What should be clear is that these THM concepts are running through the case study, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. While the theoretical framework of THM has similar and overlapping points of departure with PGK, this essay contends that the concept of power formation is not fleshed out with the same consistency. Hence, a combination of both should be seen, ex-hypothesi, as the ideal explanation to understand US hegemony. To be sure, where THM sheds light on the importance of ideas and institutions and notably the frameworks of thought (Gill, 1986, p. 209), PGK emphasize in this regard much more the institutional dynamics that underlie US financial power.
For PGK (2004, p. 25), the US constitutes a unique empire that was formed through the economic interpenetration of and close institutional linkages with the other advanced states (Europe and Japan). This concept is theoretically inspired by Poulantzas, who uses the term, the internationalization of the state to describe “how nation states started to manage a domestic capitalist order that contributed to managing the international capitalist order” (ibid, p. 17). In other words, the US is taking a leading role, albeit a contingent and historical specific one, in shaping the hegemonic dynamics of the post-BWS through a concept of interdependence amongst other capitalist states. Hitherto, this essay contends to agree with this view, and therefore argues that the US played a decisive role in further shaping and continuing financial globalisation through a construction of interdependence with other advanced nations. However, I intend to question the extent to which PGK have worked out the material and normative dimensions of power relations that underpin the financial imperial framework they talk about. That is, by showing how this interdependence amongst capitalist nations is created and reproduced in the first place. This will be done through showing how THM has been a dominant force, albeit contingent in its formation, in the making and consolidation of US hegemony.
For an excellent analysis of economic motives interwoven in the American quest for hegemonic power in Asia as well as ideological-driven rationales, see Noam Chomsky, At War with Asia: Essays on Indochina (New York: Vintage Books, 1970; republished, Chico, CA: AK Press, 2004).
It is through the prism of America’s efforts to assert control of the strategically critical Eurasian landmass, that the essential significance of the events of 1990–91 is being revealed. But this latest stage in the ongoing struggle for world hegemony, which lies at the heart of the conflict with Russia and China, is bringing to the forefront latent and potentially explosive tensions between the United States and its present-day imperialist allies, including—to name the most significant potential adversary—Germany. The two world wars of the twentieth century were not the product of misunderstandings. The past is prologue. As the International Committee foresaw in 1990–91, the American bid for global hegemony has rekindled interimperialist rivalries simmering beneath the surface of world politics. Within Europe, dissatisfaction with the US role as the final arbiter of world affairs is being openly voiced. In a provocative essay, published in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the authoritative US Council on Foreign Relations, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has bluntly challenged Washington’s presumption of US global dominance:
China - Emerging Hegemony A Speculative Essay
In this essay, ‘‘regional modelling’’ that has been increasingly applied as an hegemonic policy almost for the last twenty years is examined with a view to clarify the locus of that policy in international relation theory. Some states at regional level are examplified through modelling based on free market principles, democratic norms and civil society; so that it is targeted that form of statehood of all states at global scale is singularized. Taking into account the reality that current international system is unipolar in which U.S. is the hegemonic power; to connect the initiation of transforming states in developing and underdeveloped regions in line with the models proposed, with main theoretical approaches in international relations might contribute to a certain extent to understanding current world politics.
Hegemony or Survival Essay - 488 Words | Majortests
"British and American Hegemony Compared: Lessons for the Current Era of Decline" is an essay written by David A. Lake which responds to a contemporary application of hegemonic stability theory.
(From the introduction). The study object of this paper is the external relations of the European Union towards the United States. The core question of this essay is not the U.S. hegemony by itself; in fact, both parties agree on a myriad of issues, share common values, and keep intensive and active economic and political exchanges. The 1950s and 1960s were witness to the shining power of the United States and Europe was willing to receive U.S. aid through the Marshall Plan. The problem arises when U.S. policies affect Europe and the EU is not able to provide concrete actions to reverse them. At this point, one inquiry is the focus of the analysis: How relevant is the EU in constraining or replacing U.S. hegemony? A simple answer is insufficient to shed light on this question. Most scholars underline the shortcomings of the EU and the influence of the United States in determining EU external relations. However, the EU in 2002 is quite different from the European Community at the beginning of the 1990s. Although reactive to international and regional, political and economic stimuli, the EU has forged informal and formal practices to provide coordinated positions. Depending on the specific area, the EU’s performance is more or less successful. Whereas in economic issues the EU has been able to respond to the U.S. in trade disputes, in political and security affairs the panorama is mostly discouraging. Accordingly, the hypothesis of this paper is: The more the EU is able to encapsulate the interests of the fifteen member states in a common front, the greater are the opportunities for more beneficial agreements with the United States, and to constrain or replace the actions or inactions of U.S. hegemony. In order to support this proposition, four areas of the transatlantic relationship are examined in this paper. The first part focuses on the current theoretical debate on the transatlantic relationship. Secondly, the paper analyzes the different natures of both foreign policies, emphasizing the problems associated with the European (intergovernmental and supranational) model to design its external relations. The third section describes the relative balance between the US and the EU on economic terms, and considers the benefits of having international institutions to regulate trade practices. Finally, the imbalance in security affairs is depicted, highlighting the new institutional developments in Europe to participate in regional crises with or without (but not against) the United States.
Free hegemony Essays and Papers - 123helpme
This essay shall be split up into four main parts. First, this essay shall analyse the literature that surrounds the US decline debate. Second, the theoretical framework of THM shall be developed. Then, I will elaborate in the third part how the post-war reconstruction with the BWS is the start of a corporate-liberal paradigm. It will show how the US has shaped the institutional and ideological dynamics on which it rests. Subsequently, the fall of the BWS and the further development of the 1970s shall be explained to prove this essay’s thesis. Fourth, the conclusion will draw the necessary implications for our understanding of US hegemony.