Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital

Abstract

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

Financialization and Government Borrowing Capacity in Emerging Markets

“…Even Lebanon is participating in an IMF and World Bank pilot programme 'to design relevant reform and capacitybuilding programs' in the domestic debt market (World Bank 2007). Possible explanations for these policy choices include: the ideational (Gill and Law 1989;Helleiner 1994); Sobel's (1994) 'inside-out' analysis of domestic interests; the structural explanation (Andrews 1994); and a 'realist model' (Cohen 1996: 275) which sees the influence of developed world state power on financial globalization, including as directed through the international financial institutions.…”

Financial Hegemony, Diversification Strategies and the Firm Value of Top 30 FTSE Companies in Malaysia

“…The soft power relation within institutional members, such as creating financial innovation, investment security and a conducive business environment; can add to the rising structural power of internationally mobile capital (Gill & Law, 1989;Salehi et al, 2014). At the same time, it creates labor and technology incentive, which in turn, enhance the non-financial value of globally diversified firm.…”

The International Dimensions of the Argentine Default: The Case of the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism

“…Critically, since capital markets are inherently rational, they will enter those countries that demonstrate sound regulatory practices such as balanced budgets, low inflation, market liberalization, and stable exchange rates. According to this line of reasoning, markets act as a disciplinary force, which can punish profligate govemments through investment strikes and capital flight (Gill and Law 1993). It is interesting to note that the inherent rationality of financial participants lies at the base of the SDRM, particularly in its concern of avoiding any moral hazard in future IMF bailouts.…”