Additionally, there are reports that a new intelligence assessment by US agencies is set to be released after the upcoming elections which notes the coming relative decline of US predominance, particularly in the economic realm, by Now, there have been numerous predictions of US decline that, like the death of Mark Twain, have been greatly exaggerated. That combined with the true rise of new economic players e. China, India, and the continued productivity of the EU means that for the first time since WWII we are seeing even more economic parity on the world stage.
Introduction From economic power to military might, from intellectual leadership to technological innovation, the United States has been the undeniable hegemon of the world order for over 60 years. When the Global Financial Crisis hit the heartland ineverybody thought that this is the end of the US-led world order.
However, in 7 years the US economy recovered and the dollar is stronger than ever surpassing the value of the euro, something that has not happened since The divergence between expectations and reality gave a rise to two rigorous academic debates regarding the US decline on one hand, and the rise of China on the other.
However, in the light of the recent crisis it has been revived. The declinists claim that the US economic power and international authority have been corrupted beyond repair by the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the financial collapse.
They argue that this will inevitably lead to the weakening of the broad military base underlying US power and the emergence of a new multipolar world order.
Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for four or more centers of power. The type of system is . Nevertheless, more and more works on foreign affairs, world politics, geopolitics, and actually, international politics, are dedicated to the theme of multipolarity. A growing number of authors try to understand and describe multipolarity as a model, phenomenon, precedent, or possibility. We can now bring together all of the above said on counter-hegemony and situate such in the context of the Theory of the Multipolar World (TMW) which is a theory of IR that is essentially, consistently no-nEurocentric, and which rejects hegemony on its own grounds and calls for the creation of a broad counter-hegemonic alliance or counter-hegemonic pact.
However, other studies have shown that neither the economic power, nor the military might of the United States has been weakened. The rise of China, used by the declinists as an indication of decline of US hegemony, is also the subject of a lot of discussions.
Some scholars argue China is a status quo power that is highly incorporated into the existing world order. However, others believe that since it is a rising power, Over the hege mony and to multipolarity is, by definition, a challenger of the international system. When put through a neo-Gramscian perspective, these two debates give a rise of a dichotomous question: Is the United States really declining?
And if yes, can China lead the world towards a multipolar world order? In order to answer this question, the article will proceed by shortly discussing the existing literature on both the debate over the decline of the United States and the discussion over the rise of China.
The next section will lay down the theoretical framework and discuss its implications in regard to the selection of the data.
The third part of this paper will present the empirical evidence and interpret the implications and possibility for a shift from unipolarity to multipolarity. The conclusion will sum up the findings of this paper and discuss possible further research opportunities.
State of the Art The academic debate concerning the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity generally revolves either around the decline of the US power and whether it is actually declining, or around the rise of China and whether it is a status quo or a revisionist state.
The debate between the declinists and the unipolar optimists has a long history dating back to the s when the US power was supposedly threatened by the rise of Japan.
Twenty five years later, in the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the Global financial crisis, the debate sounds more contemporary and vital that ever before.
In the glory days of the United State, right after the end of the Cold War, some scholars argued that unipolarity will be a short-lived transitional phase from bipolarity to multipolarity Layne ; Walz Back then, these claims sounded unrealistic but today most of the academic community agrees that the US power is slowly declining and giving a way for the emergence of a new multipolar world order.
Some scholars argue that the decline of the US power is driven by mutually reinforcing external and internal politico economic factors. If that happens, the US would be unable to sell its debt and fund its deficits, which would mean the end of unipolarity.
Hence, the increasing reliance of the US on debt combined with the rise of the emerging economies indicates the end of the unipolar post-Cold War era Calleopp.
However, studies show that the US dollar continues to dominate and it actually has strengthened its position as the FX trade and reserve currency of the world after the crisis Stokespp. Other scholars argue that the US decline is not only a matter of shift in economic capabilities but also a crisis of authority in the post-Cold War period.
With the USSR out of the picture, the United States is no longer perceived as a global security provider but as a threat to weaker and secondary states. The shift in perception combined with the financial leverage of the emerging economies raises questions about participation and decision making in global governance and undermines unipolarity Finnemore, ; Ikenberrypp.
According to Arrighithe war in Iraq was the result of social, political and economic circumstances within the US that prompted the emergence of a neo-conservative imperial project. However, instead of laying the foundations of a new American Century, the invasion of Iraq overstretched the US power and wrackedbeyond repair the economic capabilities, the military might and the legitimacy of the United States on international level.
This led to the acceleration and consolidation of the idea to re-center the global political economy in Asia Arrighip. However, studies show that US power in terms of resources has not declined.
Beckley measures a set of resources that are considered vital in international politics — wealth, innovation and conventional military capabilities, and concludes that although China has significantly improved on all of these indicators over the past decade, it has actually declined relative to the United States Beckleypp.
Other scholars argue that national accounts of US power are no longer relevant because they do not take into consideration globalization.Multipolarity versus Hegemony: Is this really the right question? / Randy Waterhouse / 0 Comments Dan recently commented on how the decline in US economic power will likely lead to a rewrite of the post-war global order.
Over time, American grand strategy of Soviet containment and Western economic prosperity made American hegemony not only palatable, but attractive to friendly nations. As the global hegemon.
the ‘unipolar moment’ would not last: other major powers. its military lead over the rest of the world is still considerable. ending in multipolarity (Waltz and during the Bush administration the neo-cons increasingly took the third path. Mearsheimer’s short article “The cause of great power war” explains the occurrence of major power wars.
According to Mearsheimer, power gives rise to three kinds of systems which are known as Bipolarity, Unbalanced Multipolarity, and Balanced Multipolarity. Always a pleasure reading your works! China is indeed, shifting the world back into multipolarity.
My professors suggest that so far as we know it, a bipolar struggle for supreme hegemony is the best scenario, as it was the most peaceful time in history.
According to Mearsheimer, power gives rise to three kinds of systems which are known as Bipolarity, Unbalanced Multipolarity, and Balanced Multipolarity. I believe these systems are determining factors of the outbreak of war, and the distinction between balanced and unbalanced multipolar systems is important in comprehending the history of great .