In his work on “What is International Political Economy,” Michael Vesseth said that the theory of hegemonic stability was arguably one of the most important contributions to Cold War international relations theory. Developed by Charles P. Kindleberger in the early postwar era, this theory focuses on the motives and behavior of a hegemonic state. Rich and powerful, this hegemonic state or hegemon accordingly undertakes to supply public goods to the international system. Among there are stable international money system, security (such as freedom of the seas) and a system of free trade that can be shared by all.
Presently, this hegemonic state or hegemon is played by the US. Before, it was Great Britain, the Netherlands and Portugal in that order.
Let me borrow more from Veseth.
“The theory of hegemonic stability holds that the world system is most prosperous when a hegemon exists to organize the international political and economic system and coordinate the provision of international public goods. Periods of Dutch (1620–72), British (1815–73), and U.S. hegemony (1945–71) are commonly cited as evidence of this link between hegemony and prosperity (although there is disagreement about specific dates). When hegemony breaks down, however, the international system falls into disorder and conflict, with the resulting decline in peace and prosperity. The theory of hegemonic stability puts great weight on the existence of the hegemon and the maintenance of effective hegemonic policies. U.S. policies from Bretton Woods through the end of the Cold War were frequently analyzed in these terms. Indeed, one can think of the theory of hegemonic stability as a theory of U.S. Cold War economic statecraft, with the Bretton Woods system and the Marshall Plan its clearest manifestations.
“The theory of hegemonic stability is a grand IPE theory of history which, as told by Paul Kennedy and others, evolved into a theory of hegemonic fatigue or decline. This theory argues that hegemony is a self-limiting, self-defeating, and therefore temporary condition. The argument is that while the hegemonic state bears the burdens of organizing the international system and supplying public goods, free-rider states prosper, expand, and increase the burdens on the hegemon. At some point the hegemon finds itself over-committed and unable to bear the costs of the system it has created. Either the hegemon begins to put domestic interests over its international obligations or it becomes too weak to honors (sic) its widespread commitments. Either way hegemony collapses in on itself, the story goes, and chaos reigns until another hegemonic state arises to restore (temporary) order. Britain’s decline in the 19th century (followed by World War I) is frequently cited as an example of hegemonic decline as is the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (viewed as the mechanism of US hegemony). The Iron Curtain’s fall in 1989 can also be seen as the implosion of Soviet hegemony over Central and Eastern Europe.”
What makes one nation a hegemon? The five most common answers are:
“1. Military. The hegemon must singularly have the strongest military in the world and an alliance that is stronger than any bloc of rivals. 2. Economic. The hegemon must have the largest and most technologically advanced economy in the world and trade with almost all nations, including other major powers. 3. Political. The hegemon has a wide range of political allies and influence. 4. Institutional. The hegemon works with its allies and makes most of the rules that govern global political and economic relations. The hegemon, along with its allies, controls most of the international institutions, making their policies favorable to them and their cause. 5. Ideological. Karl Marx wrote, ‘The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class.’ Today, the predominant ideas about globalization and its derivatives are the ideas of hegemon.”
As we see now, the US has all these five characteristics. Any state can choose to be independent or not allied with any big power. However, most nations do fall in line either with the hegemon or its rival powers. In international relations, a strategy to align with the hegemon is called bandwagoning while siding with another power against the hegemon is called balancing. States that oppose the hegemon include the Soviet Union and China in the early Cold War; Germany, Japan and Italy in the 1930s; and Germany and Austria-Hungary in the early 20th century. Communism, fascism and the current anti-globalization movements are examples of movements of resistance against the US as a hegemon.
It has been said that China will soon overtake the US in economic size. There is no doubt about it if the figures are correct. But correct or not, I doubt if it is modern enough so as to overtake the US in technological advancement. In the past three decades or so, China’s economic growth had been based mainly on the utilization of more capital and labor and not so much on technological advancement. Then what about the other four requisites?
Well, what about the Philippines? Where do we go from now? Away from the US militarily and economically as the president announced in Beijing or stick with the US with Trump around? I don’t know but I should know where it is best to be with now, with or without Trump. Personally, I stick with the US.