HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY

Hegemonic Stability Theory

Hegemony in International Relations Theory

Hegemony derives from the Greek term hegemonía (), referring to the predominance of one of the city states (e.g., Sparta or Athens) over the others and its related leadership in issues of common interest. In modern times, it has come to be used in reference more generally to the predominance of one actor over others. In contemporary political science, we can distinguish two traditions in the use of the term hegemony (Balaam, 2005, Pp. 96).

In international relations theory, hegemony has been used more or less directly in reference to the original Greek meaning, where it refers to the predominance (primarily in terms of economic and military power) of one state over others. Alternatively, in Marxist-inspired political science, hegemony refers to the predominance (especially in an ideological sense) of one social group over others (Cerny, 2000, Pp.68). Finally, Robert Cox has established an approach in critical international relations theory in which the differences between these two traditions are transcended.

Hegemony in International Relations Theory

In international relations theory, the concept of hegemony has been applied to the phenomenon of one state's being strong enough to maintain an international order that is beneficial to (most) other states as well (Cerny, 2002, Pp.121-128). Two main traditions can be distinguished here, the neorealist theory of hegemonic stability and the theory of historical cycles of global hegemony and leadership.

Hegemonic Stability

The theory of hegemonic stability (developed in the 1970s by Charles Kindleberger and subsequently subscribed to by many neorealist authors) argues that the interstate system will be relatively peaceful and stable if there is a hegemonic state that provides certain public goods to the system (most basically prosperity and security). A state will be a hegemon if it has both the capability and the will to perform this function (Cerny, 2005, Pp.67).

The capability of a state depends on the (relative) size and level of development of its economy, its ability to dominate certain key technological sectors, and its political and military power. During much of the 19th century, Great Britain dominated the world economically, politically, and militarily. Through its role as a stabilizer in the European balance of power and through its management of the gold standard, it was able to secure a measure of stability in interstate relations, which was beneficial to the growth of a liberal world economy.

Similarly, after 1945 the United States became the hegemon: It emerged out of the war as by far the strongest military and economic power, and it used its power to create the institutional framework (the Bretton Woods system), which facilitated the unprecedented expansion of the world economy in the following decades (Chang, 1999, Pp. 3-4).

When the Bretton Woods system collapsed in the early 1970s and the hegemony of the United States weakened, hegemonic stability theory predicted the erosion of the liberal regime established by the hegemon as well. However, no such development took place. This gave rise to an alternative interpretation (Donnelly, 2000, ...