Is the United States Still a Global Hegemonic Power?
Keywords:
US Global Hegemony, Declinist School, Relative Decline, Anti-Declinist School, Structural PowerAbstract
This article mainly looks at theoretical approaches in international political economy and their claims regarding US global hegemonic power. These approaches have different theoretical assumption about the concept of hegemony, and therefore they assess the United States global hegemony in different ways. These approaches regarding the US global hegemonic power are divided into two schools: declinist school and anti-declinsit school. The former assumes that the United States is in relative decline because it has economic rivals. The latter, however, argues that the US is still a global hegemonic power because it enjoys a structural power. This research strongly supports the latter approach, and therefore argues that the US is still a global hegemonic power
References
Bergesen, A., & Sahoo, C. (1985). Evidence of the Decline of American Hegemony in World
Production. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 8, (4), 595-611.
Cafruny, A. (1990). A Gramscian Concept of Declining Hegemony: Stages of US Power and the
Evolution of International Economic Relations, in Rapkin D. World Leadership and Hegemony,
USA: Lynne Rienner Pub, 97-118.
Chase-Dunn, C., & Grimes, P. (1995). World-Systems Analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 387-
417.
Cox, M. (2004). Empire, Imperialism and the Bush Doctrine. Review of International Studies, 30(4),
585-608.
Cox, M. (2012). Power Shifts, Economic Change and the Decline of the West? International
Relations, 26, (4), 369-388.
Gill, S. (1986). American Hegemony: Its Limits and Prospects in the Reagan Era, Millennium - Journal
of International Studies, 15, (3), 311-338.
Gill, S. (1990). Review of Robert W. Cox 'Production Power and World Order: Social Forces in the
Making of History‟, Review of International Studies, 16, (4), 369-381.
Gill, S. (1990). American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission, USA, Cambridge University Press.
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
ISSN 2409-1294 (Print), December 2016, Vol.3, No.2
116 IJSSES
Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, M. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, R. (2002) „The rise of American hegemony‟, in P. O‟Brien and A. Cleese (eds), Two
Hegemonies: Britain 1846–1914 and the United States 1941–2001, pp. 165–182. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Gilpin, R. (2011). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Grunberg, I. (1990). Exploring the “Myth” of Hegemonic Stability, International Organization, 44, (4),
431-477.
Guzzini, S. (1993). Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis. International
Organization, 47, (3), 443-478.
Hobson, J. (2000). The State and International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, S. (1988). The U.S.: Decline or Renewal? Foreign Affairs, 67, (2), 76-96.
Jones, R. (2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries G-O (2). London
and New York: Taylor & Francis.
Krasner, S. (1976). State Power and the Structure of International Trade, World Politics, 28(3), 317-347.
Krasner, S. (1977). US Commercial and Monetary Policy: Unravelling the Paradox of External Strength
and Internal Weakness. International Organization, 31, (4), 635 - 671.
Krasner, S. (1979). The Tokyo Round: Particularistic Interests and Prospects for Stability in the Global
Trading System, International Studies Quarterly, 23, (4), 491-531.
Krasner, S. (1982). American Policy and Global Economic Stability, in Avery W and Rapkin D.
America in a Changing World Political Economy, Longman Publishing Group, 29-48.
Nye, J. (2008). Recovering American Leadership. Survival, 50, (1), 55-68.
Nye, J. (2010). Futures of American Power-Dominance and Decline in Perspective. Foreign Affairs, 89,
(2), 1-10.
Paterson, M. (1996). Global Warming and Global Politics. New York: Routledge.
Pigman, G. (2002). Hegemony Theory, Unilateral Trade Liberalisation and the 1996 US Farm Bill, in
O'Brien P and Cleese A. Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-1914 and the United States 1941-2001,
UK: Ashgate, 258-283.
Robinson, W. (2011). Globalization and the Sociology of Immanuel Wallerstein: A Critical
Appraisal. International Sociology, 26, (6), 723-745.
Russett, B. (1985). The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or, Is Mark Twain Really
Dead? International Organization, 39, (2), 207-231.
Strange, S. (1987). The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony, International Organization, 41(4), 551-574.
Strange, S. (1995). The Defective State, Daedalus, 124, (2), 55-74.
Strange, S. (1998). States and Markets. London: Printer Publishers.
Strange, S. (2001). The Future of the American Empire, Journal of International Affairs, 42, (1), 1-17.
Wallerstein, I. (2006). An American Dilemma of the 21st Century? Societies without Borders, 1, (1), 7-
20.
Wallerstein, I. (2013). US Weakness and the Struggle for Hegemony, Monthly Review, 55, (3), 1-7.
Wallerstein, I. (2006). The curve of American power, New Left Review, 40, (2006), 77-94.
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
ISSN 2409-1294 (Print), December 2016, Vol.3, No.2
117 IJSSES
Wallerstein, I. (2002). Three Hegemonies, in O'Brien P and Cleese A. Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-
1914 and the United States 1941-2001, UK: Ashgate,. 357-361.
Wohlforth, C. (1999). The Stability of A Unipolar World. International Security, 24, (1), 5-41.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies applies the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic Licence (CC BY-NC 2.0)
