Hegemony and Crisis in Global Political Economy: The Importance of Legitimacy

Abstract

This study examines the importance of legitimacy in hegemony through the changes and continuities in the structures of global political economy. It is argued that a statecentric approach to hegemony is insufficient, and that the legitimacy of or consent for dominant neoliberal ideas and norms have been undermined by the structural problems and ongoing transformations in the global political economy

Keywords

• Hegemony, legitimacy, global political economy, financial crisis.

References

1. Stephen D. Krasner, “State Power and the Structure of International Trade”, World Politics, Vol. 28, No. 3 (April 1976), p. 317-347.
2. Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 29.
3. Robert Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 15.
4. Duncan Snidal, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory”, International Organization, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Autumn 1985), pp. 585-586.
5. Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350, New York, Oxford University Press, 1991; John M. Hobson, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004; Robert W. Cox, “Civilizations in World Political Economy”, New Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1996), pp. 141-156; Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An essay in Method”, Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2 (June 1983), pp. 162-175.
6. Stephen Hobden and Richard Wyn Jones, “Marxist Theories of International Relations”, in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 236.
7. Robert W. Cox, Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York, Columbia University Press, 1987.
8. Susan Strange, “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony”, International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Autumn 1987), p. 553-554.

9. Charles P. Kindleberger, World Economic Primacy: 1500-1990, New York, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 135-137, 146-148.
10. These institutions were the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which was instutionalized as the WTO (World Trade Organization) in 1995.
11. John Ikenberry, “Rethinking the Origins of American Hegemony”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Autumn 1989), pp. 375-400.
12. G-7 countries are the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Canada.
13. For a historical study of the competing ideas of market oriented vs. state controlled economies and related transformation in the world economy see, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1998.
14. The Washington Consensus refers to the IMF, WB, U.S. government and Wall Street institutions’ agreement on further liberalization in financial markets.
15. Robert W. Cox, “Structural Issues of Global Governance: Implications for Europe”, in Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 259- 260, 266-267.
16. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and The Last Man, New York, Free Press, 1992.
17. Thomas D. Lairson and David Skidmore, International Political Economy, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003, p. 109.
18. World Bank, Global Economic Prospects, 2012, p. 52.
19. Simon Johnson and James Kwak, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, New York, Pantheon Books, 2010, p. 12.
20. Andrew F. Cooper, “The G 20 As An Improvised Crisis Committee and/or a Contested ‘Steering Committee’ for the World”, International Affairs, Vol. 86, No. 3 (May 2010), pp. 741-757.
21. Robert Zoellick, “The G20 Must Look Beyond Bretton Woods”, Financial Times, 7 November 2010; “G20 Calls for Speedy Eurozone Package”, Financial Times, 16 October 2011.
22. “Record U.S. Deficit Projected this Year”, Washington Post, 27 January 2011; “White House Expects Persistently High Unemployment”, New York Times, 2 September 2011; “Fed Banks Report Shows Stalling US Economy”, Financial Times, 7 September 2011; John B. Taylor, “A Slow-Growth America Can’t Lead the World”, Wall Street Journal, 1 November 2011; “Europe: Survival Tops List of Priorities for Currency Union”, Financial Times, 24 January 2012.
23. World Bank, Global Economic Prospects, 2012, p. 47-53. 24 Ibid., p. 55-57.
24. These top ten countries are China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, India, Poland, Chile, Ukraine, Thailand between 2000-2007; World Bank, Global Development Finance, 2008, p. 51.
25. World Bank, Global Development Finance, 2008, p. 48.
26. Credit Suisse, Global Wealth Report, 2011, p.14.
27. The exceptions are the years of financial crises in 1994, 1997, and 2001.
28. “Emerging donors” is a term used for new donor countries that are also known as non-DAC countries. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is an international forum of the world’s largest funders of aid. Among non-DAC countries in 2010, Saudi Arabia ranked first (US $3.48 billion), China ranked second (with an estimated US $2 billion) and Turkey third (US $967.4 million). OECD (2011), Development: Key tables from OECD, No. 1. doi: 10.1787/aid-oda-table-2011-1-en.