{"id":5953,"date":"2014-08-21T05:06:37","date_gmt":"2014-08-21T05:06:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/research-methodology.net\/?p=5953"},"modified":"2014-08-18T05:28:12","modified_gmt":"2014-08-18T05:28:12","slug":"literature-review-on-us-hegemony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/literature-review-on-us-hegemony\/","title":{"rendered":"Literature review on US Hegemony"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"US<\/a>According to Nye (2011) wars and military conflicts between countries are never going to cease in the future because confrontionism is deeply rooted in human genes.<\/p>\n

Generally, the debate regarding hegemony can be divided into two broad and opposing categories. On one hand, supporters of Habermas such as Catley and Mosler (2007), Russett (2011) and Baker (2011) do believe that it is possible for countries to engage in international relations without dominant power in an effective manner.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, supporters of Foucault such as Schake (2009), Balogun (2011), and Nye (2011) argue that international relations cannot be facilitated without power, but the nature of power can be represented in various formats. In other words, according to this stance hegemonic power will always influence international relations; however, the level of evidence of this influence varies according to a range of factors.<\/p>\n

Lee (2010), Russett (2011) and Baker (2011) find positive correlation between rising military power of a state and its hegemonic ambitions. Table 2.1 illustrates major hegemonic wars during the last several centuries and contains information about their results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Hegemonic War <\/strong><\/td>\nDuration <\/strong><\/td>\nResults <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Thirty Years\u2019 War<\/td>\n1618 \u2013 1648<\/td>\nDefeat of Habsburg<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wars of Louis XIV<\/td>\n1667 \u2013 1713<\/td>\nDefeat of France<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Napoleonic Wars<\/td>\n1792 \u2013 1814<\/td>\nDefeat of France; Emergence of Britain as hegemon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
World War I<\/td>\n1914 \u2013 1918<\/td>\nDefeat of Germany<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
World War II<\/td>\n1939 \u2013 1945<\/td>\nDefeat of Germany; Emergence of the USA as hegemon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 2 Hegemonic wars during last several centuries and their results<\/p>\n

Source: Lee (2010)<\/p>\n

\n

US Hegemony in the 20th<\/sup> Century and Its Perception by other Countries<\/h2>\n

According to Catley and Mosler (2007) the US hegemony has mainly started after the World War II of 1939 \u2013 1945. Specifically, Catley and Mosler (2007) link this fact to the chosen stance of the US during the World War II that allowed the country to emerge from the war with minimum amount of losses in terms of resources and infrastructure compared to other major superpowers of the time.<\/p>\n

Schake (2009) specifies hegemonic ambitions as a tool for US presidents to increase the level of their approval ratings among the electorate. Specifically, Schake (2009) refers to the fact that the approval rating of US President George Bush has soared to more than 80 per cent after the announcement of war on terrorism in 2001, believed by some parties to be a tool to increase the level of hegemony of the US.<\/p>\n

Hildebrandt (2009) argues that while all countries including US allies in strategic issues such as the UK and Japan are generally discontent towards increasing level of US hegemony they are intimated by the US not to express the level of their discontent publicly. Hildebrandt (2009) further reasons that only a handful of countries such as Russia, Iran and China have expressed discontent towards the US hegemony in various ways.<\/p>\n

According to Zhang (2012), China is becoming increasingly active in terms of expressing its discontent with the hegemonic position of the US, and Zhang (2012) links this tendency with increasing role of China in the global economy. Moreover, Zhang (2012) explains Chinese conception on the major differences between the US and China regarding world order in the following manner:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
 <\/td>\nUnited States<\/strong><\/td>\nChina <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Strategic goal <\/em><\/td>\nStrengthening and perpetuating a unipolar world and ultimately achieving world hegemony<\/td>\nWorking for a multi-polar world and ultimately achieving democratisation of international politics<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ideal status of countries in the world <\/em><\/td>\nThe world to be made up of one country (USA) as the leader and all the other countries as followers<\/td>\nThe world to be made up of sovereign equals with all countries, large and small, being equal<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Intervention <\/em><\/td>\nSupporting intervention in other counties\u2019 internal affairs by using excuses as human rights<\/td>\nOpposing power politics and intervention in other countries\u2019 internal affairs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Solution of international conflicts <\/em><\/td>\nUse of military force when necessary<\/td>\nSolution through dialogue, consultation, and cooperation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Military alliance <\/em><\/td>\nStrengthening military alliance<\/td>\nOpposing military alliance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Threat to peace and stability <\/em><\/td>\nReluctance to submit to the world leader<\/td>\nHegemonism and power politics<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Grand strategy <\/em><\/td>\nPressing in Eurasia from both the West and the East toward the middle, integrating Europe and Japan under its leadership, and pressuring Russia and China<\/td>\nTogether with other countries, especially other secondary powers, developing each country\u2019s own capability and move the world toward multi-polarity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
National security <\/em><\/td>\nAbsolute security of the United States at the expense of other countries\u2019 security<\/td>\nRelative security of all countries at the expense of any country\u2019s capability to intervene in another country\u2019s internal affairs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Social systems<\/em><\/td>\nAmericanised democracy being the ideal form of social system which the US has the right to help spread to all the other countries<\/td>\nPeaceful coexistence of all countries regardless of their social systems and each country having the right to decide its own social system<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Chinese conception on the major differences between the US and China regarding world order<\/p>\n

Source: Zhang (2012)<\/p>\n

According to Catley and Mosler (2007) terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2011 have proved a turning point in terms of providing the country with the tool in terms of \u2018flexing its muscles\u2019 and imposing its hegemonic ambitions in practical levels. In other words, Catley and Mosler (2007) argue that US has been able to launch its military operations in Afganistan and other places on the name of \u2018war on terrorism\u2019 after the terrorist attacks that became widely known as 9\/11.<\/p>\n

A range of authors such as Schake (2009) and Zhang (2012) express rather pessimistic viewpoint regarding the role of international institutions and international law in terms of facilitating international relations in a fair manner. For example Schake (2009) brands \u2018international law\u2019 as \u201ca fancy dress for what powerful states agree to in principle\u201d (Schake, 2009, p.3). Similarly, Zhang (2012) considers the UN as an instrument to impose foreign policy of the US.<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

Decline in the US Hegemony<\/h2>\n

Decline of the US hegemony has been speculated by international relations experts over the last several decades. Major reasons for the decline of the US hegemony have been speculated as depletion of natural resources (Lee, 2010), increasing expenditures of the country on international affairs (Russett, 2011), decline of competitive advantage of US manufacturers in global marketplace to newly emerging superpowers (Baker, 2011) and even consequences of moral issues (Balogun, 2011).<\/p>\n

According to Balogun (2011) economic factors contributing to hegemonic decline can be divided into two categories: domestic and external. Specifically, domestic factors contributing to hegemonic decline include rising costs of government administration and growing frustration of local politicians with unfair advantage gained by other countries out of international trade.<\/p>\n

The literature review has also found the impact of a range of social factors that contribute to the decline of the US hegemony. For example, Sobel (2012) refers to the concept of \u2018erosion of family values\u2019 when explaining the decline of US hegemony. Erosion of family values in the US is linked to the decline of the hegemony of the country by Sobel (2012) in a way that the value of \u2018American Dream\u2019 is depreciating in the perception of increasing numbers of people around the globe, with negative implications on the reputation of the US in general, hence the level of its hegemony.<\/p>\n

External factors contributing to hegemonic decline, on the other hand, have been found to include rise of other national economies with more effective and sustainable competitive advantage such as China, India, and Brazil (Hildebrandt, 2009).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Baker, A. (2011) Constructing a Post-War Order: The Rise of US Hegemony and the Origins of the Cold War<\/em>, Tauris & Co.<\/p>\n

Balogun, M.J. (2011) Hegemony and Sovereign Equality: The Interest Contiguity Theory in International Relations<\/em>, Springer Group<\/p>\n

Bell, D.N. and Blanchflower, D.G. (2011) The crisis, policy reactions and attitudes to globalisation and jobs\u201d WTO<\/p>\n

Cassis, Y. (2011) Crises and Opportunities: The Shaping of Modern Finance<\/em>, Oxford University Press<\/p>\n

Castro-Mendivil, E. (2013) New Record: Federal Reserve owes more than USD 2 trillion in US debt, <\/em>http:\/\/rt.com\/usa\/fed-reserve-two-trillion-747<\/p>\n

Catley, R. and Mosler, D. (2007) The American Challenge: The World Resists US Liberalism<\/em>, Ashgate Publishing<\/p>\n

Gagnon, Y.C. (2010) The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook<\/em>, Quebec University<\/p>\n

Heathen, C. (2011) Who and What Caused The Great Recession<\/em> http:\/\/heathenrepublican.blogspot.com\/2011\/07\/who-and-what-caused-great-recession.html<\/p>\n

Heng, M.S. (2010) The Great Recession: History, Ideology, Hubris and Nemesis,<\/em> World Scientific<\/p>\n

Hetzel, R.L. (2012) The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure<\/em>, Cambridge University Press<\/p>\n

Hildebrandt, R. (2009) US Hegemony: Global Ambitions and Decline<\/em>, Peter Lang<\/p>\n

Joseph, J. (2013) Hegemony: A Realist Analysis<\/em>, Routledge<\/p>\n

Kahler, M. and Lake, D.A. (2013) Politics in the New Hard Times: The Great Recession in Comparative Perspective<\/em>, Carnell University<\/p>\n

Keohane, R.O. (2005) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy<\/em>, Princeton University Press<\/p>\n

Lee, L.R. (2010) US Hegemony and International Legitimacy: Norms, power and followership in the wars on Iraq<\/em>, Routledge<\/p>\n

Morrison, W.M. & Labonte, M. (2013) China\u2019s Holdings of U.S. Securities: Implications for the U.S. Economy\u201d Congressional Research Service<\/p>\n

Nye, J.S. (2011) The Future of Power,<\/em> Perseus Books Group<\/p>\n

Roberts ,M. (2009) The Great Recession<\/em>, Lulu Enterprises<\/p>\n

Rosenberg, J.M. (2012) The Concise Encyclopedia of The Great Recession 2007 \u2013 2012<\/em>, Scarecrow Press<\/p>\n

Russet, B.M. (2011) Hegemony and Democracy,<\/em> Taylor & Francis<\/p>\n

Schake, K.N. (2009) Managing American Hegemony: Essays on Power in a Time of Dominance,<\/em> Hoover Press<\/p>\n

Shor, F. (2011) Declining US Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?<\/em>\u00a0 http:\/\/www.stateofnature.org\/?p=4541<\/p>\n

Sobczyk, J. and Atlas, T. (2013) US, UK Pressure for Action on Syria Hits UN Hurdle<\/em>, Bloomberg, http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2013-08-29\/u-s-u-k-pressure-for-action-on-syria-hits-un-hurdle.html<\/p>\n

Sobel, A.C. (2012) Birth of Hegemony: Crisis, Financial Revolution, and Emerging Global Networks<\/em>, University of Chicago Press<\/p>\n

Syria chemical weapons attack killed 1,429, says John Kerry (2013) BBC, http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-middle-east-23906913<\/p>\n

Tan, C. (2010) How stimulus packages have helped in the recession<\/em><\/p>\n

Warner, J. (2006) Hegemony and the Nature of Order<\/em>, Disaster Studies Group<\/p>\n

Zhang, B. (2012) Chinese Perceptions of the US: an exploration of China\u2019s foreign policy motivations<\/em>, Lexicon Books<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\"\"<\/a>

According to Nye (2011) wars and military conflicts between countries are never going to cease in the future because confrontionism is deeply rooted in human genes. Generally, the debate regarding hegemony can be divided into two broad and opposing categories. On one hand, supporters of Habermas such as Catley and Mosler (2007), Russett (2011) and Baker (2011) do believe that it is possible for countries to engage in international relations without dominant power in an effective manner. On the other hand, supporters of Foucault such as Schake (2009), Balogun (2011), and Nye (2011) argue that international relations cannot be facilitated without power, but the nature of power can be represented in various formats. In other words, according to this stance hegemonic power will always influence international relations; however, the level of evidence of this influence varies according to a range of factors. Lee (2010), Russett (2011) and Baker (2011) find positive correlation between rising military power of a state and its hegemonic ambitions. Table 2.1 illustrates major hegemonic wars during the last several centuries and contains information about their results. Hegemonic War Duration Results Thirty Years\u2019 War 1618 \u2013 1648 Defeat of Habsburg Wars of Louis XIV 1667 \u2013 1713 Defeat of France Napoleonic Wars 1792 \u2013 1814 Defeat of France; Emergence of Britain as hegemon World War I 1914 \u2013 1918 Defeat of Germany World War II 1939 \u2013 1945 Defeat of Germany; Emergence of the USA as hegemon Table 2 Hegemonic wars during last several centuries and their results Source: Lee (2010) US Hegemony in the 20th Century and Its Perception by other Countries According to Catley and Mosler (2007) the US hegemony has mainly started after the World War II of 1939 \u2013 1945. Specifically, Catley and Mosler (2007) link this fact to the chosen stance of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[126],"tags":[129],"yst_prominent_words":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5953"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5953"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research-methodology.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=5953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}