The Changing Balance Of Global Power: Is The Era Of US Dominance Over?

The changing balance of global power-Is the era of US dominance over?

Explain Historical evolution of power of United States.

Explanation of US power in relation to international relation theories.

Define global economic balance of power.

The international system of which any county is a part can be influenced by the desire and capacity of powerful countries. The remarkable point in the contemporary year is that in regard to any other countries, United States is far more influential. It is so because the regulations and rules governing the interconnected international system can be governed by United States[1]. An unprecedented dominance was assumed by the domestic and foreign policies of America in the affairs of region and other nations for seeking to accommodate the evolution of hegemony of country[2]. In the aftermath of World War II, the hegemony of America became clear and the measurement of power was done by political, economical, military and cultural factors. For placing the development of hegemony of US in the historical context, it is required to make a sense of impact and extent of its power[3]. For this purpose, the first part of paper demonstrates the description of influence and power of US by providing theoretical justification using hegemony.

As a new discipline, International relations came into being as initiative of government in the United States. It was an effort on part of government to make an enhancement in the research for identifying the original of international conflicts and providing for solution for benefitting along with providing training to analytically knowledgeable persons and qualified diplomats at the middle and higher level of government departments[4]. For the United States, the era of hegemonic stability was established after the World War II because the country posses the capability to manage the international system and act unilaterally to stabilize the economies of Japan and Europe. The hegemony of United States after World War II was attributable to factors such as unmatched economic, cultural, political and military influence in global affairs. The global order of US was characterized by free capital and liberalist domestic economy[5]. Different scholars have presented different presented the hegemonic power in the aftermath of World War II. It is noteworthy to mention that the economy of advanced nations and that of US must be concerned about the risks arising out of events due to emerging markets and China. It is implied by the global shifts that of how the management of such problem should be done. Global economic problems faced by different nations would be managed neither by US nor China. The dominance of US in the Western Alliance was pushed through the vision how the structuring of international financial and global should be done. Despite the fact that there was no willingness on part of other countries, US provided free access to their foreign capitals. However, no intrinsic reasons were provided for US to remain at the top and dominant indefinitely. Another global shift was witnessed in the second half of the twentieth century; however such shift was less dramatic. During such period, the gap in the productivity and per capital income of US and East Asia and Japan was becoming close. In year 1992, there was a fall in share of US in the global gross domestic product to lower than twenty percent which was prior to the rise of emerging economies and China[6]. Such shift does not let any country to exert unilaterally influence in adequate stability because international cooperation is required for such stability. There was interruption in the shift away from the dominance of US and toward a multi polar in year 1990s. Such interruption was attributable to two factors that are series of financial and economic crisis in emerging countries and difficulties faced in Soviet Bloc transition along with its collapse. Nonetheless, there was resumption of shift in global political and economic power due to subsequent growth in emerging Asia[7]. Such growth was resumed because of factors such as elimination of bottlenecks, high saving rates, export orientation, educated labor forces. The dominance of US in the International monetary fund was highly complained with the role of US could not be diminished by any form of voting rights, executive board composition and reform of quotas significantly[8].

Historical evolution of power of United States

An unprecedented dominance to US in the international politics was brought after the end of World War II. Allied forces defeated and occupied Japan and Germany. An emergence of two superpowers that is Soviet Union and United States was witnessed by world after the era of Pax Britannica was ended. The capitalist bloc and community bloc was divided by the world after the cold war was started between these two superpowers[9]. Soviet Union headed the community bloc while capitalist bloc headed by the US. A new world order was designed by US after World War II on the liberalism and democracy based on style of US, multilateral institution establishment, US network global collaboration and decolonization. Establishment of international financial institutions was done under the Breton wood agreements where each super power through their military alliances intended to expand their sphere of influences[10]. The leadership of US created unity between Western Europe and Japan due to spread of communism and common economic interests. Rapid growth was witnessed by world economy during cold war due to adoption of containment of communism policy by Soviet Union and USA and relative peace in Japan and Europe. There was disintegration of Soviet Union in year 1991 and the sole world power was left in the hand of United States. The policy of unilateralism was adopted by US after the cold war ended due to its military superiority that was unmatched from any country[11]. Furthermore, major wars including Yugoslavia, Gulf War, Iran and Afghanistan were fought by the US.

Many scholars were attracted by the US hegemony and the study of international orders in global affairs during the 1970s and 1980s. The international order dominated by US was challenged by many factors such as financial crisis, economic recession, exchange rate crisis, oil crisis, China rise, emergence of Japan economically and Europe integration. Global order of US was further complicated by growing threats to military by Soviet Union and spread of communism[12].

A broader picture of emergence and decline of hegemony of US was provided by Wallerstein and such picture was presented in various phases after the end of Second World War. It is argued by him that after the second world was, the politics of world has undergone through three main phases. The era of hegemony of US and global dominance was identified for the period from 1945-1970. However, due to emergence of competitors, there was decline of hegemony from 1970 to 2001[13]. Thereafter, the process of decline of hegemony was accelerated from year 2001 due to intimidation and unilateralism of policy of US. The global leadership of US was unmatched from any other countries from 1945 to 1967 resulting from unprecedented military superiority, economic growth, cultural and political influence. It was after year 1967 that US experienced decline due to emergence of economic competitors such as Japan and Europe and economic stagnation. US hegemony decline was initiated due to the two factors that is economic change of stagnation that occurred from the end of phase of Kondratieff and cultural and political changes in during 1968s[14]. It is said by Wallerstein that in the next two decades, the rise of multiple small nuclear powers, nuclear non proliferation breakdown, emergence of multiple center powers, multiple currency system emergence, dollar being disappeared as international dominance currency and decline of US power in the next two decades[15].

Explanation of US power in relation to international relation theories

It is argued by another scholar named Stephen Gill who focuses on change in structure of international politics in the aftermath of World War II that the structural power of US is intact and there has not been any decline in US hegemony. It is suggested by Gill that the era of non hegemonic in the global politics started after 1970s and such ear is described as hegemony crisis which should not be linked to global power of US[16]. It is further argued by Gill that during 1970s and 1980s, there was no decline in hegemony of America. Rather, it can be said that there was transformation in hegemony due to globalization and the hegemony of US became more powerful due to cultural and ideological aspects. The hegemony of US has direct and cumulative quality and was from ever during 1980s[17]. The contemporary international political economy was changed due to the market and trade liberalization, global economy trans-nationalization, change in communication and low cost of transporting transborder. Therefore, the decline of US after Second World War was refuted by Gill after examining the role of country where the concept of transitional hegemony was presented and the term hegemony was redefined[18].

It has been also argued that there was no decline in the United States hegemony and the world is still dominated by the US structural power in terms of its economy, military and economy. It is said by scholar that there are two kinds of power in political economy that is structural power and political power where former is more important than latter and refers to customs and rules that helps in governing economic relations at international level[19]. There are several areas in which the dominance of US is imminent such as leading in the production of world, strongest military force, aircraft industries, control over international credit, dominance over service industries, manufacturing of consumer goods in masses, biggest share in banking industries and education system predominance[20]. Therefore, the main focus of Susan is on structural power and it is argued by her that such structural power of US will remain intact despite certain political and economic setbacks.  

It is worthy to highlight a number of points about the American homogeny nature and its impact on East Asia. The hegemony of US has been shaped by the complex interplay of different factors such as strategic, economic, universal and contingent and agency and structure. As a consequence of this, their hegemony has impacted different parts of world differently. For underpinning the development of Western Europe than East Asia, they have not been more reliant on markets of America[21]. However, the distinctive course of development in East Asia has been influenced by American homogeny by pronouncement of regional accent. The highly truncated post war international order consideration in the relationship of US is another aspect of hegemony. United sates are the inventor of modern corporate form and by the end of the 1800s; it emerged as the dominant industrial power of world. The global colonial rule of Europe was replaced with the American hegemony resulting from the most massive and destructive wars in human history[22]. It is due to this the leadership position of US in the international system was dependent upon the stealthy interventions and countless overt across the world for making sure that the country stays on top of the list. There may be disintegration in the global orders that is led by structure of America. A winding of the cracks in the global leadership position of America is signified by the lack of legitimacy in the US president at both international and domestic level along with the emerging and reemerging of powers and rise of China. The transitionary stage due to change in the ruling person in the face of Trump whose emergence is considered to be the historical illusion has led to defending of his genius which is fueled by the sexism and right wing white supremacy and its infinite mirage in the perception of financial elites has risked the US to bring to closer to the global conflict[23].  The military power of US still remains dominant in the short run, however for sustenance of hegemony, the effectiveness of power compared to Vietnam and Iraq is not clear. The development and research facilities of US can be surpassed by China and other countries across world with Silicon Valley still absorbing the highly educated brainpower from across the world. Some tentative answers have been offered in the book of “American hegemony and the rise of emerging powers: Cooperation and conflict”. The Interpretation of international change and their position of political power form the basis of determining the prospects of peace and war. This has been said in context of material underpinning of power of America based on theme ideological. Nevertheless, saying that the homogeny of US is decline would be an overstatement in the short run at least. United States are taking every possible efforts to limit the emerging powers ability in light of rising powers and building of new relations across the globe and transformation of world power due to rise of China[24].

It is said that the United States no reasons have been found to say that the country is heading toward the skids. The idea of hegemony of US heads its root from the World War II. During the war, US was the only combatant that successes in avoiding serious damage to its housing stocks, infrastructure and its demographic profile and emerged as the dominant political, economic and technological power. The war was ended with the greatest naval order and became the home of World Bank, International Monetary Fund and United nations after the war. US was considered as hegemony.

It appears that the world appears to shift into an era that is of intensified uncertainty due to rise of independent powers along with the factor that the president of US lacks an articulated grasp of reality. Such factors are suggestive of the fact that there is tendency of progressing decline on the world stage. It can be said on a broader scale that the major bouts of international conflicts have gone hand in hand with the shift in world power at larger scale[25]. The only global rival of US in the twentieth century was Soviet Union which had the power to resist the hegemony of former. However, they did not have the power to displace the hegemony of US.      The hegemony of US was completed with disintegration of Soviet Union in year 1991. For the global leadership position, US were at the top in the international system. Such unipolar moment did not last for more than fewer decades due to the emergence of threat to the global stability along with reemergence of Russia and rise of China[26]. There have been deadlock of internal politics of America and the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to substantial degradation of military capabilities of US. The expression about the bankruptcy of US government was created due to the repeated crisis of debt ceiling, negative reports by credit agency and the shutdown of government of 2013. 

The Countries lying on the South border of China are hugely populous, large and poor making so that they cannot go beyond that exploitation of the mineral resources. Some profit opportunities are sought by the companies in Myanmar, Cambodia and China and the strategic dominance over region would not provide any gain to country. The strategic engagement of China with Latin America and Africa and the capital of China could not be accessed by investment starved countries in China. The future economic growth of China formed the basis of building hegemony of China and the economy of China would account for more than half to total global output by year 2050 at 7% rate of growth. It is assumed reasonably that economic growth of China would eventually settle down to the global rates[27]. The working age population China from year 2014 to 2034 will fall by eighty seven million along with rise in elderly population. Contrary to this, the population of US is growing and is young and the population of US comprises of productive and immigration of talented people and it is projected that it would grow at the rate of 0.6% per year. One of the surprising trend is that there is narrowing down of demographic gap between US and China. The domination of America in the global affairs extends well beyond the hegemony and it is believed by major powers that they could independently engage in global statecraft.

The political landscape of the world looks considerably different as against the present scenario. The central players will be the nation states and there would be a handful of countries such as China, US, Russia, Japan and Germany where hegemonic force will not be enjoyed by single force. There would be wide distribution of power across non state networks along with regressive ones and greater influence will be exerted by vast contributions of mega cities and their peripheries[28].  

There is prediction that the economy of China will surpass the economy of US by the late 2020s with the continued growth in economies of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China). The major advanced nations will be transcending by the combined economic power of BRICS by the early 2030s. Rising of the emerging economies such as India, China, Russia and Brazil is signaled by the summit of BRICS in Xiamen. The role of BRICS and their governance in local economy is believed to be weakening by the recovery of the major advanced nations. However, the reality seems to be quite different. Often, comparison is made between the major advanced economies and BRIC economies[29]. The economy of China in year 2000 was barely one tenth of the economy of US whereas the gross domestic product of Japan is considered largest as the largest economies of Europe. For achieving stability, countries such as UK, Germany and France was struggling. The US led reforms have crushed the economy of Russia and Brazil. By the early 2010s, stagnation has penalized the Japan and the economy of US was double of that of China. Europe was ruled by president of France and chancellor of Germany. A dramatic catch up was brought in Brazil in the era of Lula where the size of economy was multiplied. Size of economy of China would surpass the economy of US if China stays on the course. Until the late 2030s, there is strong growth potential on part of China despite the decentralization which is considered normal after the ear of industrialization. Until 2030, there is strong growth potential on part of China while the economy of US is slowing down due to ageing demographics and maturing economy[30].

The global power of US faced many threats and challenges due to the emergence of 21^st century and it has been ascertained that there is rapid slipping of hegemony of United States away to the East. China is taking away the domination of US over consumption of energy, manufacturing and exports. The global supply of gas and oil will be further deteriorated due to the tense relations of US with Iran and Russia. For future military dominance of US, it is important for military of China to rise peacefully. Currently, after the US, the military expenditure of China is second largest[31]. China is provided an opportunity to modernize the liberation army of people rapidly due to its unprecedented economic growth. US incurred huge losses in terms of people and money due to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and intimidation of policy after 9/11. The global power of US was put into the deep trouble due to longest war in Afghanistan, unpopular war in Iraq, budget deficit, global economic recession, nuclear proliferation, Middle East instability and engagement with North Korea and Iran. It is reported by council of US National Intelligence that the economy of US will be surpassed by economy of China and Europe in terms of global power that is based on the military spending, population, gross domestic product and technological investment. It is further stated by the report that decline of US cannot be prevented due to rapid rise in other powers and ending ear of unipolar moment[32]. However, China is still considered as developing country due to impressive economic growth and China would require considerable amount of time to surpass the US economically, politically, institutionally and military. Due to the authoritarian central government, many issues are faced by China such as rural poverty, regional inequality, growing middle class, environmental issues, ethnic minorities, growing middle class, hostile neighbor emergence, border issues and regional powers such as India, Russia and Japan.

Conclusion:

From the analysis of different aspects of discussion, it has been found that the main victor after the World War II is the emergence of United States and a new world order was pursued by the country based on the multilateral institutions, market liberalism, democracy and containment of communism and Soviet Union. Unity between US, Japan and Western Europe due to emergence of communism, common economic interest and Soviet Union that resulted in prosperity and high growth. Great emphasis was given by theorists during 1970s and 1980s on the US hegemony and its decline resulting from challenges and threats faced. Mixed views and argument was presented by the scholars of international relation theorist with some arguing that hegemony of US decline after 1970s while other did not rely on such ideas. Other scholars presented the view that the hegemonic dominance of US remained intact despite the economic setbacks. Moreover, it has also been found that the gap between the power of US and China is shrinking as China is the second largest economy after US and their armed forces are being modernized rapidly. A foundation for modernizing the international and army political influence is provided by strong economic system of China through investment, aid, trade, educational and cultural products. Nevertheless, the cultural, political, military, economic advantages of US are still dominant and there is likelihood that for the next few decades, US shall remain global power. There is a long way for China to go for filling the power gap despite its unprecedented economic growth.

References

Amin, Samir. Beyond US hegemony: Assessing the prospects for a multipolar world. Zed Books Ltd., 2013.

Beauregard, Robert A. Voices of decline: The postwar fate of US cities. Routledge, 2013.

Behringer, Ronald M. The human security agenda: how middle power leadership defied US hegemony. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2012.

Burley, Anne-Marie Slaughter. "International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda." The Nature of International Law. Routledge, 2017. 11-46.

Cohn, Theodore H. Global political economy: Theory and practice. Routledge, 2016.

Desai, Radhika. Geopolitical economy: After US hegemony, globalization and empire (the future of world capitalism). London: Pluto Press, 2013.

Evans, Peter. "Counter?Hegemonic Globalization." The Wiley?Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization (2012).

Galbraith, John. American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Routledge, 2017.

Geeta, Chowdhry, and Sheila Nair. Power, postcolonialism and international relations: Reading race, gender and class. Routledge, 2013.

Gilpin, Robert. The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press, 2016.

Hagström, Linus, and Björn Jerdén. "East Asia's power shift: The flaws and hazards of the debate and how to avoid them." Asian Perspective 38.3 (2014): 337-362.

Hart, Jeffrey A., and Joan Edelman Spero. The politics of international economic relations. Routledge, 2013.

Hattam, Victoria C. Labor visions and state power: The origins of business unionism in the United States. Vol. 141. Princeton University Press, 2014.

Hoge Jr, James F. "A global power shift in the making." Paradoxes of Power. Routledge, 2015. 62-68.

Jackson, Robert H., and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press, 2016.

Jacques, Martin. When China rules the world: The rise of the middle kingdom and the end of the western world [Greatly updated and expanded]. Penguin UK, 2012.

Kapila, Subhash. "The global power shift to Asia: Geostrategic and geopolitical implications." Al Jazeera Centre for Studies(2012).

Layne, Christopher. "The Global Power Shift from West to East." The National Interest 119 (2012): 21-31.

Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Wang Jisi. Addressing US-China strategic distrust. Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Brookings, 2012.

Locke, Richard M. The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

McDonald, Matt. "US hegemony, the ‘war on terror’and security in the Asia-Pacific." Critical Security in the Asia-Pacific. Manchester University Press, 2018.

Miller, Lynn H. Global Order: Values and Power in International Relations. Routledge, 2018.

Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations: Sixth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

Nolan, Peter. "China and the global economy." Charting China's Future. Routledge, 2012. 55-64.

Panetta, Leon. "Sustaining US global leadership: priorities for 21st century defense." Washington, DC: US Department of Defense (2012).

Ravenhill, John. Global political economy. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Roberts, Sue, Anna Secor, and Matthew Zook. "Critical infrastructure: Mapping the leaky plumbing of US hegemony." Antipode 44.1 (2012): 5-9.

Roskin, Michael G., et al. Political science: An introduction. Pearson, 2014.

Ryan, David. US foreign policy in world history. Routledge, 2014.

Spykman, Nicholas J. America's strategy in world politics: the United States and the balance of power. Routledge, 2017.

Wohlforth, William C., and Stephen G. Brooks. "American primacy in perspective." Paradoxes of Power. Routledge, 2015. 29-38.

[1] Gilpin, Robert. The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press, 2016.

[2] Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations: Sixth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

[3] Hart, Jeffrey A., and Joan Edelman Spero. The politics of international economic relations. Routledge, 2013.

[4] Geeta, Chowdhry, and Sheila Nair. Power, postcolonialism and international relations: Reading race, gender and class. Routledge, 2013.

[5] Desai, Radhika. Geopolitical economy: After US hegemony, globalization and empire (the future of world capitalism). London: Pluto Press, 2013.

[6] Jacques, Martin. When China rules the world: The rise of the middle kingdom and the end of the western world [Greatly updated and expanded]. Penguin UK, 2012.

[7] Cohn, Theodore H. Global political economy: Theory and practice. Routledge, 2016.

[8] Ravenhill, John. Global political economy. Oxford University Press, 2017.

[9] Spykman, Nicholas J. America's strategy in world politics: the United States and the balance of power. Routledge, 2017.

[10] Galbraith, John. American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Routledge, 2017.

[11] Hattam, Victoria C. Labor visions and state power: The origins of business unionism in the United States. Vol. 141. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[12] Miller, Lynn H. Global Order: Values and Power in International Relations. Routledge, 2018.

[13] Burley, Anne-Marie Slaughter. "International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda." The Nature of International Law. Routledge, 2017. 11-46.

[14] Jackson, Robert H., and Georg Sørensen. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press, 2016.

[15] Roskin, Michael G., et al. Political science: An introduction. Pearson, 2014.

[16] Amin, Samir. Beyond US hegemony: Assessing the prospects for a multipolar world. Zed Books Ltd., 2013.

[17] Behringer, Ronald M. The human security agenda: how middle power leadership defied US hegemony. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2012.

[18] Roberts, Sue, Anna Secor, and Matthew Zook. "Critical infrastructure: Mapping the leaky plumbing of US hegemony." Antipode 44.1 (2012): 5-9.

[19] McDonald, Matt. "US hegemony, the ‘war on terror’and security in the Asia-Pacific." Critical Security in the Asia-Pacific. Manchester University Press, 2018.

[20] Ryan, David. US foreign policy in world history. Routledge, 2014.

[21] Wohlforth, William C., and Stephen G. Brooks. "American primacy in perspective." Paradoxes of Power. Routledge, 2015. 29-38.

[22] Panetta, Leon. "Sustaining US global leadership: priorities for 21st century defense." Washington, DC: US Department of Defense (2012).

[23] Evans, Peter. "Counter?Hegemonic Globalization." The Wiley?Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization (2012).

[24] Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Wang Jisi. Addressing US-China strategic distrust. Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Brookings, 2012.

[25] Beauregard, Robert A. Voices of decline: The postwar fate of US cities. Routledge, 2013.

[26] Miller, Lynn H. Global Order: Values and Power in International Relations. Routledge, 2018.

[27] Nolan, Peter. "China and the global economy." Charting China's Future. Routledge, 2012. 55-64.

[28] Hoge Jr, James F. "A global power shift in the making." Paradoxes of Power. Routledge, 2015. 62-68.

[29] Layne, Christopher. "The Global Power Shift from West to East." The National Interest 119 (2012): 21-31.

[30] Locke, Richard M. The promise and limits of private power: Promoting labor standards in a global economy. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[31] Kapila, Subhash. "The global power shift to Asia: Geostrategic and geopolitical implications." Al Jazeera Centre for Studies(2012).

[32] Hagström, Linus, and Björn Jerdén. "East Asia's power shift: The flaws and hazards of the debate and how to avoid them." Asian Perspective 38.3 (2014): 337-362.