Conceptualization and Approaches to Hegemony

Approaches to Hegemony Realist vs. liberal logic of explaining unipolar distribution of power Three approaches to hegemony: -- Optimists (Wohlforth, Fortman, TV Paul, Wirtz) -- Agnostics (Nye, Ikenberry) -- Pessimists (Layne, Mearsheimer)

Realist Interpretations of Hegemony Unipolar optimism – US hegemony will last for long time; it is beneficial for US and the whole int’l system Arguments: -- soft balancing -- reject polarity as discrete concept -- hegemony has been able to sustain in the past (the Roman Empire) Unipolar pessimism -- the structural imbalance has not completely eliminated the balancing dynamic; there is only limited evidence for response to preponderance. Arguments: -- terrorism as a form of balancing -- “soft” balancing -- opaque balancing -- “semi-hard” balancing

Liberalism and Hegemony Unipolar agnostics approach – the US hegemony might last for quite some time (Ikenberry, Nye). Arguments: -- it rests not only on the US “hard” power but also by exercising “soft power” -- Pax Americana rests on the open and pluralistic US foreign policy -- The US provided security protection and access to its markets in Europe and Asia in exchange for accepting the US leadership within an agreed-upon political and economic system (also the logic of CI)