嵌入式霸权与美国结构性权力的演变

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Relations Pub Date : 2024-07-28 DOI:10.1177/00471178241268418
Madison Cartwright
{"title":"嵌入式霸权与美国结构性权力的演变","authors":"Madison Cartwright","doi":"10.1177/00471178241268418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whilst the United States’ (US) economic hegemony has existed continuously since the end of World War II, it has not been realised in the same way. In the early post-war period, the US’s hegemony rested on its dominance over gross world product and manufacturing output and exports. However, by the 1970s it began to transition to high-technology industries, services and foreign investment. Using a structural power analysis, this article argues that this transition in the economic foundations of US hegemony was not a reaction to an exogenous shift in the international division of labour, but was rather the result of the endogenous policies, decisions and priorities of the US. Moreover, the article illustrates how the interaction between the four aspects of structural power (security, production, finance and information) determined how these new hegemonic interests were embedded in international institutions and norms to better project US power globally. Through a historical analysis, the article demonstrates that the four aspects of structural power went from mutually reinforcing each other in the early post-war period to detracting from each other from the mid-1960s. This spurred a managed transition by the US from one embedded hegemonic order to another. The result was the construction of contemporary US embedded hegemonic order based on dollar hegemony (financial structural power) and the internationalisation of US corporate dominance (productive structural power), supported by the private ownership of knowledge by US corporations (informational structural power). The article also considers the implications of this analysis for current challenges to the contemporary hegemonic order.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Embedded hegemony and the evolution of the United States’ structural power\",\"authors\":\"Madison Cartwright\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00471178241268418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Whilst the United States’ (US) economic hegemony has existed continuously since the end of World War II, it has not been realised in the same way. In the early post-war period, the US’s hegemony rested on its dominance over gross world product and manufacturing output and exports. However, by the 1970s it began to transition to high-technology industries, services and foreign investment. Using a structural power analysis, this article argues that this transition in the economic foundations of US hegemony was not a reaction to an exogenous shift in the international division of labour, but was rather the result of the endogenous policies, decisions and priorities of the US. Moreover, the article illustrates how the interaction between the four aspects of structural power (security, production, finance and information) determined how these new hegemonic interests were embedded in international institutions and norms to better project US power globally. Through a historical analysis, the article demonstrates that the four aspects of structural power went from mutually reinforcing each other in the early post-war period to detracting from each other from the mid-1960s. This spurred a managed transition by the US from one embedded hegemonic order to another. The result was the construction of contemporary US embedded hegemonic order based on dollar hegemony (financial structural power) and the internationalisation of US corporate dominance (productive structural power), supported by the private ownership of knowledge by US corporations (informational structural power). The article also considers the implications of this analysis for current challenges to the contemporary hegemonic order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178241268418\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178241268418","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管美国的经济霸权自二战结束以来一直存在,但其实现方式却不尽相同。战后初期,美国的霸权依赖于其在世界生产总值、制造业产出和出口方面的主导地位。然而,到 20 世纪 70 年代,美国开始向高科技产业、服务业和外国投资转型。本文运用结构性权力分析法,论证了美国霸权经济基础的这一转变并不是对外部国际分工变化的反应,而是美国内生政策、决策和优先事项的结果。此外,文章还说明了结构性权力的四个方面(安全、生产、金融和信息)之间的相互作用如何决定了这些新的霸权利益如何嵌入国际机构和规范,从而更好地在全球范围内展示美国的权力。文章通过历史分析表明,结构性权力的四个方面从战后初期的相互促进到 20 世纪 60 年代中期的相互削弱。这促使美国从一种嵌入式霸权秩序向另一种嵌入式霸权秩序进行有管理的过渡。其结果是构建了当代美国的嵌入式霸权秩序,其基础是美元霸权(金融结构权力)和美国公司主导地位的国际化(生产结构权力),并得到美国公司私人知识所有权(信息结构权力)的支持。文章还探讨了这一分析对当前挑战当代霸权秩序的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Embedded hegemony and the evolution of the United States’ structural power
Whilst the United States’ (US) economic hegemony has existed continuously since the end of World War II, it has not been realised in the same way. In the early post-war period, the US’s hegemony rested on its dominance over gross world product and manufacturing output and exports. However, by the 1970s it began to transition to high-technology industries, services and foreign investment. Using a structural power analysis, this article argues that this transition in the economic foundations of US hegemony was not a reaction to an exogenous shift in the international division of labour, but was rather the result of the endogenous policies, decisions and priorities of the US. Moreover, the article illustrates how the interaction between the four aspects of structural power (security, production, finance and information) determined how these new hegemonic interests were embedded in international institutions and norms to better project US power globally. Through a historical analysis, the article demonstrates that the four aspects of structural power went from mutually reinforcing each other in the early post-war period to detracting from each other from the mid-1960s. This spurred a managed transition by the US from one embedded hegemonic order to another. The result was the construction of contemporary US embedded hegemonic order based on dollar hegemony (financial structural power) and the internationalisation of US corporate dominance (productive structural power), supported by the private ownership of knowledge by US corporations (informational structural power). The article also considers the implications of this analysis for current challenges to the contemporary hegemonic order.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Relations
International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.
期刊最新文献
Transforming epistemological disconnection from the more-than-human world: (inter)nodes of ecologically attuned ways of knowing Back from the dead: the ecology of IR Indigenous climate finance and the worlding of International Relations: climate justice in motion Embedded hegemony and the evolution of the United States’ structural power Fit for purpose? Climate change, security and IR
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1