Talk:Hegemonic stability theory

Untitled
Hegemonic stability theory says that the United States created a hegemony after 1945. The United States was a superpower but the existence of a rival superpower means that they were not hegemon. It became one after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Awis 04:25 18 July (UTC)

Criticisms of HST
To announce that "lastly, hegemons do not last very long due to internal decline, external decline and sometimes due to the shift of power within a state" is a highly contentious issue and is framed in a way that makes this seem like empirical fact as opposed to a potential point of contention. Before my point is reviled by followers of Paul Kennedy, there is a strong case for American exceptionism, which while I'm not suggesting facile statements such as we have reached the end of history, I would contend that American hegemony should not assessed by an eighteenth century paradigm on the sources and notions of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.127.114 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Awis is incorrect
The prior statement by Awis is incorrect. Awis cites that the Soviet Union was a rival superpower in existence with the U.S prior to the Soviet collapse. While it is true that the USSR was indeed a rival superpower, a key proponent to Hegemonic Stability Theory is that the dominant power must be committed to an open, liberal world economy based on nondiscrimination and free markets. The USSR although a dominant power, was not committed to free market economy. Therefore, the United States did indeed become a hegemon upon the establishment of the Bretton Woods international trade system that promoted the reduction of trade barriers, as well as the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency.(International Organizations, Karns & Minsk, pp. 48-49)--Rkanakas 06:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC= Hegemonic stability and macrosociology
I would like readers' views on expanding this article with a feature on Historical Macrosociology. I refer to both Comparative and Historical Sociology (Charles Tilly), and to Political Economy of World-Systems (Immanuel Wallerstein and Giovanni Arrighi) sections of the American Sociological Association. The rationale would be to place Hegemony, and factors of destabilisation, in the context of hegemonic cycles and of the role of nation states. --Henri (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that you would like to see a section on historical macrosociology added to this article, or that you think that there should be a new article Historical Macrosociology? In either case, your best next step would be to state the sources that you think make the connections. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant the former. This is on the basis, in particular, that world-system analysis has contributed a lot to the subject of hegemonies' impermanence. My sources range from Fernand Braudel to Giovanni Arrighi, but also Franz Schurmann (The logic of world power) and Thomas McCormick (America's Half-century). On the specific contribution of Historical macrosociology see Giovanni Arrighi's article  Globalisation and historical macrosociology in Sociology for the twenty-first century, continuities and cutting edges, Chicago University press 2000, pp117-133. --Henri (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm stil not clear whether you have a source that links the work of these authors specifically to Hegemonic Stability Theory as opposed to hegemony generally. Itsmejudith 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're correct. I should have quoted, for example, Thomas J.McCormick: "Hegemony is always impermanent, as Great Britain discovered and the United States is discovering. Indeed, hegemony undermines the very economic supremacy upon which it necessarily must rest." (, p6). Also: "Like hegemonic theory, world-system analysis emphasises the issue of systemic stability (my emphasis). Both focus on the key question of what accounts for the rise and fall of great powers (especially hegemonic powers) and for the fluctuations between unicentric hegemony and polycentric balance of power."( , preface p xvii). --Henri 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Section: "Is the United States of America still a hegemon?"
Here, I've added an unreferenced section hatnote to this section. I've also removed a paragraph reading as follows: "One form of power that the U.S. possess is structural power. After the Exxon Valdez accident, the US passed a domestic law commanding any oil delivery ship to have unlimited liability insurance. Even though most oil shipping companies are located overseas, they nevertheless complied with the law because the US is world's largest market for oil. This non coercive or attractive form of power is key to Keohane and Nye's concept of Soft Power."

from that section and moved it here for discussion. I'm no expert here, but I'm doubtful that the characterization of U.S. law here as "commanding any oil delivery ship to have unlimited liability insurance" is accurate. Perhaps the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 article ought to be mentioned and wikilinked. Possibly some content might be drawn from this source, and that source might be cited in support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hegemonic stability theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021214000422/http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/Teaching/Hegemonic%20Stability%20Theory.htm to http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/Teaching/Hegemonic%20Stability%20Theory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New source, admissible ?
Hi folks,

I think some of this might be relevant for the article, although I'm not sure the source is admissible. MonsieurD (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Competing theories of hegemonic stability
Perhaps the classification on schools is better cancel. It comes from IR classrooms but it is terrible when applied to particular subjects like HST. The mainstream of Realism and all its sub-schools outright deny even theoretical possibility of HST (all works by Waltz and Layne). The chapter on Neo-Realist school cites Mearsheimer who disagrees with himself. Sometimes he gives the US global hegemony, sometimes he makes global hegemony impossible due to the stopping power of water. Ikenberry, cited in the chapter as neo-liberal, is structuralist (international institutions). Suggestion: Citing only what each scholar argued individually and avoiding classification on schools.--Maxaxa (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)