In politics as in business, there is a well-known saying, “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”, which has become a sort of shorthand for how power really works. The idea is that if you’re not involved in shaping decisions, you’ll end up living with decisions that are made for you. So, it’s important to engage multilaterally when it is in one’s interest.
At the top table of the international system, influence rarely rotates. The same core powers, anchored in the UN Security Council, reinforced through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and extending across the G7 and G20, continue to shape the global agenda and the rules of engagement.
Here’s the former US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, making such an argument regarding the international system at last year’s Munich Security Conference:
This table/menu metaphor really captures the blunt realist view that outcomes in international relations are determined less often by the fairness or pure efficiency that many people might expect, and more so by pursuing relative gains and acting in one’s own interest.
But as was evident last year, not everyone in the international system publicly endorses this worldview. When Secretary Blinken used the phrase to describe contemporary geopolitical engagement, China immediately objected, calling it “a stark zero-sum game mentality”. But beneath this diplomatic sparring lies a much bigger question that matters just as much for business leaders as it does for diplomats:
Is power really the only force that determines outcomes, or can smaller, less powerful players also shape the game?
The Realist View
The instinct of the political realist runs deep in both international relations and political economy. From Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue of ancient Greece to modern-day policy lobbying, the pattern is argued to repeat itself in an ostensibly timeless way:
“the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” - Thucydides
Using this view, financial markets may appear neutral, but they are built inside political systems. Equity prices, trade flows, and investment incentives are all shaped by who writes the rules, who enforces them, and whose interests they serve.
That’s one of the reasons why the metaphor resonates so strongly with many business leaders, because they know from experience that chasing efficiency isn’t enough. If a company, sector, or even a country isn’t part of shaping the framework that governs its operating environment, then it runs the real risk of being governed by somebody else’s framework. We also know this intuitively from history: those who win the war most often set the dominant narrative in subsequent history books.
Today’s political economy, with its tariffs, industrial policies, and strategic subsidies, makes this fairly explicit. From Washington’s Inflation Reduction Act to Beijing’s Made in China 2025, the market is no longer left to its own devices. The ideal of an open global free trade system seems over, at least for now, as political power is increasingly writing the terms of today’s trade.
This means that politics can no longer be treated as background noise in business. Thus, it makes strategic sense to develop creative ways to be part of the discussion to avoid being sidelined. We saw this play out in the automotive sector’s response to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, where American auto manufacturers actively engaged by ‘sitting at the table’ to shape the implementing rules so that they were operationally aligned to their existing supply chains.
The Challenge to The Realist View
Still, as we have seen, not everyone accepts the realist conclusion that power is destiny. There are many international relations theorists who would question Blinken’s metaphor and argue that the world has changed.
For example, there are the liberal institutionalists who argue that rules, alliances, and international institutions can tame raw power and that collective organisation can counterbalance dominance. The EU, WTO, and Paris Agreement all show that even small states can influence outcomes by locking larger ones into shared frameworks. The EU’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, comes from Estonia, one of the smallest member states. A reminder that scale and influence are not always the same thing. Businesses also benefit from leveraging alliances and standard-setting bodies to shape favourable environments.
We also have complex interdependence theory as described by scholars such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, which reminds us that our globalised world makes even the mightiest mutually vulnerable. Today, the U.S. may dominate chip design, but it relies on Dutch lithography, Taiwanese fabrication, and African minerals. No single actor has yet managed to control the full system.
So, that inevitably creates strategic openings for smaller players who find themselves occupying valuable niches. Consider the case of Nvidia. Its dominance in the high-performance AI chips (GPUs) that are the “picks and shovels” of the artificial intelligence gold rush has made it indispensable. U.S. government trade policies use export controls that are based on the technology Nvidia developed. Recognising these linkages helps businesses to navigate risks better and identify strategic partners.
At the same time, dependency and structural power show that interdependence can cut both ways. As described by Dependency Theory in development economics, the world economy often reproduces a core–periphery structure where high-income countries control high-value sectors such as technology, finance, and governance, while lower-income economies remain locked into lower-value, extractive roles. Today, those patterns have evolved into new forms, such as semiconductor chokepoints, energy dependencies, and rare earth monopolies. These days, the tools of structural power no longer rely on colonies or gunboats, but on tariffs, export controls, and data regimes.
For those of us in business, this matters because supply chains are now geopolitical systems. Firms can no longer bracket out politics and optimise for efficiency alone. That would be a major blind spot in today’s political economy. Instead, they must balance efficiency with resilience, diversification, and strategic autonomy. To survive in this era of economic nationalism, businesses must think more like states or regional blocs by being aware of their dependencies and deliberate about their alliances.
Constructivists go further and argue that it is ideas, identities, and shared understandings that shape reality. The international system has no global government, but as Alexander Wendt famously noted, “anarchy is what states make of it”. Using this view, the realist worldview is itself a social construction. There is nothing inevitable or timeless about global power dynamics. It is the political process that matters. Small nations such as Norway (e.g., Oslo Accords) or firms like Patagonia have influenced global norms on peace, sustainability, and governance through credibility and moral authority. In today’s world, legitimacy compounds like capital and soft power can move hard outcomes. Ideas, norms, and legitimacy influence economic outcomes beyond material power. For example, cultivating strong reputations and ethical leadership can also open doors and shape markets.
Systems Complexity
Moreover, complex systems are nonlinear, and even the table/menu metaphor itself tends to break down because change doesn’t just flow from the top. Small, agile actors can shift the conditions of play by altering feedback loops, setting standards, or innovating in ways that others must follow. If we are not at the table, we can always invent a new one. That’s how Estonia became a global voice in cybersecurity (e.g., the Tallinn Manual), or how Nordic countries set the tone in areas such as green tech and corporate ethics. Business leaders should also think beyond linear cause-and-effect to anticipate tipping points and emergent risks.
Feedback Loops
In the world we live in, everything is connected. Politics and markets form one integrated, adaptive system. Every time there is a policy change, whether that’s another new tariff, a supply-chain incentive, or an ESG rule, feedback loops are also created that bring new advantages to some actors but also disadvantages to others.
Those already comfortably settled “at the table” tend to reinforce their existing advantages through policy capture or institutional design. Public Choice Theory explains why this is so. Concentrated interests (such as organised industries) have the resources and coordination to influence policymakers, while more dispersed groups (such as consumers or smaller firms) rarely do. That’s why even the most brilliant minds and smaller innovators often find the rules working against them, and why big constructive engagement matters.
But it is important to remember that influence in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not necessarily mean corruption. In its benign sense, it just means understanding how systems evolve and ensuring that one’s voice is heard and is impactful in shaping their design. This is good for business because power tends to expand through active participation.
Moreover, sometimes it can be a disadvantage to be too comfortably settled around the table, locked into the old paradigm, because it also serves as a blind spot. We know from business the phenomenon of the innovator’s dilemma, where what makes a company successful can ultimately lead to its decline or even downfall. The same principle can also apply to politics.
Smaller Players Can Still Play
Whether we are talking about a small state, a mid-sized business, or indeed a professional hoping to climb the corporate hierarchy, influence without formal power is still possible. Still, we have to know where to look and what to do.
Here are some suggestions:
Build Coalitions: Coordination multiplies leverage. Smaller states use political groupings such as the G77 or Alliance of Small Island States to influence climate negotiations. Businesses also form industry associations or cross-sector alliances to shape regulation. Coordinated interest can substitute for sheer size.
Specialise and Become Indispensable: Everybody has an unfair advantage of some sort, whether that is geography, education, entrepreneurial, or culture. The periphery gains power by becoming irreplaceable. Examples include Taiwan in semiconductors, Denmark in wind power, or a firm owning a critical technology niche; indispensability tends to shift dependence outward.
Shape Narratives and Norms: Narratives are powerful in political economy. If we can control the story better, we can better influence what’s being discussed at the table or whether the table is relevant or legitimate. For example, in a world where legitimacy often drives markets, ethical leadership, sustainability narratives, and transparency can redefine competitive advantage.
Exploit Agility: Smaller players are usually more nimble and can adapt faster than bureaucratic giants that have all sorts of vetoes on their decisions. In volatile systems, speed and learning capacity can matter more than scale. Agility is power in a different form.
Multiple Tables
The table that realists describe, the one where the powerful sit and carve up political outcomes, is still probably the most important table in the international system, but today it is not hegemonic; it is not the only table, and the world no longer dines on its set menu.
It is surrounded by many other tables, for example:
climate and trade policy tables
digital governance forums
open-source software consortia
Environmental forums
Each one has its own dynamics and entry points. The opportunity for influence is no longer linear or hierarchical; it’s networked, and networking works best when there is more than one venue.
For those of us in business, that means influence isn’t just about having a seat at the biggest table; it’s about knowing which table matters most for our own goals and how to show up there effectively.
Final Thoughts
For a metaphor to persist, there is normally a degree of truth in it. In the end, the table/menu metaphor still stings because it’s partly true. If you’re not at the table, someone else is, and thus they’ll shape the rules, resources, and rewards that you will be expected to follow.
But that is just part of the story, in a world of interconnected systems and distributed influence, being “on the menu” isn’t inevitable. We can also build our own table, join others’, make the menu inedible, or change the ingredients of the menu itself. Just like the international system, political economy is what we make of it.