Jonathan Beatty
Professor Craig
World Politics 001H
Date of Submission: 21 September 2011
Hegemony is defined in International Relations as “the holding by one state of a preponderance of power in the International System, so that it can single-handedly dominate the rules and arrangements by which international political and economic relations are conducted.” Currently, the world has a Hegemon, the United States. Past Hegemons have included Great Britain, Napoleon’s France, and the Roman Empire. Hegemons, throughout history, have been extremely successful until the Hegemon falls due to fatal mistakes that could have been avoided. This was present in the Roman Empire when Julius Caesar, wanting too much power in a Hegemonic system, caused opposition which resulted in the loss of his life and the subsequent fall of the Hegemon. Napoleon’s French Hegemon fell when, as a dictator, spread his power and influence too thin resulting in the disaster of the Battle of Waterloo. His subsequent exile meant an end to the French Hegemon. While the French attempted to continue control, the lack of sound economic policy and a weak central government resulted the subsequent fall of the French Hegemon. In the case of the British Hegemon, a flawed economic policy and poor international diplomacy resulted in its fall. Having a Hegemon in the world system provides a police force over the world to keep the actors in check. Without existence of a Hegemon, the world would have trouble economically expanding and globalization would suffer.
The most appropriate example of a Hegemon, before the United States, would be the country of Great Britain. An example of British Hegemon power was the East India Company, which served as an economic arm of the British. The British attempted to secure a monopoly in International Trade by going through the Spice Routes and establishing control over India. Known as the Commonwealth, the British Hegemon effectively ruled the world through the 18th Century until the last of its major conquests were separated from the Empire with India gaining independence in 1947. As suggested by Dacey and Mirrin in Nineteenth Century Britain as a Subtle Commercial Hegemon, the British also had their superior navy in order to keep the world in check. In theory, the British Hegemon operated well. The leadership was centralized in London, with a Prime Minister and Parliament governing the empire. Even though the Hegemon was governed correctly, the major flaw lied in the economic policies. In order to prevent Power-Transition from occurring, lower actors have to be pleased with their position in the world order. A Hegemon present in the world system is required to deter aggression and promote free trade. By monopolizing trade and conquering territories, the British Empire ended up increasing aggression and creating the opposite of free trade. The British Empire consequently created a monopoly. The rise of other states proved the Power Transition Theory to be accurate. The United States became the current Hegemon after the British Empire entertained poor international economic policies. The United States acquiring the status of a Hegemon is an example of Power Transition Theory.
The United States is as close to an ideal Hegemon more so than any past Hegemon. Under the United States Hegemon, the world has experienced decreased anarchy. This is evidenced from the less severe wars that have occurred between states. While any war is of great sadness, the clear decrease in the severity of lives lost in wars is a testament to the involvement of a strong Hegemon. While aggression still exists among some nation-states, the forms of blatant aggression that were present during the reign of the British Hegemon are not as prevalent. Trade is freer than it has ever been under United States Hegemon. Even though tariffs still exist, globalization has allowed the world to shrink, allowing goods to flow freely from the East to the West and vice-versa. This is a sign of a strong Hegemon. The United States is not a perfect Hegemon. In order to sustain the Hegemon, the United States needs to encourage more unity in the world’s economy. While having a universal currency is only a dream, a more stable economic climate and decreased dependence on non-backed currency would decrease sentiment towards the United States. As Stein suggests in The Hegemon’s Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order, in order for the world system to stay stable while under a hegemon, the hegemon must provide, “the collective good and extract… the support of others.” The United States provides the collective good of capital to the rest of the world. Where the United States needs to improve is gaining the support of other actors. In order for the United States to remain a successful Hegemon, the United States needs to improve its image in the world public. Increasing sentiment results in decreased power of the Hegemon. If the United States is able to fix the issues presented, it should be able to continue to rule as a successful Hegemon.
Having a Hegemon in the world brings about a decreased sense of anarchy, less aggression, and free trade. In the six decades that the United States has existed as the Hegemon, the world, as a whole, has improved. While economic crises and wars have persisted, they have been less severe. The United States, as a Hegemon, has brought about a more balanced world.
Resources:
The Hegemon's Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order
Arthur A. Stein
International Organization
Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 355-386
Published by: The MIT Press
Nineteenth Century Britain as a Subtle Commercial Hegemon
Raymond Dacey and Kevin P. Murrin
Synthese
Vol. 113, No. 2 (Nov., 1997), pp. 205-216
Published by: Springer
International Relations – Chapter 2
International Relations – Page 506
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/88114/Julius-Caesar
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/402943/Napoleon-I
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176643/East-India-Company
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/80013/British-Empire
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/648813/World-War-II
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/870845/Iraq-War
Though I completely agree that the United States is a more effective hegemon than the British Empire was, couldn't it be argued that the freer trade that exists today is not a result of the American hegemony, but a result of globalization itself? Liberals might argue that the globalization of democracy as an institution since the age of British imperialism has led to economic cooperation between democratic nations. The European Union, which is perhaps the best example of economic unity, is completely outside of the United States. How would you prove that the current relative peace is due to a "Pax Americana" rather than the rise of democracy as a whole?
ReplyDeleteSagatom, you bring up a good point and I think you're right - globalization has clearly brought about more cultural acceptance and a freer flow of trade. But (just to play devil's advocate) the American hegemony has played a large part technologically, economically, and politically in the pace and tone of globalization. This seems like a bit of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" question - was increased free trade a result of the American hegemony's influence on the world, or multiple actors becoming more global?
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that the US has played an important role as a hegemon, and may very well be the most effective hegemon in history, I also think that its status as such has been slowly slipping over recent years. What would you say are the main factors contributing to its slip in power? The economic crisis it suffered, as well as its involvement in the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could probably be contributing factors in its decrease in hegemonic power in that they show the US in an unfavorable light. I know you mentioned that the US should improve its image in the world; how would you recommend it do so?
ReplyDeleteYou mention the US needing to improve its image in the international community to stay a powerful hegemon. Do you think letting other countries, like France and the UK, take the lead in recent issues, like the Libyan revolution, is an effort to seem less individualistic? I wonder if this will be a new trend where the US backs international efforts without always being in the forefront?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sagatom, Globalization could be considered a direct result of Hegemony because Hegemony provides freer trade, which results in globalization.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Meg's 1st Question, I actually wrote in the paper: "In order to sustain the Hegemon, the United States needs to encourage more unity in the world’s economy. While having a universal currency is only a dream, a more stable economic climate and decreased dependence on non-backed currency would decrease sentiment towards the United States. As Stein suggests in The Hegemon’s Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order, in order for the world system to stay stable while under a hegemon, the hegemon must provide, “the collective good and extract… the support of others.” The United States provides the collective good of capital to the rest of the world. Where the United States needs to improve is gaining the support of other actors. In order for the United States to remain a successful Hegemon, the United States needs to improve its image in the world public. Increasing sentiment results in decreased power of the Hegemon. If the United States is able to fix the issues presented, it should be able to continue to rule as a successful Hegemon." So essentially said the US's image needs to be improved, and that a more stable currency needs to be implemented. Those are the underlying reasons why the US could be slipping. So, that was already answered. In response to your second question, the United States needs to get its' act together economically as well as increasing humanitarian missions around the world.
In response to Jenny Sue, I would agree on the first question, and would agree that the US doesn't always need to be the star of International events, but it needs to keep up appearance in order to keep up the Hegemonic order.