Hegemony Promotes Cooperation : International Trade And Cooperation

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

Robert O. Keohane, “From After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,” in

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

In the current international economic system, the behaviors and interactions of emerging states indicate that the previous norms of an open, global, and liberal international economy are being replaced with their own interests, which Stewart Patrick as well as Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell examine in their articles.

In the article, author John J. Mearsheimer highlights that a state’s main objective in their actions were meant to survive and take any measure to ensure their safety. The state will focus on surviving and will plan around that objective. However, the safest possible position is to be the hegemon of their region. States aim to achieve this whilst still maintaining a secured surviving status. A state that has potential and holds a respected status may be safe now but is still exposed to downfall corresponds to the idea that states will search for opportunities to gain power over rivals. The author supports the notion of creating alliances and absolute power. In reality, states are not seeking equilibrium, rather they seek hegemony. With a regional hegemony

This relates to embedded liberalism as the Marshall plan could be seen as feature of as it relates to states accepting preconditions from the USA that represent the key principals of embedded liberalism. More of this will be discussed on this the the later parts of this essay. The neoliberal theory on hegemonic stability takes on a different factor as to neorealism, public goods. waltzIn a global market, the provision of public goods will be the responsibility of the hegemon. This is because when power is evenly distributed between states, the incentive to produce public goods is diminished. Free-riding diminishes this incentive as states are unlikely to bear the costs of these public goods. Public goods in this context could be seen as a well organised international system of free trade or possibly the provision of financial aid in the time of crisis. Both of these being features of embedded liberalism. These goods will be provided by the hegemon because the size of the hegemon ensures that benefits provided by the free goods outweighs the costs. Although Waltz theory is the more popular of the two theories of hegemonic stability, Ruggie believes this does not explain enough. He believes that the structure of the internationalisation of political authority is not just dependant on power, but also on social

From a liberal perspective, the formation of the WHOA Agreement will, most importantly for each country, reduce—and hopefully eradicate—transaction costs, manage collective goods, and form due to a shared interest. Additionally, from a functionalist standpoint, “governance arrangements arise out of the basic, or functional, needs of people and states” (Karns and Mingst 40). In the case of these four countries, there are a few shared interests or needs that opening up trade would fulfill: the strengthening of each economy, providing security for the people of each country through an increased military, building infrastructure in each country, and the providing of (more) social services for the people of each country. The interests of each country differ slightly, but overall the interest to benefit from trade is shared.

Hegemony is one of few different logics pertaining to American foreign policy. It is defined as “preponderant influence or authority, especially of one nation over another” (Callahan, 2004, p. 12). In other words, the United States can be seen as the dominate nation over all other nations. This concept was first mentioned in Notes on the Southern Question (1926) by Antonio Gramsci and was defined as “a system of class alliance in which a ‘hegemonic class’ exercised political leadership over ‘subaltern classes’ by ‘winning them over’” (Ramos Jr., 1982). The logic of hegemony, as it relates to American foreign policy, is based on the idea that the United States would use its influence over other countries in order to provide leadership. Through

Even in attempting to show the political and economic characteristics of hegemony, the term does not provide a contribution in understanding a more stable international system. The US during the post war period in maintaining their status as a hegemon has been problematic. There are contradictions to the maintenance of hegemony that has it made it very difficult for the US to keep their status. First, the privileges enjoyed by the hegemon are abnormal in the context where there are supposed to be specific and universal rules and principles. Second, “The hegemon may weary of the special burdens necessary to sustain” (Skidmore 26). The hegemon being the dominant power is going to have to define interest in broader terms, which can lead to

At the end of the cold war of 1945, America was regarded as a global holder of power. American domination of an advanced country encompasses various aspects such as economic, political, and military development. Along with the debate on strategic policies in the different fields mentioned above made by the United States, which can have a positive and adverse effect on a particular country. It is therefore essential for us to see the important position of America as a hegemony country that holds the control of world development and international order stability at the moment. This review article will illustrate the extent of the importance of American power in global development, and stability according to modern international order.

Hegemonic internationalism by definition is a paradox within itself. Internationalism suggests cooperation among nations for common good, while hegemony is an instance when one nation has power over another nation. This leads to the belief that hegemonic internationalism is, in reality, one nation pursuing its own national interests at the expense of other nation. Nazi Germany, Iran and the United States are all examples of a nation pursuing hegemonic internationalism.

The main interest of this work is to analyse this trade alliance from three different points of view to outline the similarities and differences in contrast to the European Union. To figure out about the initially mentioned question it is planned to start with the economic point of view in the first part. The second part will deal with the political aspects whilst

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

The globalization of international trade through the WTO and free trade agreements has largely nullified America’s power advantage and disproves the ability of balance of power politics to explain the international system. America currently has numerous, significant trade deficits with countries such as Mexico and China. While it can be argued that free trade helps the American consumer, it is undeniable that these deficits diminish the power that each country holds. In the case of Mexico, a much weaker power, the United States loses jobs and manufacturing to that country because of NAFTA and the WTO. In a classical realist world, America would be able to dictate the terms of trade that would benefit American workers and American economic prosperity. However, liberal trade institutions put all countries on the same playing field regardless of their military might. China is

Within the field of international relations theory, neoliberalism and liberal theory have developed out of the notion of states cooperating within the international system. As states realized that through cooperation additional benefits can be gained in an anarchic world, institutions whose goal was to create cooperation among self-interested states took shape. As states initiated this type of multilateralism for mutual gain within the international system, scholars and theorist such as Stein, Keohane, Oye, and Moravcsik among others conceptualized Neoliberal and Liberal theories and the dynamics of the states and the system. There are key characteristics which differentiate these two theories from others in international relations theory. Moreover, these theories analyze why and how states, through working together were able to serve their own interests and attempt to discern the routes which states take towards cooperation which best suit their interest. This paper will attempt to explain the characteristics and dynamics of Liberalism and Neoliberalist theories, as well as display its challenges and limitations.