集团霸权领导作为理解非洲地区霸权的分析框架

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 AREA STUDIES African and Asian Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-02 DOI:10.1163/15692108-12341579
C. Isike, M. Schoeman
{"title":"集团霸权领导作为理解非洲地区霸权的分析框架","authors":"C. Isike, M. Schoeman","doi":"10.1163/15692108-12341579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis paper revisits the literature on regional power-hood and its application to Africa with a view to answering two key questions: one, whether we can talk of regional hegemons in the continent in real terms, and two, whether group hegemonic leadership better explains regional hegemonic behavior in Africa. It uses Sandra Destradi conceptual framework and Miriam Prys’ typology of regional power-hood to answer these questions, with South Africa and Nigeria as case studies. Using Prys’ typology which distinguishes between regional detached powers, regional hegemons and regional dominators as an analytical framework, the paper confirms what already exists in the literature, viz. that neither South Africa nor Nigeria neatly fit the conception of regional hegemons in Africa. However, it uses both countries as empirical cases to argue that they already act as hegemonic leaders and in cooperative ways that suggest group or shared leadership, using specific Common African Positions they have led in Africa. The analysis concludes by laying out the normative basis for a Group Hegemony composed of not only South Africa and Nigeria, but also other sub-regional leaders in the continent. This is based on the hard power shortfalls and internal weaknesses of both our case studies including their relative soft power resources which have utility in an increasingly intersocial international system.","PeriodicalId":54087,"journal":{"name":"African and Asian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group Hegemonic Leadership as an Analytical Framework for Understanding Regional Hegemony in Africa\",\"authors\":\"C. Isike, M. Schoeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15692108-12341579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis paper revisits the literature on regional power-hood and its application to Africa with a view to answering two key questions: one, whether we can talk of regional hegemons in the continent in real terms, and two, whether group hegemonic leadership better explains regional hegemonic behavior in Africa. It uses Sandra Destradi conceptual framework and Miriam Prys’ typology of regional power-hood to answer these questions, with South Africa and Nigeria as case studies. Using Prys’ typology which distinguishes between regional detached powers, regional hegemons and regional dominators as an analytical framework, the paper confirms what already exists in the literature, viz. that neither South Africa nor Nigeria neatly fit the conception of regional hegemons in Africa. However, it uses both countries as empirical cases to argue that they already act as hegemonic leaders and in cooperative ways that suggest group or shared leadership, using specific Common African Positions they have led in Africa. The analysis concludes by laying out the normative basis for a Group Hegemony composed of not only South Africa and Nigeria, but also other sub-regional leaders in the continent. This is based on the hard power shortfalls and internal weaknesses of both our case studies including their relative soft power resources which have utility in an increasingly intersocial international system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African and Asian Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African and Asian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15692108-12341579\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African and Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15692108-12341579","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文重新审视了关于区域大国地位及其在非洲的应用的文献,以期回答两个关键问题:一是我们能否真正谈论非洲大陆的区域霸权,二是集团霸权领导是否能更好地解释非洲的区域霸权行为。它使用Sandra Destradi的概念框架和Miriam Prys的地区权力类型来回答这些问题,并以南非和尼日利亚为案例研究。本文以Prys区分区域超然大国、区域霸主和区域支配者的类型学为分析框架,证实了文献中已经存在的问题,即南非和尼日利亚都不完全符合非洲区域霸主的概念。然而,它利用这两个国家作为经验案例来证明,它们已经以霸权领导人的身份行事,并以合作的方式表明集团或共同领导,利用它们在非洲领导的特定非洲共同立场。该分析的结论是,为不仅由南非和尼日利亚组成,而且由非洲大陆其他次区域领导人组成的集团霸权奠定了规范基础。这是基于我们两个案例研究的硬实力不足和内部弱点,包括它们在日益国际化的国际体系中具有效用的相对软实力资源。
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
Group Hegemonic Leadership as an Analytical Framework for Understanding Regional Hegemony in Africa
This paper revisits the literature on regional power-hood and its application to Africa with a view to answering two key questions: one, whether we can talk of regional hegemons in the continent in real terms, and two, whether group hegemonic leadership better explains regional hegemonic behavior in Africa. It uses Sandra Destradi conceptual framework and Miriam Prys’ typology of regional power-hood to answer these questions, with South Africa and Nigeria as case studies. Using Prys’ typology which distinguishes between regional detached powers, regional hegemons and regional dominators as an analytical framework, the paper confirms what already exists in the literature, viz. that neither South Africa nor Nigeria neatly fit the conception of regional hegemons in Africa. However, it uses both countries as empirical cases to argue that they already act as hegemonic leaders and in cooperative ways that suggest group or shared leadership, using specific Common African Positions they have led in Africa. The analysis concludes by laying out the normative basis for a Group Hegemony composed of not only South Africa and Nigeria, but also other sub-regional leaders in the continent. This is based on the hard power shortfalls and internal weaknesses of both our case studies including their relative soft power resources which have utility in an increasingly intersocial international system.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The journal presents a scholarly account of studies of individuals and societies in Africa and Asia. Its scope is to publish original research by social scientists in the area of anthropology, sociology, history, political science and related social sciences about African and Asian societies and cultures and their relationships. The journal focuses on problems and possibilities, past and future. Where possible, comparisons are made between countries and continents. Articles should be based on original research and can be co-authored.
期刊最新文献
Islamic Eschatology and Prophetic Register: the Divine Source of Pakistan’s Identity Rethinking the Dynamics of Fighting Covid-19 in Jordan: Social Exchange Perspective Youth Employability Training Model from the Perspective of Education Poverty Reduction in Kenya and Its Enlightenment to China The Decentralised Governance in Kenya: Implications on Citizen Participation in the Local Governance Maritime Culture And Everyday Life In Nineteenth-And-Twentieth-Century Coastal Ghana: A Social History of Cape Coast, written by Kwaku Nti
×
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