Hegemonik İstikrar(sızlık) Kuramı

Year 2019, Issue: 60, 179 - 192, 29.04.2019

Umut Halaç , Elçin Doruk

Abstract

Uluslararası
politik iktisat dahilinde bir bakış açısı sunan hegemonik istikrar kuramı,
uluslararası ekonomik yapı ile uluslararası güç dağılımı arasındaki bağlantıyı
açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Siyasi kararların doğurduğu ekonomik sonuçları ele
alan kuram, günümüz dünya ekonomisinin ve buna bağlı şekillenen uluslararası
ilişkiler dinamiklerinin yorumlanması hususunda faydalıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı
güncel gelişmeler ile uluslararası ilişkilerdeki değişkenler ışığında hegemonik
istikrar kuramını ve kurama karşı yöneltilen eleştirileri analiz etmektir. Bu
bağlamda ilgili kuramcılara atıfla kurama ait temel kavramlar
detaylandırılırken kuramın geçerliliği ve güncel gelişmeleri açıklayabilmedeki
etkinliği tartışılacaktır. Kuramın temel taşlarından biri olan hegemon kavramı,
Amerikan hegemonyası özelinde örneklendirilecektir. Genel yapı göstermektedir
ki Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, hegemonik istikrar kuramının
işaret ettiği iyilikseverlik ve manevi doyum kavramlarından uzak olarak maddi
çıkarı önemseyen bir güç olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

Keywords

Uluslararası politik iktisat, hegemonik istikrar, hegemon, ABD Hegemonyası

Theory of Hegemonic (in) Stability

Abstract

Hegemonic
stability theory explains the link between international economic structure and
power distribution in the international system from a political economy point
of view. The theory construes contemporary world economy and related dynamics
of international relations by evaluating the economic outcomes of political
decisions. This study aims to analyze hegemonic stability theory and its
criticism in the scope of current dynamics and variables in international
relations. In that regard the study refers to related theoretians and
elaborates the main concepts of the theory and their competence to explain
current affairs. The notion of hegemon will be exemplified specific to the US
hegemony. The
overall structure demonstrates the fact that unlike the premise of the theory,
US hegemony seeks material gains instead of benelovence or spiritual
satisfaciton.

Keywords

International political economy, hegemonic stability, hegemon, US hegemony

References

• Brilmayer, L. (1994). American hegemony: political morality in a one-superpower world. New Haven & London: Yale University.
• Burges, S. W. (2008). Consensual hegemony: theorizing Brazilian foreign policy after the cold war. International Relations, 22(1), 65-84.
• Calleo, D. P. (1970). The Atlantic fantasy: the US, NATO and Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
• Calleo, D. P. (1987). Beyond American hegemony: the future of the western alliance. New York: Basic Books.
• Calleo D. P., & Rowland, B. M. (1975). America and the world political economy: Atlantic dreams and national realities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Conybeare, J. A. C. (1984). Public goods, prisoner’s dilemma and the international political economy. International Studies Quarterly, 28, 6-13.
• Eichengreen, B. (1996). Hegemonic stability theory and economic analysis: reflections on financial instability and the need for an international lender of last resort (UC Berkeley: Center for International and Development Economics Research Working Paper No. 51). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g49p8kj adresinden erişildi.
• Evans, P. B. (1989). Declining hegemony and assertive industrialization: U.S.-Brazil conflicts in the computer industry. International Organization, 43(2), 207-238.
• Gallagher, J., & Robinsoni R. (1953). The imperialism of free trade. The Economic History Review, 2(6), 1-15.
• Gilpin, R. (1975). U.S. power and the multinational corporation: the political economy of foreign direct investment. New York: Basic Books.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gowa, J. (1989). Rational hegemons, excludable goods and small groups: an epitaph for hegemonic stability theory. World Politics, 41, 307-324.
• Grunberg, I. (1990). Exploring the ‘myth’ of hegemonic stability. International Organization, 44(4), 431-477.
• Haas, E. B. (1982). Words can hurt you or who said what to whom about regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 207-243.
• James, S. C., & Lake, D. A. (1989). The second face of hegemony: Britain’s repeal of the corn laws and the American walker tariff of 1976. International Organization, 43(1), 1-30.
• Kaiser, K. (1989). A view from Europe: the U.S. role in the next decade. International Affairs, 65, 209-223.
• Kaplan, M. (1957). System and process in international politics. New York: Wiley.
• Kaymak, M. (2016). Hegemonya tartışmaları işığında İngiliz ve Amerikan hegemonyaları: yönlendirici hegemonyadan kural koyucu hegemonyaya. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 63-92.
• Keohane, R. O. (1979). U.S. foreign economic policy toward other advanced capitalist states: the struggle to make others adjust. K. Oye, D. Rothschild & R. Lieber (Eds.), Eagle entangled u.s. foreign policy in a complex world içinde (ss. 89-102). London: Longman.
• Keohane, R. O. (1980). The theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international economic regimes, 1967-1977. O. R. Holsti, R. M. Siverson & A. L. George (Eds.), Change in the international system içinde (ss. 131-162). Boulder: Westview Press.
• Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kindleberger, C. P. (1976). Systems of economic organizations. D. P. Calleo, (Ed.), Money and the coming world order içinde (ss. 15-40). New York: New York University Press.
• Kindleberger, C. P. (1981). Dominance and leadership in the international economy: exploitation, public goods and free riders. International Studies Quarterly, 25, 242-254.
• Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). Hierarchy versus inertial cooperation. International Organization, 40, 841-848.
• Kindleberger, C. P. (1987). The world in depression, 1929-1939. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.
• Kohout, F. (2003). Cyclical, hegemonic, and pluralistic theories of international relations: some comparative reflections on war causation. International Political Science Review, 24(1), 51-66.
• Krasner, S. D. (1976). State power and the structure of international trade. World Politics, 28, 317-347.
• Lake, D. A. (1983). International economic structures and American foreign economic policy, 1887-1934. World Politics, 35, 517-543.
• Lake, D. A. (1984). Beneath the commerce of nations: a theory of international economic structures. International Studies Quarterly, 28, 143-170.
• Lawson, F. H. (1983). Hegemony and the structure of international trade reassessed: a view from Arabia. International Organization, 38, 317-337.
• Russett, B. (1985). The mysterious case of vanishing hegemony; or is Mark Twain really dead? International Organization, 39, 207-231.
• Webb, M. C. and Krasner, S. D. (1989). Hegemonic stability theory: an empirical assessment. Review of International Studies, 15(2), 183-198.
• Wohlforth, W.C. (2008). Realism and foreign policy. S. Smith, A. Hadfield & T. Dunne (Eds.), Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases içinde. Oxford, NY: Oxford University.
• Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of hegemonic stability theory. International Organization, 39, 579-614.
• Strange, S. (1987). The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International Organization, 41(4), 551-574.