The limits of hegemonic stability theory

Abstract

Hegemonic stability theory has been advanced as an explanation of successful cooperation in the international system. The basis of this “hegemonic cooperation” is the leadership of the hegemonic state; its appeal rests on attractive implications about distribution. However, two distinct strands of the theory (“coercive” and “benevolent”) must be distinguished. These strands have different conceptions of hegemony and the role of hegemonic leaders and so have different implications. Both require us to assume that the underlying international issues are public goods and that the international system does not allow for collective action. The former assumption limits the theory's range of application while the likely failure of the latter means that the theory may be wrong even within this more limited range. Simple formal models demonstrate a conclusion completely at odds with hegemonic stability theory: the decline of a hegemonic power may actually lead to an outcome both collectively superior and distributively preferable than when the hegemon was at the apogee of its power. Thus hegemonic stability is, in fact, only a special case of international cooperation. Understanding cooperation in general requires less restrictive assumptions.

Global Unions as imperfect multilateral organizations: An international relations perspective

“…Multilateral organizations in international relations are 'typically supported by a minilateral cooperation amongst the Atlantic powers' (Kahler, 1992); such small-group collaboration increases the effectiveness and intensity of common action within larger membership groups. K-groups (Snidal, 1985) are subgroups which are small enough for the benefits of cooperation among their members to outweigh the costs, and whose collective action enables agreement on policy and practice.…”

The Political Economy of Bilateralism and Multilateralism: Institutional Choice in International Trade and Taxation

“…However, there is the implicit notion that if cooperation can be established, it will be multilateral. 25 If it is the goal to explain if cooperation comes about, studying cooperation on excludable goods is certainly less interesting (Barkin 2004 25 According to the k-group approach a public good can be provided by any subset k of all actors, depending on the benefits actors receive from providing the public good independently of the action of other actors (Snidal 1985b). …”

Reframing for Sustainability: Exploring Transformative Power of Benefit Sharing

“…Analysts usually argue that power, interests, and ideas or combination thereof can influence framing of the problem in environmental regimes (e.g., [61]). While political, economic, and military potential of states is associated with the power aspect [63,64], the interests-based approach focuses on incentives to cooperate [65,66]. The epistemic communities such as academia, think tanks, but also nongovernmental organizations (especially when existing sharing is not equitable), and development agencies might help bring the issue to the table by initiating talks, proposing innovative solutions, calculating options, publishing articles with models, acting as watchdogs, and reporting best practices (e.g., [67]).…”