American Hegemony and Systemic Stability

The stability of the contemporary international system and the future of U.S hegemony are widely discussed by experts, scholars and researchers all over the world. However, there is significant theoretical and methodological division between two major academic traditions. The first one (mainly realist) understands “hegemony” mostly as material dominance of one or several states that control key resources and militarily dominate the system, while the second (incorporating liberals and constructivists) views “hegemony” as the ability of the leading power to formulate and maintain the rules of international behavior and to provide obedience to these rules. Consequently, methodological uncertainty hampers the comprehensive analysis of the factors of stability and dynamics of the contemporary international system.

To avoid the aforementioned theoretical controversies, the author analyzes both “material” (economic strength, military might and access to the key technologies) and “ideational” (leadership, ideology and legitimacy) factors that determine systemic stability and change. Special attention is paid to the nature of consensual mechanisms for maintaining  hegemonic rule (common values, ideologies and identities) and providing secondary states’ loyalty to the existing order and their acceptance of power asymmetry. Assessing the prospects of stability and change in the contemporary international system, the author concludes that the U.S. economic decline and the rise of new competitors have not yet fundamentally shattered the foundations of the contemporary hegemonic order. The U.S. still enjoys normative dominance based a on worldwide institutional network, that allows it to mitigate revisionist attitudes among less powerful states that are unsatisfied with their role and place in the international hierarchy. Besides, the U.S. still maintains ideological leadership inside the “Western capitalist camp”, preventing systemic challenges to to its preeminence. In conclusion, the author states that the major threat to American hegemony today is its “delegitimation”, which could result in the U.S. losing its ability to transform and maintain the normative order and to provide the most attractive values and models of socioeconomic development to the world.

1. Арриги Дж. Динамика кризиса гегемонии // Свободная мысль-XXI. 2005. № 1. C. 4-20.

2. Богатуров А., Косолапов Н., Хрусталев М. Очерки теории и политического анализа международных отношений. М.: НОФМО, 2002. 377 c.

3. Зуйков Р. Исторические трансформации порядка: от гегемонии и империи к миру-системе // Международные процессы. – 2012. – № 1.

4. Торкунов А.В. Международные отношения после косовского кризиса // Международная жизнь. — 1999. —№ 12. — С. 45-52.

5. Шаклеина Т.А. Россия и США в новом мировом порядке. М.: ИСК РАН, 2002.

6. Adamson W. Hegemony and Revolution.A Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. 304 p.

7. Beyer C. Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower: a Synthetic Approach // International Relations. 2009. № 3. Pp. 411-427.

8. Braumoeller B. The Great Powers and the International System.Systemic Theory in Empirical Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 276 p.

9. Buzan B., Little R. International Systems in World History. Remaking the Study of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000. 472 p.

10. Chan S. China, the U.S. and the Power-Transition Theory.A Critique. London, New York: Routledge. 2007. 208 p.

11. Chandler D. Hollow Hegemony: Theorizing the Shift from Interest-Based to Value-Based International Policy-Making // Millennium. 2007. № 3. Pp. 703-723.

12. Clark I. Bringing Hegemony Back in: the United States and International Order // International Affairs. 2009. № 1. Pp. 23-36.

13. Cox R. Labor and Hegemony // International Organization. 1997. № 2. Pp. 385-424.

14. Cox R. Social Forces, States and World Orders: beyond International Relations Theory // Neorealism and its Critics / R. Keohane (ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. 1986. Pp. 204-254.

15. Finnemore M. Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity // World Politics. 2009. № 1. Pp. 58-85.

16. Gill S., Law D. Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital // Global Governance. Critical Concepts in Political Science / Sinclair (ed.). Vol.1. London, New York:Routledge. 2004. Pp. 477-499.

17. Gilpin R. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981. 272 p.

18. Gramsci A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.572 p.

19. Groom A. The International System in the Twenty-First Century // International Studies. 2010. № 2. Pp. 113-128.

20. Joseph J. Hegemony and the Structure-Agency Problem in International Relations: a Scientific Realist Contribution // Review of International Studies. 2008. № 1. Pp. 109-128.

21. Hobden S., Wyn Jones R. Marxist Theories of International Relations // The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations / J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.). 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp. 142-159.

22. Ikenberry J. Liberal Hegemony and the Future of American Postwar Order // International Order and the Future of World Politics / T. Paul, J. Hall (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. Pp. 123-145.

23. Ikenberry J., Kupchan Ch. Socialization and Hegemonic Power // Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition. Essays on American Power and World Politics / J. Ikenberry (ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. 2006. Pp. 51-87.

24. International Relations. The Key Concepts / M. Griffiths, T. O’Callaghan (eds.). New York, London: Routledge. 2002. 399 p.

25. Keohane R. After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005. 290 p.

26. Kohout F. Cyclical, Hegemonic, and Pluralistic Theories of International Relations: Some Comparative Reflections on War Causation // International Political Science Review. 2003. № 1. Pp. 51-66.

27. Layne C. The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: the Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment // International Security. 2006. № 2. Pp. 7-41.

28. Levy J. Theories of General War // World Politics. 1985. № 3. Pp. 344-374.

29. Modelski G., Thompson W. Long Cycles and Global Wars // Handbook of War Studies / M. Midlarsky (ed.). Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin. 1989. Pp. 23-54.

30. Morton A. Unraveling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Economy. London: Pluto Press. 2007. 272 p.

31. Powell R. In the Shadow of Power. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1999. 310 p.

32. Power Transitions. Strategies for the 21st Century / R. Tammen (ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 2000. 244 p.

33. Puchala D. World Hegemony and the United Nations // International Studies Review. 2005. № 4. Pp. 571-584

34. Rasler K., Thompson W. War, Trade, and the Mediation of Systemic Leadership // Journal of Peace Research. 2005. № 3. Pp. 251-269.

35. Rupert M. Producing Hegemony: the Politics of MassProduction and American Global Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995. 565 p.

36. Schweller R., Pu X. After Unipolarity. China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline // International Security. 2011. № 1. Pp. 41-72.

37. Thomas P. The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism. Leiden – Boston: Brill. 2009. 477 p. Wilkinson D. Unipolarity without Hegemony // International Studies Review. 1999. № 2. Pp. 141-172.