Hegemony da ddi 2010 1 Hegemony Generic



Download 1.23 Mb.
Page2/31
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size1.23 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   31

The US has comprehensive dominance in all material measurements.

G. John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno and William C. Wohlforth, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, professor of government and associate dean for social sciences at Dartmouth College, and professor of government at Dartmouth College, 2009, World Politics, “Unipolarity, State Behavior, and Systemic Consequences,” accessed via Project MUSE cp



American primacy in the global distribution of capabilities is one of the most salient features of the contemporary international system. The end of the cold war did not return the world to multipolarity. Instead the United States—already materially preeminent—became more so. We currently live in a one superpower world, a circumstance unprecedented in the modern era. No other great power has enjoyed such advantages in material capabilities—military, economic, technological, and geographical. Other states rival the United States in one area or another, but the multifaceted character of American power places it in a category of its own. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire, slower economic growth in Japan and Western Europe during the 1990s, and America’s outsized military spending have all enhanced these disparities. While in most historical eras the distribution of capabilities among major states has tended to be multipolar or bipolar—with several major states of roughly equal size and capability—the United States emerged from the 1990s as an unrivaled global power. It became a “unipolar” state.

Primacy Now – Comprehensive Dominance
Statistics prove—the US is way ahead of the rest of the world.

G. John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno and William C. Wohlforth, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, professor of government and associate dean for social sciences at Dartmouth College, and professor of government at Dartmouth College, 2009, World Politics, “Unipolarity, State Behavior, and Systemic Consequences,” accessed via Project MUSE cp

There will doubtless be times in which polarity cannot be determined, but now does not appear to be one of them. Scholars largely agree that there were four or more states that qualified as poles before 1945; that by 1950 or so only two measured up; and that by the 1990s one of these two poles was gone. They largely agree, further, that no other power—not Japan, China, India, or Russia, not any European country and not the EU—has increased its overall portfolio of capabilities sufficiently to transform its standing.11 This leaves a single pole.

There is widespread agreement, moreover, that any plausible index aggregating the relevant dimensions of state capabilities would place the United States in a separate class by a large margin.12 The most widely used measures of capability are gdp and military spending. As of 2006 the United States accounted for roughly one-quarter of global gdp and nearly 50 percent of gdp among the conventionally defined great powers (see Table 1). This surpasses the relative economic size of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of the United States itself in the early cold war years, when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy. By virtue of the size and wealth of the United States economy, its massive military capabilities represented only about 4 percent of its gdp in 2006 (Table 2), compared with the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the cold war—1950–70—as well as with the burdens borne by most of the major powers of the past.13



The United States now likely spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined (Table 2). Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investments that now give the United States its dramatic qualitative edge over other states. As Table 2 shows, in 2004 U.S. military expenditures on R&D were more than six times greater than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half of the military R&D expenditures in the world are American, a disparity that has been sustained for decades: over the past thirty years, for example, the United States invested more than three times what the EU countries combined invested in military R&D. Hence, on any composite index featuring these two indicators the United States obviously looks like a unipole. That perception is reinforced by a snapshot of science and technology indicators for the major powers (see Table 3).

These vast commitments do not make the United States omnipotent, but they do facilitate a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all other major powers that is unique in the post-seventeenth-century experience. While other powers can contest U.S. forces operating in or very near their homelands, especially over issues that involve credible nuclear deterrence, the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally.14 This dominant position is enabled by what Barry Posen calls “command of the commons”—that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. The result is an international system that contains only one state with the capability to organize major politico-military action anywhere in the system.15 No other state or even combination of states is capable of mounting and deploying a major expeditionary force outside its own region, except with the assistance of the United States.

Conventional measures thus suggest that the concentration of military and overall economic potential in the United States distinguishes the current international system from its predecessors over the past four centuries (see Figure 1). As historian Paul Kennedy observed: “Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing, . . . I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.”16

The bottom line is that if we adopt conventional definitions of polarity and standard measures of capabilities, then the current international system is as unambiguously unipolar as past systems were multipolar and bipolar.

Hegemony Sustainable


US has massive demographic advantages—other countries have aging populations.

Fareed Zakaria, Ph.D. from Harvard University, honorary degrees from Brown, the University of Miami, and Oberlin College, Trustee of Yale University, 2008, Foreign Affairs, “The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63394/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power?page=show cp

But Europe has one crucial disadvantage. Or, to put it more accurately, the United States has one crucial advantage over Europe and most of the developed world. The United States is demographically vibrant. Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, estimates that the U.S. population will increase by 65 million by 2030, whereas Europe's population will remain "virtually stagnant." Europe, Eberstadt notes, "will by that time have more than twice as many seniors older than 65 than children under 15, with drastic implications for future aging. (Fewer children now means fewer workers later.) In the United States, by contrast, children will continue to outnumber the elderly. The United Nations Population Division estimates that the ratio of working-age people to senior citizens in western Europe will drop from 3.8:1 today to just 2.4:1 in 2030. In the U.S., the figure will fall from 5.4:1 to 3.1:1."

The only real way to avert this demographic decline is for Europe to take in more immigrants. Native Europeans actually stopped replacing themselves as early as 2007, and so even maintaining the current population will require modest immigration. Growth will require much more. But European societies do not seem able to take in and assimilate people from strange and unfamiliar cultures, especially from rural and backward regions in the world of Islam. The question of who is at fault here -- the immigrant or the society -- is irrelevant. The reality is that Europe is moving toward taking in fewer immigrants at a time when its economic future rides on its ability to take in many more. The United States, on the other hand, is creating the first universal nation, made up of all colors, races, and creeds, living and working together in considerable harmony. Consider the current presidential election, in which the contestants have included a black man, a woman, a Mormon, a Hispanic, and an Italian American.

Surprisingly, many Asian countries (with India an exception) are in demographic situations similar to or even worse than Europe's. The fertility rates in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, and estimates indicate that the major East Asian nations will face a sizable reduction in their working-age populations over the next half century. The working-age population in Japan has already peaked; by 2010, Japan will have three million fewer workers than it did in 2005. The worker populations in China and South Korea are also likely to peak within the next decade. Goldman Sachs predicts that China's median age will rise from 33 in 2005 to 45 in 2050, a remarkable graying of the population. And Asian countries have as much trouble with immigrants as European countries do. Japan faces a large prospective worker shortage because it can neither take in enough immigrants nor allow its women to fully participate in the labor force.



The effects of an aging population are considerable. First, there is the pension burden -- fewer workers supporting more gray-haired elders. Second, as the economist Benjamin Jones has shown, most innovative inventors -- and the overwhelming majority of Nobel laureates -- do their most important work between the ages of 30 and 44. A smaller working-age population, in other words, means fewer technological, scientific, and managerial advances. Third, as workers age, they go from being net savers to being net spenders, with dire ramifications for national savings and investment rates. For advanced industrialized countries, bad demographics are a killer disease.
Hegemony Sustainable
Hegemony sustainable

Robert Kagan (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund) 1/15/06 “ Still the Colossus” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301696.html



The much-anticipated global effort to balance against American hegemony -- which the realists have been anticipating for more than 15 years now -- has simply not occurred. On the contrary, in Europe the idea has all but vanished. European Union defense budgets continue their steady decline, and even the project of creating a common foreign and defense policy has slowed if not stalled. Both trends are primarily the result of internal European politics. But if they really feared American power, Europeans would be taking more urgent steps to strengthen the European Union's hand to check it. Nor are Europeans refusing to cooperate, even with an administration they allegedly despise. Western Europe will not be a strategic partner as it was during the Cold War, because Western Europeans no longer feel threatened and therefore do not seek American protection. Nevertheless, the current trend is toward closer cooperation. Germany's new government, while still dissenting from U.S. policy in Iraq, is working hard and ostentatiously to improve relations. It is bending over backward to show support for the mission in Afghanistan, most notably by continuing to supply a small but, in German terms, meaningful number of troops. It even trumpets its willingness to train Iraqi soldiers. Chancellor Angela Merkel promises to work closely with Washington on the question of the China arms embargo, indicating agreement with the American view that China is a potential strategic concern. For Eastern and Central Europe, the growing threat is Russia, not America, and the big question remains what it was in the 1990s: Who will be invited to join NATO? In East Asia, meanwhile, U.S. relations with Japan grow ever closer as the Japanese become increasingly concerned about China and a nuclear-armed North Korea. China's (and Malaysia's) attempt to exclude Australia from a prominent regional role at the recent East Asian summit has reinforced Sydney's desire for closer ties. Only in South Korea does hostility to the United States remain high. This is mostly the product of the new democracy's understandable historical resentments and desire for greater independence. But even so, when I attended a conference in Seoul recently, the question posed to my panel by the South Korean organizers was: "How will the United States solve the problem of North Korea's nuclear weapons?" The truth is, America retains enormous advantages in the international arena. Its liberal, democratic ideology remains appealing in a world that is more democratic than ever. Its potent economy remains the driving wheel of the international economy. Compared with these powerful forces, the unpopularity of recent actions will prove ephemeral, just as it did after the nadir of American Cold War popularity in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There are also structural reasons why American indispensability can survive even the unpopularity of recent years. The political scientist William Wohlforth argued a decade ago that the American unipolar era is durable not because of any love for the United States but because of the basic structure of the international system. The problem for any nation attempting to balance American power, even in that power's own region, is that long before it becomes strong enough to balance the United States, it may frighten its neighbors into balancing against it. Europe would be the exception to this rule were it increasing its power, but it is not. Both Russia and China face this problem as they attempt to exert greater influence even in their traditional spheres of influence. It remains the case, too, that in many crises and potential crises around the world, local actors and traditional allies still look primarily to Washington for solutions, not to Beijing, Moscow or even Brussels. The United States is the key player in the Taiwan Strait. It would be the chief intermediary between India and Pakistan in any crisis. As for Iran, everyone on both sides of the Atlantic knows that, for all the efforts of British, French and German negotiators, any diplomatic or military resolution will ultimately depend on Washington. Even in the Middle East, where hostility to the United States is highest, American influence remains remarkably high. Most still regard the United States as the indispensable player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Bush administration's push for democracy, though erratic and inconsistent, has unmistakably affected the course of events in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon -- never mind Iraq. Contrary to predictions at the time of the Iraq war, Arab hostility has not made it impossible for both leaders and their political opponents to cooperate with the United States.

Hegemony Sustainable – Economics


The US is conclusively ahead economically.

Fareed Zakaria, Ph.D. from Harvard University, honorary degrees from Brown, the University of Miami, and Oberlin College, Trustee of Yale University, 2008, Foreign Affairs, “The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63394/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power?page=show cp

In trying to understand how the United States will fare in the new world, the first thing to do is simply look around: the future is already here. Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More countries are making goods, communications technology has been leveling the playing field, capital has been free to move across the world -- and the United States has benefited massively from these trends. Its economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, U.S. exports have held ground, and the World Economic Forum currently ranks the United States as the world's most competitive economy. GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged just over three percent in the United States for 25 years, significantly higher than in Europe or Japan. Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, a full percentage point higher than the European average. This superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps U.S. growth will be more typical for an advanced industrialized country for the next few years. But the general point -- that the United States is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous size -- holds.
Specifically, the US dominates in emerging technologies.

Fareed Zakaria, Ph.D. from Harvard University, honorary degrees from Brown, the University of Miami, and Oberlin College, Trustee of Yale University, 2008, Foreign Affairs, “The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63394/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power?page=show cp



Consider the industries of the future. Nanotechnology (applied science dealing with the control of matter at the atomic or molecular scale) is likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next 50 years, and the United States dominates the field. It has more dedicated "nanocenters" than the next three nations (Germany, Britain, and China) combined and has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the rest of the world combined, highlighting its unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical products. Biotechnology (a broad category that describes the use of biological systems to create medical, agricultural, and industrial products) is also dominated by the United States. Biotech revenues in the United States approached $50 billion in 2005, five times as large as the amount in Europe and representing 76 percent of global biotech revenues.
Heg Sustainable (Economic dominance)
No one will surpass the U.S.

Carla Norrlof ( Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto) 2010 “ America’s Global Advantage US Hegemony and International Cooperation” Cambridge University Press http://magbooks.org/post-9334/americas-global-advantage-us-hegemony-and-international-cooperation


One notices three things. First, the United States has consistently had the highest share of GDP. Second, its share of GDP has been declining, although not steadily, since shares actually increased between 1977 and 1983 and then again between 1995 and 2001. Third, while countries like Japan and China have improved their relative position, in terms of GDP shares, vis-à-vis the United States, they only command a third of the United States’ share. Consequently, there is no single competitor around to oust the United States from its number one position. The only existing challenger in this domain is the euro area, and a whole chapter is dedicated to analyzing the prospects for euro-zone countries to replace American hegemony. The next size measure, world trade shares, is on display in tables 2.3 and 2.4. As can be seen in table 2.3, the United States was clearly the largest exporter in 1965 but was only the third largest exporter in 2008 behind Germany and China. From table 2.4, we see, however, that the United States has maintained its lead as the world’s largest importer. These statistics get to the heart of the argument in this book, which is that commanding large import shares is more relevant for hegemonic status than commanding large export shares. As I will also argue in chapters 4 and 5, importing more than one exports, i.e., sustaining trade deficits, is desirable as long as negative consequences in the form of an unmanageable buildup in external liabilities can be avoided. In gauging the relative size of the United States’ capital market, I use the selected indicators from which the IMF derives capital market size. Table 2.5 takes into account a country’s stock-market capitalization, its bond market, and its bank assets, which are all added up to arrive at a single measure for capital market size. As can be gleaned from the table, the United States has a stronger lead in equities and bonds than in bank assets. I will return to this observation in chapter 7, in talking about the financial crisis and in thinking about how it will affect the pattern of financial power. From table 2.5 it is also clear that, in 2008, the size of America’s closest rival, Japan’s, capital market, was significantly lower than what it was in 1995 (see columns 10 and 12). These figures suggest that no single country can challenge the United States’ dominance in the financial field, although, as with world trade shares, we need to consider to what extent the group of countries that now constitutes the euro area is a threat to American hegemony (see chapter 7).
Hegemony Sustainable – A2: Dollar Heg
The dollar will remain the global currency-multiple reasons
Carla Norrlof ( Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto) 2010 “ America’s Global Advantage US Hegemony and International Cooperation” Cambridge University Press http://magbooks.org/post-9334/americas-global-advantage-us-hegemony-and-international-cooperation
Acquiring key currency status is often seen as harder than holding on to it, however, because factors like inertia, scale economies, and network externalities contribute to the incumbent’s resilience. 3 The incumbency advantage is particularly strong in areas where gains can be made from reducing information costs as in foreign exchange trading where the dollar is predominantly used, whereas it is less strong in areas where gains can be made from spreading risk as in portfolio optimization. 4 The dollar persists because investors are risk averse (inertia), because transaction costs are lower for the dollar (scale economies), and because the more the dollar is used the more it makes sense for additional investors to use it (network externalities). The liquidity of the dollar – the ease with which it can be exchanged for goods, services, and assets in any part of the world – creates a bias to continue using it for commercial and financial transactions. Barriers to switching from one key currency to another exist because, for the most part, investors prefer to use whatever they have used in the past. These self-reinforcing advantages will tend to favour the international currency in use, in this case the dollar. Despite these incumbency advantages, there is clearly some point at which the euro could start to seem more attractive than the dollar.

AT: Growing International Markets


The US is still comparatively ahead of emerging markets—they copy the US and play catch up.

Fareed Zakaria, Ph.D. from Harvard University, honorary degrees from Brown, the University of Miami, and Oberlin College, Trustee of Yale University, 2008, Foreign Affairs, “The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63394/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power?page=show cp



In 2005, New York City got a wake-up call. Twenty-four of the world's 25 largest initial public offerings that year were held in countries other than the United States. This was stunning. The United States' capital markets have long been the biggest in the world. They financed the turnaround in manufacturing in the 1980s and the technology revolution of the 1990s, and they are today financing the ongoing advances in bioscience. It is the fluidity of these markets that has kept American business nimble. If the United States is losing this distinctive advantage, it is very bad news.

Much of the discussion around the problem has focused on the United States' regulation, particularly post-Enron laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley, and the constant threat of litigation that hovers over businesses in the United States. These obstacles are there, but they do not really get at what has shifted business abroad. The United States is conducting business as usual. But others are joining in the game. What is really happening here, as in other areas, is simple: the rise of the rest. The United States' sum total of stocks, bonds, deposits, loans, and other financial instruments -- its financial stock, in other words -- still exceeds that of any other region, but other regions are seeing their financial stock grow much more quickly. This is especially true of the rising countries of Asia, but even the eurozone is outpacing the United States. Europe's total banking and trading revenues, $98 billion in 2005, have nearly pulled equal to the United States' revenues. And when it comes to new derivatives based on underlying financial instruments such as stocks or interest-rate payments, which are increasingly important for hedge funds, banks, and insurers, London is the dominant player already. This is all part of a broader trend. Countries and companies now have options that they never had before.

In this and other regards, the United States is not doing worse than usual. It functions as it always has -- perhaps subconsciously assuming that it is still leagues ahead of the pack. U.S. legislators rarely think about the rest of the world when writing laws, regulations, and policies. U.S. officials rarely refer to global standards. After all, for so long the United States was the global standard, and when it chose to do something different, it was important enough that the rest of the world would cater to its exceptionality. The United States is the only country in the world other than Liberia and Myanmar that is not on the metric system. Other than Somalia, it is alone in not ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In business, the United States did not need to benchmark. It was the one teaching the world how to be capitalist. But now everyone is playing the United States' game, and playing to win.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   31


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page