to be a growing tension between democratic accountability and transnational influence, which merits examination.
A Tentative Ranking: The Top 10
What follows is one possible ranking of influential non-state actors, based on criteria including global reach, norm-setting capacity, resource mobilisation, and institutional autonomy. This ranking is inevitably subjective and open to debate—which is precisely the point.
The Catholic Church emerges as perhaps the most significant non-state actor globally. With 1.25 billion adherents worldwide, the Catholic Church operates what may be the world's oldest continuous soft power network. The Church can potentially mobilise these individuals as voters and participants in civic life whilst maintaining sophisticated diplomatic relations with states worldwide. Research has revealed extensive coordination between the Holy See and various state actors, suggesting complex relationships that transcend simple categorisation. The Church's unique combination of moral authority, global reach, and institutional longevity places it at the apex of non-state influence.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement represents perhaps the purest example of transnational humanitarian authority. The International Federation describes itself as "the world's largest humanitarian network," reaching 160 million people annually through 191 national societies. The Movement operates through what it terms "Fundamental Principles," maintaining neutrality across conflicts whilst potentially influencing humanitarian standards globally. Its distinctive symbols serve as powerful emblems of protection and neutrality, allowing humanitarian workers to operate safely in conflict zones whilst building universal legitimacy through principled action.
Al-Azhar University in Egypt commands substantial influence within the Islamic world and beyond. Founded in 998 CE, this institution operates an education system serving millions whilst maintaining branches worldwide. Despite formal state control following nationalisation by President Nasser in 1961, Al-Azhar appears to maintain considerable autonomy in shaping Islamic discourse globally. The institution's recent engagement with Chinese Islamic associations and its controversial positions on contemporary conflicts suggest how religious soft power can operate independently of state interests, challenging Western assumptions about secularisation.
The Silicon Valley ecosystem represents a concentration of technological influence that transcends individual companies. This integrated network controls approximately one-third of U.S. venture capital investment whilst housing companies that establish many global technology standards. Rather than individual firms, Silicon Valley exports particular innovation philosophies and technological paradigms whilst controlling substantial global digital infrastructure. The ecosystem's influence operates through venture capital networks that shape global startup culture, platform control affecting billions of users, and the export of distinctive ideologies including disruptive innovation philosophy.
Harvard University potentially represents concentrated American educational influence on a global scale. With the world's largest university endowment and 271,000 living alumni including eight U.S. presidents and numerous billionaires, Harvard's influence operates through alumni networks spanning over 200 countries. The university's case study method, taught globally through business schools, may have shaped management thinking worldwide, whilst Harvard-affiliated researchers frequently advise governments and international organisations. The "Harvard brand" confers legitimacy on ideas and individuals in ways that extend far beyond traditional educational metrics.
The World Economic Forum convenes over 3,000 global leaders annually in Davos, creating significant network effects among heads of state, CEOs, and academics. The organisation's emphasis on stakeholder capitalism and public-private partnerships may have influenced how governments approach development challenges, though the extent of this influence remains debatable. The WEF's agenda-setting publications and multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms create informal decision-making processes that may bypass democratic accountability whilst shaping global economic discourse.
McKinsey & Company has been described as "an extremely effective but little understood organization" that has potentially "influenced companies and governments behind the scenes for decades." The firm could be said to represent the institutionalisation of particular American management approaches globally, embedding specific business practices and philosophies into institutions worldwide. McKinsey's global operations and client relationships suggest influence that extends well beyond traditional consulting, though measuring its actual impact on policy outcomes requires further study.
Google's control of approximately 92% of global search traffic positions it as a potential primary information gateway for billions of people worldwide. The company's decisions on search rankings, content moderation, and advertising policies may affect political discourse and cultural trends globally, though measuring this influence precisely remains challenging. Google's YouTube platform, with over 2.5 billion monthly users, and Android's dominant mobile market share create multiple channels through which the company potentially shapes global information consumption and cultural trends.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as potentially the world's wealthiest private foundation with a substantial endowment, may wield considerable influence in global health and development policy. The foundation's role in COVID-19 vaccine distribution suggests significant influence over global health responses, whilst its partnerships with governments and international organisations create channels for policy influence that extend beyond traditional philanthropic activities. The foundation's research funding and strategic grant-making potentially shape academic discourse and policy priorities in ways that merit closer examination.
Netflix, reaching over 260 million subscribers across 190+ countries, potentially creates shared cultural experiences through algorithm-driven content recommendation. The platform's original content investment and global reach may represent significant cultural influence, though measuring soft power effects remains methodologically challenging. Netflix's content policies and algorithmic choices potentially shape viewing habits and cultural narratives globally, whilst the platform's expansion into local content markets creates new forms of cultural exchange under American corporate control.
Patterns and Exclusions
Several patterns emerge from this tentative ranking, though their significance remains open to interpretation. Seven of the ten suggested actors are U.S.-based, which could indicate systematic American influence through non-state networks or may simply reflect the methodology employed and the visibility of American institutions to Western observers.
The exclusion of certain actors proves equally revealing. Confucius Institutes, despite their global reach, were excluded as state-sponsored instruments rather than autonomous non-state actors. Their widespread closure, particularly in Western countries, reflects broader pushback against Chinese state-directed cultural influence operations. European institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge universities, whilst historically significant, may lack the global financial resources and alumni networks of their American counterparts. Asian multinationals like Toyota and Samsung wield considerable economic influence but may provide fewer opportunities for norm-setting compared to digital platforms that can directly shape behaviour and beliefs. Meta Platforms, despite connecting billions globally, has seen its influence potentially undermined by privacy scandals, content moderation controversies, and regulatory challenges.
Questions for Further Consideration
This exercise raises several questions worthy of sustained debate and research. Whose ‘soft power’ do we measure when we try to measure soft power? How do we accurately assess soft power influence, and what metrics meaningfully capture norm-setting capacity or cultural impact? To what extent do these actors genuinely operate independently of state interests, and how might we better understand the relationship between formal autonomy and substantive influence? What mechanisms exist for democratic oversight of transnational influence, and should/how might such mechanisms be developed or strengthened? Are emerging powers developing competing influence networks, and what might alternative soft power architectures look like?
The measurement challenges are particularly acute. Soft power remains notoriously difficult to quantify, making precise rankings inherently problematic. The relationship between correlation and causation in influence studies presents ongoing methodological challenges, whilst the dynamic nature of influence networks means that any ranking captures only a moment in time. The subjective nature of the selection criteria reflects particular theoretical assumptions that others might reasonably dispute.
Implications for Policy and Theory
If this analysis has merit, it suggests several areas requiring sustained attention from policymakers and scholars. International relations theory may need updating to better account for transnational influence networks that operate alongside (or in advance of), rather than subordinate to, state power. The traditional focus on state-centric models may miss crucial dynamics in contemporary global governance, whilst existing frameworks for understanding soft power may inadequately capture the complexity of networked influence.
While Governments have engaged diplomatically with the Catholic Church for centuries[1], they may need new approaches for engaging with more recent influential non-state actors that transcend traditional diplomatic channels. There are some attempts by Governments who have, for example, deployed specialised diplomatic positions, such as technology ambassadors and digital envoys, to foster strategic relationships with Silicon Valley's major technology companies and better understand the policy implications of emerging innovations. These roles typically involve bridging the cultural and operational divide between public sector governance and private sector technology development, facilitating dialogue on issues ranging from artificial intelligence regulation to data sovereignty and cybersecurity cooperation.
However, more generally, the apparent concentration of unaccountable influence raises fundamental questions about maintaining democratic oversight in an interconnected world. How do democracies protect their sovereignty and accountability when the most influential actors operate beyond traditional regulatory reach? What new forms of governance might be needed to address transnational influence whilst preserving the benefits of global connectivity?[2]
Limitations and the Path Forward
This analysis suffers from several obvious limitations that must be acknowledged. The subjective criteria reflect particular assumptions that merit scrutiny. The methodology may inadvertently favour actors visible to Western observers whilst missing influential networks in other regions. The focus on formal institutions may underestimate informal networks and emerging influence patterns. The static nature of this snapshot fails to capture the dynamic evolution of influence networks over time.
Despite these limitations, I hope that this exercise serves a purpose in highlighting the need for more systematic examination of how power operates through non-state networks. We need better metrics for assessing transnational influence, more sophisticated theoretical frameworks for understanding networked power, and practical mechanisms for ensuring democratic accountability in an interconnected world.
The questions raised here extend well beyond academic curiosity. As governments struggle to address global challenges whilst maintaining democratic legitimacy, understanding the architecture of transnational influence becomes increasingly urgent. The traditional tools of statecraft may prove inadequate for engaging with actors that operate across borders, command vast resources, and shape public opinion in ways that transcend formal diplomatic channels.
This analysis suggests that we may be witnessing a fundamental transformation in how global power operates, with non-state actors playing increasingly central roles in shaping outcomes that affect billions of lives. Whether this transformation strengthens or weakens democratic governance depends partly on our ability to understand and respond to these new realities whilst preserving the accountability and legitimacy that democratic systems require.
The conversation about transnational influence and democratic accountability has only just begun. What emerges from this debate may well determine the future of governance in an interconnected world.
References
Balbi, A. M. (2024). The influence of non-state actors on global politics. Australian Institute of International Affairs. Available at: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/the-influence-of-non-state-actors-on-global-politics/ [Accessed 29 June 2025].
[1] States engage diplomatically with the Vatican through formal diplomatic relations established with the Holy See, which is recognised as a sovereign subject of international law distinct from Vatican City State, as the Holy See represents the central government of the Catholic Church and exercises sovereignty through its temporal expression as the Vatican City State. This diplomatic engagement typically involves accrediting ambassadors to the Holy See rather than to Vatican City per se, acknowledging the Holy See's unique status as both a spiritual authority with global reach and a sovereign entity capable of entering into treaties, maintaining diplomatic missions, and participating in international organisations as a non-member permanent observer at the United Nations.
[2] Academics are looking at this. See, for example: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/85112