The Emergence of a Liberal World Order
Emerged in the 1970s/80s
After WW II US and partners from Western Europe+Japan engaged in building an international order organised around
US surplus in production
economic openness, multilateral institutions, security cooperation and democratic solidarity
US provided hegemonic leadership
Especially after cold war, world order transpired to countries in East Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America
US-hegemon enables an anchoring of the allies, stabilisation of the world economy, fostering cooperation and representing values of a “free world”
expansion of international governance institutions (WTO)
With 20th century, the world order was becoming increasingly progressive and liberal internationalist (Bemühungen, die den Nationalstaaten-Rahmen überschreiten)
Postwar liberal was originally not a global order
was built “inside” one halt of the bipolar Cold War system
built around bargains, institutions and social purposes that were tied to the West, American leadership and the global struggle against Soviet communism
As the Soviet Union collapsed, the great rival of liberal internationalism fell away, the insight became the outside and liberalinternationalism was globalised
The hegemon and the international order
Actors (states) with greater power than their components
Drives from owning meta capital in world politics
Capabilities to form an mutual benefical internaional trade sytsem, monetary system, promote values of a “free world”
Influence is not limited for local or regional level - international
Power capabilities
roughly, economic wealth(growing economy)
military power)
Political capabilities (political will)
Commitment to a mutually benifical system
hegemon can convince others to accept this international system
PLUS the system is based on benefical exchange and cooperation
HST general
Charles Kindelberger (1973), Rolph Gilpin (1981) and Stephan Krause (1983) as major protagonist
Motivation:
How and why do states become a global hegemon (= preponderance Vormachtsstellung/Übergewichtung)
Theory/Hepothesis
International system is most stable when one state has a hegemonic position and the willingness to establish/enforce the international “rules of the game”
≠ GG that believes in an anarchy organisation and international authority
Rules of the game= mutually beneficial international system, in the sense of an open trade system and an international monetary system, as well as the hegemon’s role as „lender of last resort“ for states experiecing a balance of payment crisis
General:
Kindleberger referd tot he economic and claimed that the world economy requires one stabilisier that is guided by self-intersts and liberal values (gains available from trade and international finance later Bretton Woods)
Gilpin & Krasner: hegemon ensures stability and openness among broadly liberal states -> stressed self-interests (great benefit from its position and forming cooperation) -> included security and politics
Hegemony can be costly for the hegemon, rquires certain characteristics
HST core assumptions (Nexon/Neumann
World politics is shaped by the rise and fall of a hegemon who dominates other states
Hegemons define the “rule of the game” - establish security, trading system and provide, club and private goods
In the cas of US hegemony:
THE GAME= international trade system and international monetary stystem (as public goods)
BRETTON WOODS with Fed as regulatory bank
hegemon as “lender of last resort” for states experiecing a balance of payment crisis
THE RULES those who promotes this
Transformation is caused by changes in relative economic and military power
Free Rider problematic; international trade system as public good and benefically for all participants
The hegemon is challenged by those who follow “revisionist agendas” and aren’t content with the staus quo
BRICS
Power transitions might be accompanied by wars between the hegemon and its challengers
Risk of imperial overstretch due to commitmens that are not matched by respective capacities
Why is the decline of a hegemon at some point inevitable?
Position of a hegemon is costly for the owner
Mutually benefical international system
International trade system and international monetary system are provided as public goods
Public goods are characterised by no payment and no dimishing
Enables free Rider: The public good, in the US-hegemony-case, an open and liberal economic system, allows other states to increase their wealth (increasing economic grwoth) and power and thus reduces the relative gap between the hegemon and the “beneficaries”
challenges the capabilities/characteristics of the hegemon
AS soon as another player manages to gain same relative economic or military power the hegemon is challenged
when international power is understood as a zero-sum-game only one can win if the other looses
GB empire vs. US-hegemony
US-hegemony vs. China
What is Antonio Gramsci‘s contribution to the concept of hegemony?
When understanding international power as a zero-sum-game, it is assumed, that the actual hegemon can “easily” be challenged and dethroned if another nation manages to overtake in economic capabilities (economic grwoth) and military power
Rises the implication, that with a change in the hegemon the “follower” would automatically accept the new hegemon and possible changes in the “rules of the game”
Antonio Gramsci’s extends this concept by emphasising the power of the extended state or the “private” sphere
Strongly inspired by marxism
Hegemony is the ability of a dominant class to secure consent from the dominated
The rules of the game (marx: form of econoism:Unterbau) creates the private sphere, including religion, culture and non-state institutions (marx:Überbau)
Different to Marx’s one way causality and different to the case discribed above, Gramsci goes beyond one way causality Unterbau=Überbau=Unterbau
by emphasising that the private sphere is kind of a extended state as the place where a lot of work have to be done to secure power of the dominant class
Suggests that advanced capitalistics states should form a counter-hegemony to secure power for the dominated
Also it’s unlikely that if US will fall apart, EU/GE will follow under the leadership of China
What are the key assumptions of liberal internationalism?
Liberal internationalism offers a coherent and functional vision of how to organise international space as guarantee receipt for its success
Key assumptions on liberal internationalism
Openess fosters peace, economic growth and political advancement
As open and multilateral trade requires deep engagement and integration
Commitment to rules-based relations
Rule and institutions facilitate multilateral cooperation
States increase their security via cooperation
Power politics can be reformed, states can build stable relations, so that mutual gains are possible
Liberal internationalism will move states in a progressive direction = enhance liberal democracy.
US liberal hegemony:
liberal democary at the core, mainly cooperation with Western liberal democracies
sovereign states cooperate for mutual gain and protection
based on open and multilateral trade
Trade and exchange as parts of modern society and economic growth
encourages knowldege and technology exchange, economic growth
Requires deep engagement and integration
fosters peace and political advancement
committed to an open world economy, that was nevertheless managed by the Bretten Woods system (as international monetary system) and international agreements
set up on newly established and permanent international institutions in order to create a system of multilateral governance
WTO
security cooperation
International society is to some extent corrigibloe - Reform is possible
How would you define an international regime? What are the advantages of regimes created under hegemonic leadership?
International regime as a form of governance that organises several sovereign states
goes beyond classical borders like states or regions
It assumes that there is a certain regulatory or codex that leads those states
includes principles, norms, rules a
Mutual benefical to create commitment and legitimacy
To set but also to ensure that this regulatory is exercised by the states there has to be a form of authority
Solomon: International regimes require hegemonic leadership
Advantages of regimes under hegemonic:
Clear organisation that follows a certain principle, so there ist consistency
rule more effectively
Reduces transactions costs and mitigates uncertainty as
less developed countries get the chance for catch up
knwoledge and technology transfer
Benefical trade
cooperation in fields where otherwise wouldn’t be cooperation
Peace and security through deep connection and integration and through solving of the security-dilemma
Which factors have caused the crisis of the Liberal World Order in the 2010s?
US and its allies become less powerful due to shifting distributions of global power
Gradual diffusion of power away from the West (China, India)
New visions and interest were brought into this system and global challenges emerged
Who pays, who adjusts, who leads?
Global order is giving way to various mixtures of nationalism, protectionism, spheres of influence and regional Great Power projects
In effect, there is no liberal internationalism without American and western hegemony—and that age is ending
After cold war liberal order also served as a security community
time passing by the function was mere platform for trade, exchange and multilateral cooperation
social purposes, common interests and shared values diminished
!Russian aggression showed another situation - maybe because of Russia/China new hegemonies
Revision of the trend of new democracies
Failure of Arab Spring
Trend to autocaty and closeness
Decline in liberal values
Donald Trump as president as face of the hegemony
Brexit
Bolsonaro, Orban, Duda, Erdogan
Industrialisation as the “old way of hegemony”
Beginning with the Enlightenment and running through the industrial revolution and the rise of the West
progressive movement driven by reason, science, discovery, innovation, technology, learning, constitutionalism and institutional adaptation
n artefact of a specific time and place—and the world is now moving on
Does the rise of China challenge the survival of the Liberal World Order? Discuss pros and cons!
Challenge definetly, dethrone it unlikely
By definition of a hegemon, China nowdays comprises the certain attributes
economic growth
US suffers from a recession
military power
high investments
political capabilities
becomes way more confident (Taiwan action, reaction after Russian regression)
It’s likely that China will be able to dethrone USA but will take some time but not the liberal world order
liberal values but not liberal markets their are sytemic not that far away as most people think also capitalistic
For the West China won’t become the hegemon vgl. Gramsci
But for the BRICS that in 2023 widened their circle with a lot of countries from Africa
development aid in Africa
but they don’t have alternative models
Still they havent presented an alternative to the concept of liberal institutionalism
Last changed3 months ago