JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly. This essay seeks to clarify, develop, and apply concepts of power and hegemony which are often latent within the literature in the field of international political economy. Clarification is vital, both for debate between rival perspectives and for attempts to go beyond them. We see power as having related material and normative, behavioral and structural dimensions. These distinctions are elaborated to help explain aspects of the changing nature of present-day capitalism, with particular reference to aspects of transformation in the 1980s and beyond.Partly building upon Robert Cox's analysis of social forces and world orders, and Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony, we seek to explain some of the conditions under which a more "transnational" regime of accumulation and an associated hegemony of transnational capital might develop. Such a hegemony could never be complete because of counterhegemonic forces and contradictory elements in the internationalization of capital. Some requirements for an alternative counter-hegemonic historic bloc are sketched, with suggestions for a research agenda.In this essay we seek to advance the theorization and interpretation of the dynamics and contours of the emerging global political economy, and to outline an agenda for study in this field. Our perspective differs from and can be read as a critique of classical marxism, world systems theory, public choice, and neo-realist theory.Central to our argument is the distinction between direct and structural forms of power and their place within present-day capitalism. Through developing this contrast, in combination with Gramscian concepts-of hegemony historic bloc and the "extended" state-we seek to meet two major challenges. The first is to better integrate domestic and international levels of analysis. We think that a key to the resolution of this problem has been provided by Cox (1987). His analysis of social forces points to a more comprehensive and flexible approach to the question of

No abstract

No abstract

It has become almost universal practice for countries to adopt formal constitutions. Little is known empirically, however, about the evolution of this practice on a global scale. Are constitutions unique and defining statements of national aspiration and identity? Or are they standardized documents that vary only at the margins, in predictable and patterned ways? Are constitutions becoming increasingly similar or dissimilar over time, or is there no discernible overall pattern to their development? Until very recently, scholars have lacked even basic empirical data on the content of the world's