The hegemonic stability theory is one that has often been offered as an explanation behind the successful cooperation that occurs within an international system. By having one single and dominant actor, international politics is able to provide a desirable outcome for everyone that is involved within that international system.
This means the reverse side of this theory is that an absence of such a dominant actor would create an undesirable outcome for everyone involved in the international system. It would create a hegemon that is associated with disorder instead.
The limits of hegemonic stability theory are because it is limited to very special and specific conditions. It only becomes a valid theory based on the following.
- The extent to which a hypothesis regarding public goods or consumption is able to explain issues that are being seen within the realm of international politics.
- The extent to how much a specific assumption happens to be true in regards to the actions, taken as a collective, within an international system and its level of impossibility when there isn’t a dominant actor.
Because of these limits, the hegemonic stability theory can only be an empirical truth if the following factors are present.
- The dominant actor is able to provide a greater level of stability within the international system with their presence.
- The stability that is achieved by the dominant actor is able to benefit everyone within the international system. It may even need to benefit the smaller states in an international system more than the larger states.
To overcome the natural limits of hegemonic stability theory, it becomes necessary to look at specific influences that may affect the limits and truths that can be achieved. This means dynamic processes must be included in their entirety while there is clarification offered in terms of size. There must also be a clear role for the hegemonic power being offered, which can either be coercive or benevolent in nature.
Then there must be a definition of those contrasts based on whether the hegemonic structures are centralized or decentralized.
What Does It Take to Become a Hegemon?
For a dominant actor within an international system to be defined as a hegemon, it must have three specific attributes.
- It must be able to enforce the rules. Whatever system becomes developed for the international system must be able to be enforced by the single dominant actor. This would mean if the world would sign a peace treaty, it would be up to the hegemon to enforce its application.
- It must have the will to enforce the rules. If the hegemon does not want to enforce the rules, then by definition, it limits the hegemonic stability theory. The dominant actor must enforce the rules for them to be beneficial to all in an equalized way.
- It must be committed to the system. A hegemon cannot only be involved to further its own best interests or the interests of their allies. It must be committed to a system which is mutually beneficial to all states.
In order to have these specific attributes, a hegemon must be able to demonstrate it has the capability attributes that will be required for the successful implementation of this theory. This includes having an economy that is large and continues to grow. It must be able to prove dominance within a major economic or technological sector. There must also be political powers in place that are protected by a military power.
Once these attributes are in place, the dominant actor is able to create a system that works toward the collective good of all. The only problem is that the international system wants to put in the least amount of work as possible to gather the benefits that are being produced by the hegemon. This means the dominant actor must continue to convince (or coerce) all other parties involved within the international system to participate as needed.
What Is a Current Example of the Hegemonic Stability Theory?
There can be many forms of the hegemonic stability theory operating simultaneously and independently of one another. In a modern example of two hegemons, the US qualifies in terms of government structure and societal emphasis, while China qualifies in terms of trade and manufacturing.
Why is the US a hegemon? The United States attempts to produce capitalism and democracy throughout the world today. Through this effort, the overall goal is to promote human rights. The idea of capitalism is that an individual can work to achieve their own goals instead of being forced to achieve the goals of the government. In order to enforce these ideas, the US is backed by a military force that will help smaller countries enforce the same ideas for their governmental and societal structures.
Why is China a hegemon? China qualifies as a hegemon for trade and manufacturing because the benefit to the rest of the world is affordable goods. By focusing on import/export, China is able to side-step the US role as a hegemon and avoid the enforcement of democracy and capitalism within their own borders. Because the US utilizes the manufacturing and trade that is available, they concede that the benefits being provided are better than the benefits of attempting to create a certain society within Chinese culture.
In all practical purposes, the US must continue to remain committed to democracy and capitalism. They must do so even if other countries put up barriers to such a system. Putting up barriers is simply a way for that group to remove themselves from the international system. If the US were to put up barriers, it would collapse as a hegemon.
China is in a similar situation. If they were to stop being committed to open manufacturing and trade, then their role as an economic hegemon would collapse. Even if other countries were to impose tariffs or import restrictions on Chinese goods, the hegemon would collapse if China were to do the same thing as part of the first steps of access to the trade and manufacturing systems.
What Happens When Technologies Change in the Hegemonic Stability Theory?
As time goes by, there will be different states or groups that are able to achieve a better product, service, or idea than the one that is being offered by the hegemon. When growth becomes uneven because power within the international system shifts due to new practices, methods, or technologies that are produced outside the influence of the dominant actor, then this creates limits on the ability of the hegemonic stability theory to operate properly.
Once the system becomes unstable, it will begin to erode the hierarchy that was developed around the actions and decisions that were offered by the hegemon. Once the position of the dominant actor is undermined, other actors, referred to as “pretenders,” will begin to emerge.
Pretenders appear when the benefits of the current system being enforced become perceptively unfair to those who are participating within the system. Once this occurs, the hegemon has two options.
- They can attempt to re-establish their dominance by showing the international system that the pretenders do not meet the qualifications of a hegemon as effectively as they have in the past as the dominant actor.
- They can cede the hegemon role to the pretender, assuming that the pretender has the ability to meet all of the qualifications to enforce the hegemonic stability theory.
Hegemons have been present throughout human history, from Portugal dominating colonialism because of their superior methods of navigation, to Britain dominating for nearly 300 years because of their textiles, their naval fleet, and their development of initial industrial supremacy. At some point, other participants are able to innovate and become a potential pretender, which causes the dominance to go away.
And this is what limits hegemonic stability theory at its core. Because a dominant actor cannot fully control the actions and activities of every individual within participating states in the international system, there will always be a chance that a better idea, system, or role can be developed to replace the current hegemon.
Do We Need a Hegemon to Be Successful in the Modern World?
Hegemons certainly play a role in society. This doesn’t mean that a hegemon is always present in society. Although a hegemon will typically emerge in some way, there are periods of transition where a true hegemon may not be present. Once such period of time was between the start of World War I to the end of World War II. As the world fought over moral, societal, and foundational issues, it reshaped itself.
After both world wars, international organizations were formed to help limit what a hegemon could potentially do for the international system as well. Both the UN and the League of Nations served as a check and balance for potential hegemons.
So do we need a hegemon? No – and that limits hegemonic stability theory. Yet with a hegemon, the world can be more stable, productive, and happy, which means the argument to support this theory will also be ever-present.