Oil, Power, and Global Hegemony (original) (raw)

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

checkGet notified about relevant papers

checkSave papers to use in your research

checkJoin the discussion with peers

checkTrack your impact

Abstract

sparkles

AI

The paper explores the dynamics of global hegemony, emphasizing the role of oil and power in shaping international relations. It argues that the United States, despite holding a significant position since World War II, is experiencing a decline due to emerging contenders like China. The analysis of hegemonic cycles and the responsibilities of a hegemon provides a framework for understanding these shifts in power and the implications for the international system.

The Political Economy of Hegemony: The (Surprising) Persistence of American Hegemony

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017

First-generation research in International Political Economy focused considerable attention on the relationship between hegemony and global economic stability. This focus was the result of a confluence of scholarly and policy concerns about the impact that the apparent decline of U.S. hegemony would have on international trade and investment regimes. Interest in this hegemonic stability hypothesis waned, however, as deeper explorations of the theoretical logic indicated that hegemony was not a necessary condition for international economic openness, and as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent “unipolar moment” suggested that American hegemony was hardly in decline.Interest in hegemony resurfaced in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The crisis triggered many scholars to proclaim the end of the era of American global hegemony. Scholars argued that the U.S. government’s attachment to a large budget and trade deficits and the resulting growth of foreign debt were lik...

The United States of America – A Declining World Hegemon

In this article the alleged demise of the United States of America (USA) and the ability of its challengers will be discussed and analyzed. Based on George Modelski’s concept of Long-Cycles in Global Politics we can anticipate a disruption in the hegemonic position – currently held by the USA. Considering, the possibility of this scenario, the author executed a pragmatic comparative study and sketches out the chances for the two main competitors – China and India – which struggle mightily with domestic issues and on the other side presents four arguments, why the decline of the USA is not as apparent and looming as partly presumed. The arguments are: (i) the independence supply of natural resources; (ii) its supremacy over the world seas; (iii) reinstated activity in the Rimland and (iiii) control over the Global Commons.

US Power: Past and Prologue

The Future of US Global Power, 2013

Evidence for US primacy used to be less contestable. Financial and strategic support from the US notwithstanding, Europe and Japan required decades to rebound from the devastation of World War II. Their later economic "challenge" eventually would succumb to the US revolution in information and communication technology (ICT), in the one case, and a protracted economic stagnation in the other. While sleeping giants India and China had self-selected out of global capitalism, US-headquartered transnational corporations roamed the world uncontested even as US manufacturing exports boomed. Systemic defects spelled, first, implosion, then dissolution, for the US's main strategic rival, the former Soviet Union. As long as a looming threat from Islamist extremism remained beneath the radar, the Western state-centered international system appeared unassailable. The US seemed to straddle this world like a colossus-militarily, economically, politically and culturally. Yet the world, and the US's position within it, looks rather different today compared to 1950, 1991 and 2001. Do recent shifts in the global system's tectonic plates augur secular decline for the world's preeminent power? The rest of this chapter is organized as follows. To help situate the perspective advanced in this book, the section "The popular literature on 'decline' " provides an overview of today's controversy over US decline. The section "Globalization and global power" discusses the relationship between global power and globalization, and its implications for the nature and scope of US power today. Against this analytical and historical backdrop, the section "Maintaining primacy in a turbulent era" introduces the basic contours of the argument advanced in the book. The section "Structure of the book" concludes with a brief overview of the remaining chapters. The popular literature on US "decline" National "decline" for a preeminent global power refers to a (composite) reduction in economic dynamism, military prowess, political-cumdiplomatic clout and cultural impact. 1 Influencing the argument in this 11

The Hegemonic Order in the 21st Century

Сравнительная политика, 2017

The concept of the hegemonic order in international relations is, on the one hand, related to the state-centric understanding of the international system, and on the other hand, to the challenging of the thesis of its polyarchism. While historic hegemonies never had a monopoly on exclusivity, the U.S. has achieved a clear and significant advantage over other powers. This was due to numerous reasons. The multidimensionality of the U.S. power means that no one else is able to match the U.S.in military, economic, technological, political, or culturalcivilizational and ideological terms. The United States has become the only power that can effectively stabilize or destabilize the existing global order. The biggest source of current concern is, on the one hand, a contestation of U.S. hegemony in the world, and, on the other, its actual decline.

Failing hegemony? : Four essays on the global engagement of the United States of America in the 21st Century

2020

In recent years, the position of the United States as the superpower par excellence has become increasingly tenuous. This state of affairs is often framed as a function of relative power shifts in the international system, domestic political and cultural travails as well as self-inflicted policy blunders, particularly in the Middle East. Yet, despite these apparent challenges, the United States remains, by most material indicators, the most powerful state in the world. Likewise, the US still possesses a broad global outlook, retains considerable agency in the international arena, and enjoys an extensive menu of policy options. This dissertation starts from the premise that US foreign policy and international actorness in the unfolding 21 st century, indeed the very trappings of America's international engagement, can still be analysed through the lens of hegemony. In other words, for the time being at least, the US can still be said to play a hegemonic role within the current international order. This role is replete with both the special privileges that have historically been assumed by and granted to materially powerful states with the requisite resources and willingness to lead, as well as the extraordinary responsibilities that befall upon such a leader to sustain international order. While America's options and ability to shape the international arena in a manner it deems fit may be more restricted than in the recent past, at least in the short to medium term, the fate of American hegemony is not structurally predetermined by material historical forces. In fact, successful navigation of the treacherous currents of the international, in various regions, domains and issue areas, can lengthen the shadow of American hegemony or, at the very least, shape the international order that emerges after US ascendancy eventually wanes. The converse, of course, is true of failure, which would constitute the inability by the incumbent hegemon to select the "correct" policy course, or unwillingness to articulate and negotiate compelling normative visions of order fit for the changing times. It is the objective of the present study to bring to the fore, in a novel and innovative manner, precisely such difficulties of carrying out a hegemonic role. Specifically, the study pries into the

USA and the World: Hegemonic Dominance or Liberal Global Order

Journal of Historical Studies, 2023

The United States of America emerged as a superpower after the Second World War with a proclaimed liberal ideology and a will to global dominance. For this purpose, USA employed not only military might to control and assert influence on its allies but also soft power and subtle means of culture at its disposal. Hence the US by means of military, culture and economy emerged as a hegemonic power at the end of the cold war. The paper aims to take an overview of the US military presence across the continents. The United States is leader of military coalition of powerful states. The USA have approximately 750 military bases with instalments in 80 nations and its major ally the United Kingdom has 145. Its present-day contenders Russia and China are way behind the USA and other states of NATO as Russia has 36 and China has so far one military base in Djibouti at Horn of Africa. These military bases serve the economic purpose as well and provides safe, protected passage to trade ships carrying goods across the globe; as free trade is an important component of a world order conceived with liberal ideology. Though critics of the global liberal order perceive it as the economic dominance of developed states and trade as a means of exploitation, with a mask of liberty, freedom, individualism and free marketing. Besides US military and economic power in the guise of Liberalism, another contributing factor of US hegemony is culture. US through cultural lebensraum and soft power of its consumer products and Hollywood movies create consent across the globe and presents it as a just power not only trading but also protecting humanity from a multitude of threats. By taking an overview of US military, economic and cultural lebensraum, the paper aims to answer how US military preponderance across continents and states along with economic and cultural powers gives it a hegemonic status in the world. Employing content analysis on secondary data one of the major findings of the paper is that despite claims of waning US and rising China, the claim is a far cry not rooted in reality and United States actions are derived by hegemonic interest and are cloaked in the guise of liberalism.

The Trajectory of the United States in the World-System: A Quantitative Reflection

Using improved estimates of world and country GDPs, population, and GDP per capita published by Angus Maddison (2001), we report findings of a quantitative study of the trajectory of the United States in world historical perspective. We compare the U.S. economic hegemony of the twentieth century with the seventeenth-century Dutch hegemony and the British hegemony of the nineteenth century. We also track the trajectories of challengers and discuss the future of hegemonic rivalry and global governance. Our findings support the existence of a sequence of hegemonic rises and declines. Despite a recent plateau in the decline of U.S. economic hegemony, we contend that the United States will continue to decline.

United States: A Halved Hegemonic Power

In this short undergraduate paper, I study the role of the United States as the world hegemonic power. I used Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony and the fundamental work of Joseph Nye, "Bound to Lead", in order to support my thesis: the United States is a halved hegemonic power, due to the fact that both from the material (economics and military) and the cultural (democracy and capitalism) point of view it is only partially hegemonic in the world.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (101)

  1. Bacevich, A. J. 2010, April 1. The Carter Doctrine at 30. World Affairs Journal. [Web log post]. Available: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/andrew-j-bacevich/carter- doctrine-30 [2014 , September 9]
  2. Bieler, A. and Morton, D. A. 2004. A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations. Capital and Class, 28(1): 85-113, Spring.
  3. Broadberry, S. and Howlett, P. 2003. The United Kingdom During World War I: Business as Usual? {Online}. Available: piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/BroadberryHowlett03.pdf [2014, July 25].
  4. Brown, W. M. 2003. The Royal Navy's Fuel Supplies, 1898-1939; The Transition from Coal to Oil. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. London: University of London.
  5. BP Energy Outlook 2030. 2013. [Online.]. Available: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statisticalreview/BP\_World\_Energy\_Outlook\_ booklet_2013.pdf [January 13, 2013].
  6. Cecil, L. J. R. 1964. Coal for the Fleet that had to Die. The American Historical Review, 69(4): 990-1005.
  7. Chase-Dunn, C. and Grimes, P. 1995. World Systems Analysis. Annual Review of Sociology [Electronic], (21). Available: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA17474789&v=2.1&u=27uos&it=r&p=A
  8. ONE&sw=w [2013, January 21].
  9. Chase-Dunn, C. and Anderson, E. N. (eds.). 2005. The Historical Evolution of World- Systems. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  10. Clark, I. 2009. Bringing Hegemony Back. International Affairs, 85(1): 23-36.
  11. Clark, I. 2011. Hegemony in International Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
  12. Clementi. M. 2011. The Missing Structure in Structural Theories of Hegemony, and the Contemporary International System. [Online]. Available: www.caei.com.ar/sites/default/files/34\_1.pdf [2013, April 18].
  13. Cordesman, A.H., Gold, B. and Coughlin-Schulte, C. 2014. Iran -Sanctions, Energy, Arms Control, and Regime Change: CSIS Burke Chair in Strategy Report. [Washington]: Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Center for Strategic and International Studies. [Online]. Available: http://csis.org/files/publication/140122\_Cordesman\_IranSanctions\_Web.pdf [2014 August 8].
  14. Cox, R. W. 1986. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, in R. O. Keohane (ed.). Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Colombia University Press. 204-154.
  15. Cox, R.W. 1993. Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method, in S. Gill (ed.). Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. 49-66.
  16. Cox. M. 2012. Power Shifts, Economic Change and the Decline of the West? International Relations, 26(4): 369-388.
  17. Kent, M. (ed.). 2005. Ed. The Great Powers and the end of the Ottoman Empire. London: Frank Cass.
  18. Gordon, A. 2012. The Rules of the Game. USA: Naval Institute Press.
  19. Jian-Shu, C. 2007. Cyclical Logic in the Transition of Hegemony: Modelski's Long Cycle Theory in International Relations and its Weaknesses. Journal of World Economics and Politics, (12): 24-32.
  20. Dahl, E.J. 2001. Naval Innovation: From Coal to Oil. Joint Forces Quarterly, 27: 50-56, Winter.
  21. Deloitte, 2013. Global Defense Outlook 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.deloitte.com/view/en\_US/us/Industries/US-federal- government/f823ece64c2be310VgnVCM3000003456f70aRCRD.htm [2014, September 9].
  22. Dhillon, K. 2014. Why are U.S. Oil Imports Falling? Time, 17 April. Available: http://time.com/67163/why-are-u-s-oil-imports-falling/ [2014, September 25].
  23. Djoumessi, D. T. 2009. The Political Impacts of the Sino-U.S. Oil Competition in Africa. London: Adonis and Abbey Publishers Ltd.
  24. Eichengreen, B. and Flandreau, M. 2009. The rise and fall of the dollar (or when did the dollar replace sterling as the leading reserve currency?). European Review of Economic History, (13): 377-411.
  25. Eichengreen, B. 1989. Hegemonic Stability Theories of International Monetary Systems, in D.A. Lake and J.A. Frieden (eds.). International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. 2003. 220-244.
  26. El-Gamal, M.A. and Jaffe, A. M. 2010. Oil, Dollars, Debt, and Crises: The Global Curse of Black Gold. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Engdahl, W.F. 2004. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press.
  28. Engdahl, W. F. 2012. Myths, Lies and Oil Wars. Germany: edition.engdahl.
  29. Fordham, B.O. 2007. Revisionism Reconsidered: Exports and American Intervention in World War I. International Organization, 61(2): 277-310.
  30. George, A.L. and Bennett, A. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  31. Gibson, M.W. 2012. British Strategy and Oil, 1914-1923. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
  32. Gilpin, R. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Gilpin, R. 2001. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. United States: Princeton University Press.
  34. Gökay , B. and Whitman, D. 2010. Lineages of the 2008-10 Global Economic Crisis: Exposing Shifts in the World Economic Order. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 12(2): 125-154.
  35. Gökay, B. 2003. 'Pax Americana'. Is it all about oil? Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 5(1): 83-86.
  36. Goldstein, J.S., Huang, X, and Akan, B. 1997. Energy in the World Economy, 1950-1992. International Studies Quarterly, (41): 241-266.
  37. Goldstein, J. S. 1988. Long Cycles: Prosperity and War in the Modern Age. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
  38. Gordon, A. 2005. The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command. London: John Murray Publishers. Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
  39. Gowan, P. 2004. Contemporary Intra-Core Relations and World Systems Theory. Journal of World-Systems Research, (X)2: 471-539.
  40. Ikenberry. J.G. 1989. Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony. Political Science Quarterly, 104(3): 375-400.
  41. International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Military Balance 2010: The Annual Assessment of Global Military Capabilities and Defence Economies. Routledge. International Institute for Security Studies. The Military Balance 2014: The Annual Assessment of Global Military Capabilities and Defence Economies. [Online.].
  42. Iseri. E. 2009. Beyond American Petrodollar Hegemony at the Eve of Global Peak Oil. International Relations, 5(20): 133-154.
  43. Jones, G. 1981. The State and the Emergence of the British Oil Industry. London: Macmillan.
  44. Kegley, C. A. and Blanton, S.L. 2011. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
  45. Kennedy, P. 1988. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. London: Unwin Hyman.
  46. Kennedy, G. 1997. Maritime Strength and the British Economy, 1840-1850. The Northern Mariner, VII(2): 54-69.
  47. Kent , M. 2005. (ed.). The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire. Taylor and Francis e-Library.
  48. Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J. S. 1977. Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman.
  49. Keohane, R.O. 2005. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  50. Kindleberger, C. P. 1986. The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (revised edition). California: University of California Press.
  51. Kindleberger. C.P. 1996. World Economic Primacy: 1500 to 1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
  52. Klare, M. T. 2008. Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy. New York: Metropolitan Books.
  53. Klare, M. T. 2011. The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources. Picador.
  54. Kwon, R. 2011. Hegemonies in the World-System: An Empirical Assessment of Hegemonic Sequences from the 16th to 20th Century. Sociological Perspectives, 54(4): 594-617.
  55. Ladislaw, S.O., Leed, M. and Walton, M.A. 2014. New Energy, New Geopolitics: Balancing Stability and Leverage. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS ) April.
  56. Lake, D.A. 1991. British and American Hegemony Compared: Lessons for the Current Era of Decline, in D.A. Lake and J.A. Frieden (eds.). International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. 2003.
  57. Layne, C. 2009. The Waning of U.S. Hegemony -Myth or Reality? International Security, 34(1): 147-172.
  58. Lawrence, R. Z. 2014. Implications of Reduced Oil Imports for the U.S. Trade Deficit. Council on Foreign Relations. January.
  59. Lee, P.K. 2005. China's Quest for Oil Security: Oil (Wars) in the Pipeline? The Pacific Review, 18(2): 265-301.
  60. Lessor, I. O. 1991. Oil, the Persian Gulf and Grand Strategy: Contemporary Issues in Historical Perspective . RAND publications: Santa Monica CA.
  61. Leysens, A. 2008. The Critical Theory of Robert W. Cox: Fugitive or Guru? Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke: Hampshire.
  62. McKeown, T. J. 1983. Hegemonic Stability Theory and 19th Century Tariff Level in Europe, International Organization. 37(1): 73-91.
  63. Mearsheimer, J. J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. University of Chicago.
  64. Meijer, E.C.A. 2011. Long Cycle Theory of Global Politics: An Investigation into its Explanatory and Predictive Power. Webster University: Leiden, the Netherlands.
  65. Michaud, K., Buccino, J. and Chenelle, S. 2014. The Impact of Domestic Shale Oil Production on U.S. Military Strategy and its Implications for U.S.-China Maritime Partnership. [Online.]. Available: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-impact-of- Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za domestic-shale-oil-production-on-us-military-strategy-and-its-implications-fo [September 19, 2014].
  66. Miller, P.D. 2012. The Fading Arab Oil Empire. The National Interest, July/August: 38-45.
  67. Milner, H.V. 1998. International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability, Foreign Policy. 110: 112-123.
  68. Modelski, G. The Long Cycle of Global Politics and the Nation-State. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20(2): 214-235.
  69. Morgenstern, O., Knorr, K. and Heiss, K.P. 1973. Long Term Projections of Power: Political, Economic and Military Forecasting. Cambridge Massachusetts: Ballinger.
  70. Morgenthau, H.J. 1948. Politics Among Nations.: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  71. More, C. 2009. Black Gold: Britain and Oil in the Twentieth Century. London: Co ntinuum. US National Energy Policy 2001.[Online.]. Available: http://web.ornl.gov/sci/propulsionmaterials/pdfs/National-Energy-Policy-2001.pdf [August 12, 2014].
  72. Norloff, C. 2010. America's Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Notz, W. 1918. The World's Coal Situation During the War: I. Journal of Political Economy, 26(6): 567-611.
  74. Nye, J.S. Jr. 1990. The Changing Nature of World Power. Political Science Quarterly, 105(2):177-192.
  75. Nye, J.S. Jr. 2011. The Future of Power. United States: Public Affairs.
  76. O'Brien, P.K. and Clesse, A. (eds.). 2002. Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-1914 and the United States 1941-2001. Burlington: Ashgate.
  77. Robert Gilpin, "The Rise of American Hegemony," in Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-1914 and the United States 1941-2001 edited by Patrick Karl O'Brien and Armand Clesse (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2002), pp. 165-182 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
  78. O'Brien, P.K. and Pigman, G. A. 1992. Free Trade, British Hegemony and the International Economic Order in the Nineteenth Century. Review of International Studies, 18(2): 89-113.
  79. OECD. 2014. Better Life Index 2014. [Online.]. Available: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ [September 19, 2014].
  80. Posen, B.R. 2003. Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony. International Security, 28(1): 5-46.
  81. Roberts, P. 2005. The end of Oil: The Decline of the Petroleum Economy and the Rise of a New Energy Order. London: Bloomsbury.
  82. Rosencranc. R. 1987. Long Cycle Theory and International Relations. International Organization, 41: 283-301.
  83. Russett, B. 1985. The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or, Is Mark Twain Really Dead?. International Organization, 39: 207-231.
  84. Rutledge, I. 2005. Addicted to Oil: America's Relentless Drive for Energy Security. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Lts.
  85. Schaffer, B. 2009. Energy Politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  86. Schurman, D. M. 2000 and Beeler, J. F. Imperial Defence, 1868-1887. London: Frank Cass.
  87. Siebrits, A. 2010. The Role of Great Power War in the Rise of Hegemons: A Study of Dutch Hegemonic Ascent in the Modern World-System. Stellenbosch University.
  88. Snidal, D. 1985. The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory. International Organization, 39(4): 579-614.
  89. Snyder, D.A. 2001. Petroleum and power: Naval fuel technology and the Anglo-American struggle for core hegemony, 1889--1922. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas: A&M University.
  90. Stokes and Raphael. 2010. Global Energy Security and American Hegemony. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  91. Strange, S. 1987. The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony. International Organization 41(4): 551-574. Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za
  92. Thompson, W.R. 1988. On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  93. Trumpener, U. 2005. Germany and the End of the Ottoman Empire in Kent, M. (ed.). The Great Powers and the end of the Ottoman Empire. London: Frank Cass: 137-136.
  94. Wallerstein, I. M. 2000. The Essential Wallerstein. New York: New York Press.
  95. Wallerstein,I. M. 2011. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Kindle-e Reader.
  96. Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Berkley: University of California.
  97. Webb, M. C. and Krasner, S. D. 1989. Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment. Review of International Studies, 15(2): 183-198.
  98. World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015. [Online.]. Available: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/ [September 19, 2014].
  99. Yergin, D. 1991. D. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  100. Yergin, D. 2011. The Quest: Energy Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press.
  101. Zoffer, J. 2012. Future of Dollar Hegemony: The Dollar's Role After the Euro Crisis. Harvard International Review. 26-29. Summer.

The Contemporary Era: What's Beyond US Hegemony

In this paper, we will have a close look on the contemporary international system after the end of the two Cold Wars. Are there some countries that still seek hegemonic power? What are the challenges that face them? And most importantly how can we describe the dynamics of the system in the light of structural realism

Hegemony and decline : Reflections on recent American experience

Sens Public, 2005

n recent decades fashionable American foreign policy analysis has oscillated between triumphalism and declinism. By triumphalism-American style-I mean the belief that our increasingly integrated world is « unipolar », that is, oriented to and led by a single political, economic and military superpower-the United States. In other words, triumphalism implies American global hegemony. By declinism-American style-I mean the belief that the United States is politically, economically, militarily and morally « overstretched », to use a term popularized by the Yale historian, Paul Kennedy, overstretched through the exertions of attempting to play the world's hegemon or « hyperpower », to use a word favored here in Paris. The linkage leading from hegemony to decline has certainly been amply studied in recent years. It has been commonplace to speak of a « declinist school » of writers. Numerous studies expatiate on the linkage between hegemony and decline. For a start, there is Paul Kennedy's grand historical argument, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, published in 1987. Decline, he recounts, has been the fate of the would-be hegemon, from Habsburg Spain, to Bourbon and Napoleonic France, to liberal Britain, and perhaps now America. Broadly speaking, the basic reasons are similar in each case. Burdened by heavy military spending and debt, the hegemonic power grows « overstretched ». It neglects and distorts and thereby weakens its economy and society. Ultimately its military strength ebbs as well. I A parallel view can be found in the writings of the noted economic historian, Charles Kindleberger. In numerous writings, perhaps most notably in The World in Depression: 1929-1939, published in 1973, Kindleberger depicts the declining hegemon as a victim of « freeriding ». For Kindleberger, exercising hegemony means providing public goods to the « world system ». Militarily, the hegemon is the ultimate upholder of security-law and order-around the world. Economically, the hegemon is the world's buyer and creditor of last resort-ready and able to step in to halt global capitalism's periodic market crises. As Kindleberger sees it, the benefits of these « public goods » are shared by all, but paid for disproportionately by the hegemon. Inevitably, over time, the free-riding beneficiaries grow relatively stronger while the overtaxed hegemon grows relatively weaker. Eventually the hegemon is no longer powerful enoughrelative to the others-to maintain its old primacy. Its beneficiaries challenge it, further increasing

Trigger of American Hegemony: the origin of the US Hegemony

Auricle Global Society of Education and Research, 2023

This study explores the decline of American hegemony, which dominated the latter half of the 20th century following the United States' emergence as a global leader post-World War II. Despite unprecedented economic prosperity and military dominance, the United States' hegemonic status began to face skepticism in the 1970s due to global recession and disillusionment with American-style liberalism. The 1985 announcement of the US as a debtor nation marked the beginning of a perceived decline in American economic power. Although the 1990s economic boom provided temporary optimism, subsequent economic challenges and the 2008 financial crisis reignited debates about the sustainability of the American-led neoliberal order. This study critically evaluates the ideological foundations of American hegemony and questions the stability of the neoliberal international order that has shaped global governance since the late 20th century.

U.S. Hegemony, A Distinct World Order

The present era has become enchanted by the concepts of globalization and global order. The idea that economies, societies, and cultures are becoming deeply and intricately interwoven has led to a paradox in the perception of its implications. Will globalization result in one extreme: a borderless world of peace and international citizenry? Or will globalization result in a more Kafkaesque reality evoking images of multinational corporations and hegemons asserting dominance over the world? What is the role of the nation in the context of this interconnected world? This research analyzes the history of the United States’ foreign policy which elucidates a distinct nationalism founded in the pursuit of global hegemony. Beginning with America’s founding principles and tracing turning points in American foreign policy, this research reveals that the U.S. has actively created and shaped a distinct world order based on free-trade. Furthermore, this research asserts that the U.S. has believed, at least latently, in hegemonic stability theory as a world order view for foreign policy. While scholars have studied the theoretical intricacies of hegemonic stability theory this research seeks to illuminate the manifestation of this theory through the history of U.S. foreign policy. It is valuable to study the history of America’s perception of global order, so that we might understand the foundation of globalization and the many ways this order contradicts and shapes current geo-political and nationalist developments.

The Diminishing Pax-Americana: Can The US Escape Declinism From Hegemonic Triumphalism

This paper aims to analyze the probability of diminishing Pax-Americana. The debate pivots around the prospects of continuity of the American global dominance and the likelihood of its hegemonic decline. Usually the existing global hegemon ambitiously strives to maintain status-quo by ensuring order and stability in the international system but the rest of the rising powers try to challenge and transform the world order. The theoretical lens of the neo realism is applicable to the study of world order. Qualitative research approach of data analysis is employed in examining the dynamics and evolutionary phases of the overall world order. The study found that in the early days of the unipolar system, the United States got a unique opportunity of establishing its uncontested hegemony world over. Potentially none of the great powers or even their alliance could counterweight the American global dominance and majority of them undeniably hailed the American worldwide supremacy with a relishing freehand in taking critical decisions of global implications. Washington hardly ever hesitated in engaging any other player, anytime, anywhere and at any cost. However, since the dawn of the 21 st century; the self-imposed hegemonic obligations seems to have shrunken the American capability and commitment of maintaining its worldwide supremacy. On the contrary, the rapidly rising China and the resurging Russia have wedged severe challenges to the American global dominance along with further complicating the overall edifice of the world order. The study concluded that ostensibly, the US-led world order is transforming to a new and yet un-elucidated construction in coming decades of the 21 st century.

Rethinking Hegemony

In an age of increased academic specialization where more and more books about smaller and smaller topics are becoming the norm, this major new series is designed to provide a forum and stimulus for leading scholars to address big issues in world politics in an accessible but original manner.A key aim is to transcend the intellectual and disciplinary boundaries which have so often served to limit rather than enhance our understanding of the modern world. In the best tradition of engaged scholarship, it aims to provide clear new perspectives to help make sense of a world in flux.

IS THE U.S HEGEMONY IN DECLINES?

2016

“Global hegemony” might be defined as a situation in which one nation-state plays a predominant role in organizing, regulating, and stabilizing the world political economy. The use of armed force has always been an inseparable part of hegemony, but military power depends upon the economic resources at the disposal of the state. It cannot be deployed to answer every threat to geopolitical and economic interests, and it raises the danger of imperial overreach, as was the case for Britain in South Africa and the United States in Vietnam (Du Boff, 2003). Again, hegemony is a constant struggle against a multitude of resistances to ideological domination, and any balance of forces that it achieves is always precarious, always in need of re-achievement. Hegemony's 'victories' are never final, and any society will evidence numerous points where subordinate groups have resisted the total domination that is hegemony's aim, and have withheld their consent to the system." Although the emergence of the United States as a global hegemon had roots in national and international conditions prior to World War II, that war provided the U.S. with the historical opportunity to establish its global hegemony. U.S. global hegemony was not only a consequence of economic, political, and military domination, but also a reflection of the diffusion of cultural and ideological values that advanced the role of the United States as a controlling power in the world. Hence, the U.S assumed the mantle of legitimacy, wrapped in the cloak of hegemony with its ideological presumptions that “U.S. global dominance was the natural result of historical progress, rather than the competitive outcome of political-economic power” (Smith, 2003, p. 20).