After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy

In "After Hegemony" (1984/2005), Robert Keohane provides an enduring study of political economy, which he frames as the interactions between pursuits of power and pursuits of wealth. His book is a product of its time, written on the verge of perestroika in the Soviet Union and at a point in which scholars were questioning American's role in global leadership and its related position that dominated international institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the global energy market after the Second World War. Could American hegemony prevail in the free world? How would that dynamic change after the end of the Cold War?Keohane tackled the first question by analyzing historical patterns leading to the international situation, while employing a light touch of empirical exposition to keep the book digestible not just for scholars and students, but also for the interested public. The second question was unthinkable at the time of publication, a fact he acknowledged in the preface of the 2005 edition to the text. Other influential political scientists made similar notes in later editions of their seminal works, including Samuel Huntington's "The Soldier and the State" (1957/1981), Kenneth Walt'z "Man, the State, and War" (1959/2001) and Edward Luttwak's "Coup d'État" (1968/2016).In the preface to his 2005 edition, Keohane notes the influence of the changing times upon the shape of the arguments his book seeks to present. However, he notes that the basic foundations of these arguments remain relevant. This is especially true as the United States managed to carve out a new form of hegemony for itself somewhere between the uncertain unipolar period after the Cold War's end and the beginning of the Global War on Terror that would set new structures of power dynamics in motion.Keohane's basic outline of the interaction between individual financial interests and state-level power consolidation endures. He leaves it to the next generation to answer how the American power dynamic will change.

This book makes a persuasive case for continuing to invest in American liberal order institutions such as the IMF and the WTO, even though the world has become multilateral. Strategic cooperation continues to be reward reaped by those willing to abide by the political and monetary regimes that benefit advanced industrial nations. The alternative is anarchy and Leonard argues for a mix of realism and rational egoism. I heard Kissinger's voice in this neo-Realpolitik understanding of where opportunity lies in this populist raging, protectionist leaning broken world. Coercive cooperation might still be the answer.

Hegemony is a popular buzz word in international politics these days. Talking heads throw it around every Sunday morning. So one might expect a book entitled After Hegemony to be discussion on American foreign policy "after hegemony." In this case - Wrong! This is a nearly 20 year old book with a title that is currently a trendy topic. And it deals with political economy and "regime" formation, such as international monetary regime, international trade regime, and international oil regime, how these regimes were founded during the time period the author considers the time of US economic (and military) hegemony (the 1950's and 60's) and how they evolved during the years after US hegemony had passed according to the author.For students and academics who are interested in the political and economic theory of how organizations are created and evolve, how "rational actors" (governments) behave on the macro scale, how preponderance of power allows a nation to create regimes (that is rules sets) that favor its policies, how these regimes become self-perpetuating, this is the book. It is an academic analysis of the subjects.If you are looking for something relating to the oft discussed current "American Hegemony" and its likely impact on US and world relations, this is not the book. Look on.

Excellent book, still useful to understand world politics after all this time. The new preface by the author presents brilliantly the major shortcomings of the theory as well as the unresolved questions and directions for research.

After HegemonyCooperation and Discord in the World Political EconomyRobert O. KeohanePrinceton, New JerseyPrinceton University Press1984290 pagesWinner of the 1989 Grawemeyer Awards for Ideas Improving World Order, Keohane’s After Hegemony explores the idea that cooperation can exist in the world after the decline of hegemony. His main line of inquiry concerns why we continue to observe increasing cooperation despite the decrease in hegemonic power. He suggests that this is possible due to the continued existence of international regimes. Split into four main parts, this book profits a theory which is an alternative to that of Realist Hegemonic Theory and in order to contextualise his points, Keohane uses the example of the United States (US) as a hegemon in the period directly after World War II. His theories are explored from a systematic level (Keohane:26:1984), and from a realist perspective as regards the working of the states. In general Keohane believes that states cooperate for two reasons. Firstly they desire the same outcome and secondly they are essentially being forced to by a hegemon. With the apparent decline of the latter, Keohane aims to discover whether the former is sufficient enough reason on its own.As stated above Keohane’s main point throughout is that “non hegemonic cooperation is possible, and that it can be facilitated by international regimes”. (Keohane:49:1984) By ‘cooperation’ he means cooperation between states which is defined as “mutual adjustment” (Keohane:12:1984). He defines international regimes, or institutions, as they are sometimes referred to, as a set of “implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures.” (Keohane:57:1984)In believing that non hegemonic cooperation is possible, Keohane directly refutes Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) which states that, “the clearer and larger the concentration of power in the leading state, the more peaceful the international order associated with it will be.” (Wohlforth:385:1999) Keohane argues that this theory is not only outdated, but that it also “makes imperfect predictions.”(Keohane: 34:1984) He is again critical when he suggests that HST is not valid or fit for purpose. The fact that “the theory of hegemonic stability is supported by only one or at most two cases casts doubt on its general validity.” (Keohane:37:1984) He believes that the theory neither carries enough weight nor has sufficient kudos to be used to qualify the way the international system works.In chapter three however, Keohane states that “there is some validity in a modest version of the first proposition of the theory of hegemonic stability - that hegemony can facilitate a certain type of cooperation - but there is little reason to believe that hegemony is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for the emergence of cooperative relationships.” (Keohane:311984) In this instance he is perhaps crediting the hegemon for creating and fostering cooperation but does not deem it fundamental or indeed necessary to maintain it.Just as a hegemon has the ability to regulate in order to maintain cooperation, so too have international regimes. Similar incentives previously used by a hegemon such as coercion/rewards and punishments may be utilised by states via international regimes. Keohane also stressed the importance of a state’s reputation, as the manner in which a state acted in the past may have implications on future dealings. Cooperation and good reputations may also foster and facilitate the creation of new regimes in the future, thus perpetuating cooperation. In facilitating cooperation, regimes also reduce uncertainty and transaction costs and solve the problem of asymmetric information. In short, “we derive a need for international regimes.” (Keohane:88:1984)It should also be noted however that it is Keohane’s belief that a hegemonic power may be required initially in order to set up these international regimes. It may then be the case that without an initial hegemon this cooperation would not be possible, however in Keohane’s view, the continuation of state cooperation is nonetheless affected.To summarise Keohane believes that not only can cooperation between states exist after hegemony, but that they cooperate far more than they compete. This cooperation is facilitated by international regimes which are maintained because they benefit the state’s self-interest.Having summarised Keohane’s views, I will now conclude this review with my own thoughts. Whilst the period of hegemony discussed in the book relates to the fifteen to twenty years or so following World War II, the US of today, in my opinion, is still very much considered a hegemonic power. Whilst it can be argued that China and, to a lesser extent, considering the difficulties of interstate cooperation, the European Union pose a threat to the US’s hegemonic status, both are still a long way from being legitimate or convincing challengers. Despite its rapid growth over the past four decades, having the world’s second largest economy and a military spend second only to that of the US, China still lags far behind in comparative terms. Furthermore, even if China became a credible challenger for hegemonic status, the US would more than likely subsist as a regional hegemon. Similarly, I would argue that other countries still very much depend upon the US in order to get things done. For this reason it may take some time to determine whether or not Keohane is right. Whilst Keohane admits that much has happened since he wrote this book, it is my view that not enough has occurred to wholly accept his assumptions as accurate.It is interesting to note that this book makes little mention of domestic politics and the importance of same. However considering its nature, it is understandable and perhaps even an intentional omission. Nevertheless, given that domestic politics, in my opinion, play a major role in the working of a state and it’s outlook as regards the international system, I believe it to have been an unfortunate omission and something that could perhaps be developed in any future writings which could also expand on his analysis so as to include not only advanced capitalist, egoist countries, but also developing countries.In chapter 10 Keohane suggests that HST is appropriate in terms of issues concerning oil and that regime theory is appropriate to matters such as economics and trade. This serves to accidentally highlight the limitations of both HST and regime theory . In finding a use for HST Keohane himself exposes some inconsistencies in his book regarding his criticisms of HST when he says “We have seen the most striking contention of this theory - that hegemony is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for cooperation - is not strongly supported by the experience of this century. Taking a longer period of about 150 years , the record remains ambiguous.” (Keohane:35:1984)Could it be the case that, as previously mentioned, it is because the US is still very powerful, perhaps the most powerful state in the international system, that regimes still in fact exist? Perhaps a hegemon is not important solely in relation to the creation of regimes but also for their continuation - that is yet to be seen. Perhaps with the US’s decrease in hegemonic status we might see a decrease in regimes themselves or of their functionality. Or perhaps the regimes will just transform in alignment with the next superpower aiming for hegemonic status.In conclusion, Keohane contextualises the states in the realm of realism but then discusses them behaving in a more liberal fashion facilitated by cooperation. I find this an interesting way of looking at the realist world of today, rather than the foreboding, pessimistic visions of the world, so often portrayed by other theorists and agree with Keohane in so far as “we need to go beyond Realism, not discard it.” (Keohane:16:1984)

un classico

Gift for a friend. He was quite pleased.

Good book

国際関係論におけるいわゆる「ネオリベラリズム」の代表的著作です。既に公刊から結構な年月を経ていますが、理論そのものを知る目的からも、理論の展開の仕方を学ぶ上でも、参考になる一冊だと思います。特に、リアリズムとの関係で読んだ場合に、それと見劣りすることなく、「ネオリベラリズム」が一つの勢力を築いていったことが十分に理解されます。（Keohaneが自らの理論を「ネオリベラリズム」ではなく、より広く「リベラル制度論」だと言っているのもある程度納得できます。）翻訳もでていますし、論の進め方も比較的明快なので、この分野に興味のある学生の方が、英語の勉強をかねて読む分にもいいのではないかと思います。