Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony - Brian Safran

            In The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony, Susan Strange investigates the veracity of the deeply embedded, commonly-held and generally unquestioned belief that the United States has lost its position of hegemony, and that as a result, the international political economy has plummeted into a state of instability. In examining the basic tenants of hegemonic stability theory in relation to the historical record, she argues that the United States did not have to be as willing to exclusively promote liberal economic policies as scholars previously suggested as necessary in order to maintain its hegemony. (Strange 1987: 560) In putting forth four tenants of structural power, she argues that the United States has not only maintained, but has reinforced its role as the hegemon of the international system, and as such, must look inward and modify the ways with which it expresses its structural power if the world is to attain a state of stability. (Strange 1987: 554) Although originally written in the late 1980s, Strange’s findings can be extrapolated to the contemporary global economic crisis and can demonstrate that stability rests not with a realignment of the world order, but with an internal reevaluation of the United States’ expression of its hegemony vis-à-vis the outside world.

            Strange begins by analyzing the development of hegemonic stability theory, and finds that scholars in this line of thought have promulgated reactionary theories in response to what they have observed and have made erroneous assumptions in doing so. (Strange 1987: 554) Hegemonic stability theory views hegemonic leadership as a prerequisite for international stability and rests on the assumption that such stability is attained through the expansion of liberal policies by the hegemon. (Strange 1987: 559) However, in examining the historical record, Strange finds that this assumption has not withstood the test of time. She notes that during British hegemony in the nineteenth century, the hegemon often adopted restrictive trade policies over a number of its colonial possessions to fit its economic objectives, and similarly, she shows that in the post-World War II era, the United States did not always seek to lead the world toward greater liberalism, as demonstrated by its enactment of a number of protectionist measures. (Strange 1987: 560) With respect to the United States, Strange points out that its flippant approach toward promoting liberalism when politically convenient and abandoning it when not demonstrates that liberalism was more of an “ideology” than a “genuine doctrine,” and as such, could not be used as the method by which to measure the hegemonic status of a state (Strange 1987: 562).

Unlike previous scholars who would view abandonment of liberal objectives as prima facie evidence of a collapse in hegemony, Strange asserts that “structural power” is the foundation of hegemony (Strange 1987: 565). She goes on to define structural power as being composed of four interrelated components, and argues that the state which predominates in these areas is the one which will emerge as the hegemon. (Strange 1987: 565) Among these components are the ability to protect one’s constituents from threats of violence, the ability to regulate production, the ability to control the flow of finance and credit, and finally, the ability to control on the acquisition of knowledge and outflow of information. (Strange 1987: 565) She then suggests that a look at the historical record demonstrates that in each of these areas, the United States has preserved its domination, and as such, has not lost its hegemony.

Rather than focusing on an apparent reorganization of the international order, Strange calls for America to reflect and evaluate the strictures of its domestic political system in order to create stability in the global system. (Strange 1987: 572) She finds that checks and balances approach of our government combined with powerful lobbies, the rapid turnover of deep-seeded party interests and the cyclical shifting of policy have led to inconsistencies which handicap foreign powers in their dealings with the United States. (Strange 1987: 572) As a result of this unpredictability, the ability of foreign powers to effectively interact with the United States becomes confused, irritated and inhibited. (Strange 1987: 572) She stresses a need to increase American awareness and integration of foreign ideals and cultural sensitivities that have been progressively omitted and ignored in American political discourse. In focusing on America’s domestic agenda, she offers suggestions founded upon the notion that alterations in these policies will serve to the benefit of the international economy as a whole. Thus, amelioration of the United States’ domestic political inhibitors to freely functioning foreign relations, she suggests, will stabilize the international economy but is not a prerequisite to the preservation of America’s hegemonic status.

Although Strange’s article was originally written in the 1980s, hegemonic stability theorists would assert that the current global economic decline evidences the failure of the United States to maintain its status as a hegemon. However, an analysis of the four factors of structural power as advanced by Strange demonstrates that the United States can still rightfully assume its position as hegemon. With respect to its ability to maintain national security, the United States currently maintains the largest weapons holdings in the world, and ranks highest in terms of military expenditures. (NationMaster A 2009: 1) Furthermore, the United States still dominates in the area of global production, as demonstrated by the fact that as of 2008, one-hundred fifty-three of the top five hundred global corporations were based in the United States- the most of any country in the world. (Fortune 500, 2008: 1) In the areas of finance and credit, despite the possibility of future challenges, the United States continues to maintain the seigniorage benefit it receives by having a monopoly on the power to print and otherwise control the international monetary unit of exchange: the U.S. dollar. U.S. financial dominance is also evidenced by its ability in recent years to fund a global war-on-terrorism by running a multi-hundred-billion dollar deficit, largely funded on credit from China and Japan. (Scherer 2009: 1, U.S. Treasury 2009: 1) The willingness of China to lend this quantity of funds in such tumultuous times demonstrates its confidence in the United States’ financial position and evidences its respect for U.S. financial supremacy. Finally, with respect to dominance in the area of knowledge acquisition, the United States has continued to maintain its superiority in education, as demonstrated by the fact that thirty-one out of the one-hundred top-ranked world universities are in the United States. (NationMaster B 2005: 1) Furthermore, university endowments in the United States continue to surpass that of other countries affording them the resources necessary to gain a superior status in the research arena. (AllAboutUni 2008: 1-2) In having the largest military budget in the world, the United States maintains its superior ability to experiment with new military technologies and advance the state of research and development. (NationMaster A 2009: 1) Thus, even in the midst of the contemporary global economic crisis, the United States can rightfully continue to claim its position as hegemon.

In conclusion, in The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony, Susan Strange sets forth the criteria upon which a hegemon assumes its position. In criticizing hegemonic stability theory, she refutes the notion that the ongoing promotion of liberalism is a necessary component of the success and continuance of a hegemonic order, and rather, asserts that the determination of hegemony is instead related to the existence of certain features of structural power. In analyzing contemporary global affairs, it becomes clear that the United States continues to dominate the world in areas of national security, productive capacity, controls of finance and credit, and the procurement of knowledge. Despite claims that the modern-day economic crisis would evidence a loss of U.S. hegemony, it appears as though the U.S. retains the core elements of structural supremacy to be deemed a hegemon in Strange’s model. While the economic decline cannot be explained by the loss of U.S. hegemony, other factors including the United States’ political structure, its self-serving policies and its failure to assimilate international ideals have contributed to the crisis. As a hegemon, the United States will have to assume a leadership role and address the internal issues which have perpetuated the global economic crisis if it is to restore stability to the international system.

Works Cited

"Fortune: Global 500." Global 500. CNNMoney, 21 July 2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/countries/US.html>. [cited in text as Global 500].

"Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities." Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities. U.S. Treasury, 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009. <http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt>. [cited in text as U.S. Treasury].

"NationMaster - American Military statistics." NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons. All About Uni.com, 2009. Web. 07 Oct. 2009. <http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/mil-military>. [cited in text as NationMaster A].

"Universities: Top 100 (most recent) by Country." NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons. NationMaster, 2005. Web. 04 Oct. 2009. <http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_100-education-universities-top-100>. [cited in text as NationMaster B].

Scherer, Ron. "How US is deferring war costs." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 16 Jan. 2007. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. <http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html>.

Strange, Susan. "The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony." International Organization 41.4 (1987): 551-74.

"University Endowments in the World's Top-25 Universities." University Endowments in the World's Top-25 Universities. All About Uni.com, 4 Nov. 2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. http://www.allaboutuni.com/site/serv_publications.php?type=P&Pub=12 [cited in text as AllAboutUni].