This article investigates the existing international hierarchy employing expert survey as its primary method. 'Authority hierarchy' and 'power status hierarchy,' the two existing research traditions of hierarchy studies, are briefly introduced. We demonstrate a gap between basic research on power status, emphasizing its social nature, and applied case studies, primarily relying on purely material indicators of a country's capabilities, such as the GDP and CINC. In times of rapid hierarchical shifts, there is a need for a more nuanced and holistic approach. The article suggests placing hierarchy studies onto the ontological foundation of Niklas Luhmann's Differentiation Theory to overcome these problems. We trace the international society's segmentary differentiation, stratificatory differentiation (status hierarchy), and functional differentiation (specialization). The paper argues that the functional roles of states and their positions in the international hierarchy are interconnected. The hierarchy of states' roles, resulting from functional differentiation, is understood in terms of authority hierarchy. In order to lay the ground for further research, three valuable insights of states in the international hierarchy. Firstly, we categorize 26 countries as belonging to one of the power status categories (small power, middle power, great power, superpower) as of autumn 2021 based on the survey results. We calculate indices operationalizing power, roles, public goods provision, and revisionism for the states in the survey. Secondly, the paper presents experts' evaluations of the importance of various valued attributes (such as the size of the economy, military might, international prestige, autonomy, etc.) for different power status categories. Thirdly, we suggest a novel approach linking a country's position in the international hierarchy to its functional roles. We use correlation analysis to test the hypothesis and compare the roles index to other popular power status indicators.
This article examines the shift in the balance of power in Central Asia in the context of the United States' declining global hegemonic power. The authors analyze the hegemonic struggle between China, Russia, and the U.S. in Central Asia and its influence on the middle power formation in this region. The authors argue that although Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have high economic potentials, by certain criteria they have not achieved the status of middle powers yet. "Middlepowermanship dilemma" is formulated to explain why a hegemonic order has not been established in Central Asia and why middle powers have not emerged in the region.
Chinese Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Africa are part of the Belt and Road Initiative. They account for a fledgling research area in International Relations, with not much research on the topic. The authors regard traditional approaches in research of SEZs as incapable of grasping the difference between domestic (designed by the state on its own territory) and foreign (designed by a foreign state) SEZs. The concept of territoriality, though applicable only to foreign SEZs, has little to offer in terms of generating new knowledge. The research paper endeavours to offer new theoretical and conceptual frameworks for the study of foreign SEZs. The research is based on concepts of hegemony by different schools of thought, including Hegemonic Stability Theory, the three types of hegemony by Yan Xuetong and Neo-Gramscianism. The authors introduce the concept of “local hegemony”. The authors also highlight the fact that most foreign SEZs emerge in territories of limited statehood (or create them). In order to prove vitality of the concept, comparative research of China’s SEZs in Mauritius and Zambia is conducted. The authors point out relatively poor institutional development of Zambia and the existence of stable democratic institutions in Mauritius. The success of the Chinese SEZ in Zambia is also partially attributed to copper mining. Deriving from economic and institutional empirical data the authors try to detect success conditions of SEZs and analyze the related spillover effects that contribute to the development of African nations. The reasons behind the failure of the Chinese SEZ in Mauritius are traced. Authors conclude that the concept of local hegemony is suitable for studying foreign SEZs and suggest that zones of local hegemony could be sustainable and effective in terms of development.
The article investigates the impact of the 2022 European security crisis on global hegemony. The author conceptualizes international hegemony as a legitimate rule based on the provision of club and public goods, and on coercion. The more benefits a hegemon's allies get from such international order and the more they fear coercion, the more they are willing to contribute to the hegemonic project. In recent years, the academic literature has increasingly documented the United States' decline as a hegemonic power. In trying to consolidate power and optimize costs, the hegemon has shattered international regimes it helped create, thereby losing much of its international legitimacy. A comparative analysis of the European reaction to the 2014 and 2022 Ukraine crises shows how the perceived "Russian threat" to security has instantly boosted the legitimacy of NATO and the U.S. as the main security provider. As a result, the U.S. no longer faces opposition from its allies to its attempts to dismantle existing international regimes and halt the production of public goods. The threat-RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS 132 European Security Crisis and U.S. Hegemony: Reversing the Decline? induced consolidation effect is not perpetual, and the current crisis entails some long-term negative consequences for future hegemony. However, the U.S. has acquired a chance to use its preponderant capabilities and loyal allies to safeguard its hegemony over the period of international reordering.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.