Dimensions of Hegemony
| Author | Morten Ougaard |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083678802300206 |
| Published date | 01 March 1988 |
| Date | 01 March 1988 |
Dimensions
of
Hegemony
MORTEN
OUGAARD
Ougaard,
M.
Dimensions
of
Hegemony.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
XXIII
,
1988, 197-
214.
The
first
section
of
the
article
deals
briefly
with
the
history
of
the
concept
of
inter-
national
hegemony.
The
second
section
identifies
several
dimensions
in
various
defi-
nitions
of
the
concept.
The
first
dimension
is
the
distribution
of
resources
implying
that
hegemony
is
defined
as
a
preponderance
of
material
power
resources,
while
the
second
dimension
is
control
over
outcomes.
In
some
definitions
the
hegemon
has
a
greater
control
than
other
actors,
no
matter
which
outcomes
are
attained.
In
other
definitions
a
specific
kind
of
outcome
is
required,
such
as
the
provision
of
certain
collective
goods.
A
related
question
is
whether
the
hegemon
takes
care
of
shared
interests
or
is
catering
to
its
own
interests,
to
the
detriment
of
those
of
others.
This
points
to
what
is
arguably
a
somewhat
neglected
dimension
of
hegemony:
the
underlying
pattern
of
interests.
It
is
suggested
that
the
concept
of
hegemony
is
relevant
in
situations
with
common
basic
interests
and
secondary
but
significant
contradictory
interests.
In
such
a
situation
hegemony
is
defined
as
one
actor’s
ability
to
provide
for
its
own
interests
in
conflicts
of
a
secondary
nature.
The
third
section
focuses
on
the
patterns
of
interests
underlying
US
hegemony.
Three
possible
changes
that
can
lead
to
declining
hegemony
are
examined:
increasing
difficulties
for
the
common
interests,
increasing
incompatibility
between
the
interests
of
the
hegemon
and
its
allies,
and
finally
a
growing
disparity
within
the
hegemon’s
own
interests.
The
evidence
is
only
suggestive
and
points
in
different
directions,
but
on
balance
it
tends
to
strengthen
the
case
for
declining
hegemony.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
In
this
article,
I
will
discuss
a
dimension
of
hegemony
that
is
somewhat
neglected
in
current
writing,
namely
the
US
position
in
the
global
system.
The
main
argument
is
that
power
resources,
whether
absolute,
relative,
or
structural,
important
as
they
may
be,
still
are
only
one
aspect
of
the
problem,
and
that
patterns
of
interest
must
be
taken
into
consideration,
too.
In
the
process
I
will
present
a
concept
of
hegemony
defined
within
the
theoretical
framework
of
historical
materialism.
It
perhaps
should
be
noted
at
the
outset
that
the
much
debated
coercion-versus-
consensus
dimension
of
hegemony
is
not
a
main
focus
of
this
article,
nor
is
the
&dquo;hegemonic
stability
theory&dquo;.
Further-
more,
there
will
be
no
discussion
of
hegemony
in
relation
to
specific
issue-
areas
and
specific
regimes,
the
con-
centration
being
on
hegemony
as
an
over-
all
position
in
the
international
system.
Why
is
this
question
judged
important
now,
when
the
main
issues
seem
to
be
settled,
the
consensus
being
almost
com-
plete
that
American
hegemony
has
declined
substantially?
The
basic
reasons
are
that
important
aspects
of
US
hegemony
are
still
intact,
and
that
the
process
of
declining
hegemony
is
likely
to
be
a
protracted
one,
having
significant
ramifications
for
the
entire
world
in
years
ahead.
Therefore
it
is
useful
to
try
to
get
deeper
into
the
various
aspects
of
the
phenomenon.
The
first
section
offers
some
general
comments
on
the
concept
of
hegemony
in
international
affairs,
as
it
has
evolved
198
within
two
broad
schools
of
thought:
mod-
em
Western
Marxism
and
the
various
approaches
to
international
political
economy
such
as
interdependence
and
neorealism.
The
next
section
goes
deeper
into
the
content
of
various
concepts
of
hegemony
and
identifies
several
interrelated
dimen-
sions
within
the
overall
problematic.
In
section
three
one
of
these
dimensions
con-
cerning
patterns
of
interests
is
discussed
and
the
specific
hegemonic
constellation
of
interests
is
identified.
Finally,
section
four
presents
some
implications
for
the
analysis
of
the
international
position
of
the
United
States,
suggesting
some
impor-
tant
changes
in
the
pattern
of
interests
underlying
US
hegemony.
2.
THE
CONCEPT
OF
HEGEMONY
Until
the
1970s
the
word
hegemony
was
hardly
used
in
the
prevailing
schools
of
Western
social
science
and
international
relations
research.
In
the
authoritative
International
Encyclopedia
of
the
Social
Sciences
(1968),
there
is
no
entry
under
this
heading.
Obviously
many
of
the
prob-
lems
later
associated
with
hegemony
were
analyzed
and
discussed
then,
but
the
word
hegemony
was
consistently
absent.
This
was
the
case
with
such
divergent
works
as
Richard
Cooper’s
The
Economics
of
Interdependence
and
Claude
Julien’s
L’empire
am6ricain,
both
published
in
1968.
Both
were
in
different
ways
fore-
runners
for
broad
traditions
within
analy-
ses
of
the
United
States’
position
in
the
world,
on
the
one
hand
the
international
political
economy
tradition
containing
divergent
approaches
such
as
theories
of
interdependence
and
neorealism,
and
on
the
other
hand,
Marxist
or
Marxist
inspired
analyses
of
imperialism,
which
is
an
equally
broad
and
heterogeneous
field.
A
few
years
later,
however,
the
ques-
tion
of
hegemony
was
on
the
agenda
for
both
of
these
broad
traditions,
reflecting,
of
course,
major
changes
in
the
inter-
national
system
and
the
American
posi-
tion
within
it.
A
debate
arose
among
Marxists
on
the
question
of
unity
and
rivalry
between
Western
Europe,
Japan,
and
the
United
States
as
well
as
on
the
question
of the
relative
economic
strength
of
these
powers.
A
summary
of
the
main
positions
in
this
debate
along
with
a
judgement
on
some
of
the
controversial
points
is
found
in
Bob
Rowthorn
(1971).
There
was
some
talk
about
hegemony
in
this
debate,
but
the
concept
itself
did
not
play a
prominent
role.
Only
after
the
publication
of
Nicos
Poulantzas’
article:
&dquo;The
Internationa-
lisation
of
Capital
and
the
Nation
State&dquo;
in
1973
did
the
question
of
hegemony
emerge
as
a
major
theoretical
focus
in
the
literature
(Leucate
1973,
Faire
1975,
Farhi
1976,
Petras
&
Rhodes
1976).
The
discussion
has
continued
into
the
1980s,
although
maybe
not
with
the
same
inten-
sity
(Szymanski
1981:492-522,
Arrighi
1982,
Davis
1984,
1985,
1987,
Moffit
1987).
Nevertheless,
the
discussion
failed
to
produce
a
commonly
accepted
and
pre-
cisely
defined
concept
of
hegemony.
In
the
interdependence/international
political
economy
tradition(s)
Charles
Kindleberger’s
analysis
of
The
World in
Depression
(1973)
played
an
important
initiating
role.
In
this
book
he
discusses
the
importance
of
a
great
power’s
ability
and
willingness
to
assume
a
leading
posi-
tion
in
stabilizing
the
international
econ-
omic
system.
Kindleberger
does
not
use
the
concept
&dquo;hegemony&dquo;
itself,
but
the
question
of
great
power
leadership
and
responsibility
introduced
by
him
became
prominent
in
American
international
relations
research
up
through
the
1970s
(Gilpin
1975,
Bergsten
et
al.
1975,
Kras-
ner
1976,
Keohane
&
Nye
1977).
One
theme
in
this
discussion
was
precisely
hegemony.
However,
it
was
probably
not
until
Robert
O.
Keohane
in
1980
explicitly
restated
part
of
this
broad
theme
in
a
To continue reading
Request your trial