Abstract
After a period of terminological indecision, ‘empire’ has staged a startling academic comeback since the beginning of this century. Like the notion of hegemony, which dominated earlier debates on the United States and world order, the term ‘empire’ has never been uncontested. Furthermore, no clear delineation between the two concepts emerged, and under-conceptualisation resulted in a lasting confusion about their analytical value. Analysing the pitfalls of the central debates on empire and hegemonic stability, the article contends that the choice of terminology has frequently been motivated politically rather than by scientific standards. We find that proponents of ‘empire’ have largely misinterpreted the policy strategy of empire — as applied by the George W. Bush administration — for the real thing, an existing empire. In this article, instead, using Gary Goertz’ (2006) approach to conceptual analysis, we suggest a reformulation of the concept of hegemony to capture the current international system in which the US still enjoys an undisputed preponderance of power. With a focus on how power is used, hegemony is understood as a specific form of leadership that is dependent on the perception of its legitimacy and is differentiated with regard to its regional and global reach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See, for example, the enlightening collection of articles in the International Studies Perspectives ‘Forum on American Empire’ from September 2008.
Earlier, Geir Lundestad (1990) described the idea of an ‘empire by invitation’, a suggestion that resembled much more the idea of hegemony than today's approaches to empire.
MacDonald has shown that, in fact, the debates largely replicate previous, historical debates with regard to the British Empire (e.g. MacDonald 2009).
Concepts such as empire, but also terms from within its conceptual neighbourhood, for example, hegemony and leadership, have strong normative underpinnings so that the use of any specific terminology has both political motives and consequences. If empire is to be understood as a (non-)desirable form of power exercise, the act of calling the US an empire matters.
Proponents are, for example Robert Kagan (1998, 2003), N. Ferguson (2002, 2008) and Boot (2003). Cf. Bishai (2004: 50).
For instance, Ikenberry (2004), Bishai (2004), Müller (2003).
This position includes more traditional Marxist critiques (for instance, Callinocos 2002; Harvey 2003; Kiely 2005). Despite their dominance of the field of empire studies before the rediscovery of the term by analysts of American foreign policy, they have often been overlooked in the recent discussion. This is mainly a result of the current focus on American foreign policy-making alone, at the expense of an inclusion into their analyses of the political and economic context within which its imperial demeanour takes place (Sterling-Folker 2008: 320).
Among these classical definitions are, for instance, those provided by Doyle (1986), Galtung (1971) and Tilly (1997). These are frequently derived from analyses of historical cases and, hence, an argument has been made for a need to adapt these criteria to the circumstances of the 21st century.
Others, instead, have emphasised the continuity of American imperial ambitions throughout the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administration (Kiely 2007), or trace back American empire to a ‘long line of thinkers’, since the post-War period, that focus on how to preserve American preponderance (Purdy 2003: 36f.; M. Cox 2004: 591).
As Sterling-Folker has put it: ‘What difference does it make whether it [the US] is called … an empire, or some other term meant to suggest a powerful entity that rules over others? … the words we use to describe something do matter a great deal to what we see and how we act in the world’ (2008: 319, emphasis added).
Cf. section ‘Internal differentiation: which concept of hegemony?’.
While, ideally, we should assume that properly defined concepts are applicable beyond one specific theory, most concepts mean different things to different authors, and are consequently used to denominate conflicting real-world objects or situations.
The use of the terminology of ‘essentially contested concepts’ was introduced to the social sciences, for instance, by William Connolly. Connolly has borrowed this notion from linguist W.B. Gallie, who has argued that ‘people committed to partly discrepant assumptions and ideas are likely to construe shared concepts in rather different ways as well’ (cited in Connolly 1983: 10).
Following the debate on hegemonic stability in political science, Kindleberger updated his central claims several times, ironically rejecting very strongly the use of the term ‘hegemony’ by insisting that he himself never used the term in The World in Depression (cf. Kindleberger 1981, 1986).
For a more elaborate discussion on this, see Robel (2001).
Several opponents of the ‘myth of American decline’ sharply criticised the declinists view, for example, Russett (1985), Strange (1987).
In this article we present a brief summary of this analysis, which has been carried out in more detail elsewhere (Prys 2008).
This perspective on hegemony aligns itself with a long tradition, particularly in the English School, of looking at systemic power relations as a continuum between empires, on the one hand, and the independence of units on the other, with hegemony lying in between (Watson 1992: 13ff.; Buzan 1993: 342).
These tables are the output, as said above, of an in-depth reading and analysis of some key authors that are typically associated with these schools of thought (Prys 2004, 2008). Neo-realism has been analysed through Waltz, the THS through Kindleberger and Gilpin, Long-Cycle theories with the help of Modelski, liberal approaches through Ikenberry and Triepel, World-System theories through Wallerstein and, finally, neo-Gramscianism through Robert Cox.
Another prominent critic in that respect is of course International Political Economy theorist Susan Strange (1987, 1988).
The model is in more detail developed, extensively annotated and empirically evaluated with regard to examples from three issue areas (foreign policy analysis, macro analysis and theory building) in Robel (forthcoming).
Owing to spatial constraints, the following suggestion of a basic model (section ‘Definition and basic model of hegemony’) cannot be more than a first approximation. For a more detailed treatment, see Robel (forthcoming).
This approach is not to be confounded with a theory exclusively concerned with societies or the ‘international society’. Despite our focus on societies, we subscribe to the notion of international relations being primarily relations among states. We instead consider, in addition to the structural factors of a system of states, the societal conditions and effects of state politics.
Czempiel's notion of the ‘Gesellschaftswelt’ (societal world) describes this part of the international system quite accurately (Czempiel 1993: 105–132). The inner circle of US hegemony thus consists of those countries, which engage their societies within democratic political systems. Given the nature of the self-conception and the intellectual/ideological tradition of the US, this is surely not surprising at all.
For empirical applications to different realms of US hegemony, see Lempp and Robel (2004, 2006) on US hegemony in Latin America, or Robel and Ristau (2008) on transatlantic relations.
The higher the number of voluntary outcasts (and/or their sympathisers), the more hegemony is under threat or already in the process of an (albeit not necessary irreversible) decline.
This, in particular, applies to the assignment of states to any specific circle, which should be reviewed each time with regard to the particular policy area observed and the specific research question applied. Owing to constraints of space and time we cannot delve any deeper into this important problematique here.
Furthermore, the basic model presented here can and should be modified with regard to different issue areas and/or applications to different geopolitical spheres of US hegemony.
We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for stressing the importance of this to the validity of the model.
For an empirical analysis of Polish-American relations during those years through the lens of a society-oriented approach to US hegemony, see Robel and Ristau (2008).
If the number of states in the inner circle of hegemony decreases and allegiance to hegemonic leadership falters substantially, hegemony is in decline. A reliable indicator pointing in the same direction would be a cumulative increase in outcast states.
A good example for this is President Obama's Cairo speech on 4 June, 2009 (available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html, accessed on 17 September, 2009).
Being as brief as we must within the context of this article, we are aware that our suggestions are certainly susceptible to criticism of all sorts. We are looking forward to them and are confident that we have contributed to what is hopefully only the beginning of a renewed interest in the unique position and role of the US in contemporary International Relations.
References
Bender, Peter (2005) Weltmacht Amerika — Das Neue Rom, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Bishai, Linda (2004) ‘Liberal Empire’, Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (1): 48–72.
Boot, Max (2003) ‘American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label’, Council on Foreign Relations, 3 May, http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5934, (3 February, 2009).
Buzan, Barry (1993) ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organization 47 (3): 327–352.
Callinocos, Alex (2002) ‘The Actuality of Imperialism’, Millennium 31 (2): 319–326.
Collier, David and James E. Mahoney (1993) ‘Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis’, American Political Science Review 87 (4): 845–855.
Connolly, William E. (1983) The Terms of Political Discourse, 2nd edn., Oxford: Robertson.
Cox, Michael (2003) ‘The Empire's Back in Town: Or America's Imperial Temptation — Again’, Millennium 23 (1): 1–27.
Cox, Michael (2004) ‘Empire, Imperialism and the Bush Doctrine’, Review of International Studies 30 (4): 585–608.
Cox, Michael (2005) ‘Empire by Denial: The Strange Case of the United States’, International Affairs 81 (1): 15–30.
Cox, Robert (1976/1996) ‘On Thinking about Future World Order’, in Robert Cox and Timothy Sinclair, eds, Approaches to World Order, 60–84, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, Robert (1981/1996) ‘Social Forces, States, and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Robert Cox and Timothy Sinclair, eds, Approaches to World Order, 85–123, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (1993) Weltpolitik im Umbruch. Das internationale System nach dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts, 2nd edn., München: C. H. Beck.
Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (2002) Weltpolitik im Umbruch. Die Pax Americana, der Terrorismus und die Zukunft der internationalen Beziehungen, München: C. H. Beck.
Doyle, Michael (1986) Empires, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Feiner, Sabine (1999) Weltordnung durch US-Leadership? Die Konzeption Zbigniew K. Brzezinskis, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ferguson, Niall (2002) Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, New York: Basic Books.
Ferguson, Niall (2003) ‘Hegemony or Empire?’ Foreign Affairs 82 (5): 154–161.
Ferguson, Niall (2004) Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, London: Allen Lane.
Ferguson, Yale H. (2008) ‘Approaches to Defining “Empire” and Characterizing United States Influence in the Contemporary World’, International Studies Perspectives 9: 272–280.
Gallagher, John and Ronald Robinson (1953) ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review 6 (1): 1–15.
Galtung, Johan (1971) ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research 8 (2): 81–117.
Gerring, John (1999) ‘What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences’, Polity 31 (3): 358–393.
Gilpin, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, Robert (2000) The Challenge of Global Capitalism. The World Economy in the 21st Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goertz, Gary (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grondin, David (2006) ‘Mistaking Hegemony for Empire’, International Journal 61 (1): 227–241.
Guzzini, Stefano (2002) ‘“Power” in International Relations: Concept Formation between Conceptual Analysis and Conceptual History’, Presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, 24–27 March, New Orleans.
Harvey, David (2003) The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hermann, Margaret G. (2002) ‘One Field, Many Perspectives: Shifting from Debate to Dialogue’, in Donald J. Puchala, ed., Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field, 16–41, Columbia, SC: University South Carolina Press.
Hurrell, Andrew (2005) ‘Pax Americana or the Empire of Insecurity?’ International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 58 (2): 153–176.
Ikenberry, G. John (2004) ‘Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age’, Review of International Studies 30 (4): 609–630.
Ikenberry, G. John and Charles Kupchan (1990) ‘Socialization and Hegemonic Power’, International Organization 44 (3): 283–315.
Jervis, Robert (2006) ‘The Remaking of a Unipolar World’, The Washington Quarterly 29 (3): 5–12.
Kagan, Robert (1998) ‘The Benevolent Empire’, Foreign Policy 111: 24–35.
Kagan, Robert (2002) ‘Power and Weakness’, Policy Review 113: 3–28.
Kagan, Robert (2003) ‘American As Global Hegemon’, The National Interest, 23 July, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18532 (20 July, 2009).
Kapstein, Ethan and Michael Mastanduno, eds (1999) Unipolar Politics: Realism and State Strategy After the Cold War, New York: Columbia University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kiely, Ray (2005) ‘Capitalist Expansion and the Imperialism–Globalization Debate: Contemporary Marxist Explanations’, Journal of International Relations and Development 8 (1): 27–57.
Kiely, Ray (2007) The New Political Economy of Development: Globalization, Imperialism and Hegemony, Houndsmill and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kindleberger, Charles (1973) History of the World Economy in the Twentieth Century: The World in Depression, 1919-1939, Vol. 4, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kindleberger, Charles (1981) ‘Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy: Exploitation, Public Goods, and Free Riders’, International Studies Quarterly 25 (2): 242–254.
Kindleberger, Charles (1986) ‘International Public Goods without International Government’, American Economic Review 76 (1): 1–13.
Krasner, Stephen (1976) ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’, World Politics 28 (3): 317–347.
Krauthammer, Charles (1990) ‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.
Krauthammer, Charles (2002/2003) ‘The Unipolar Moment Revisited’, The National Interest 70 (Winter): 5–17.
Kristol, William (2006) ‘It's Our War’, The Weekly Standard 11 (42).
Lake, David A. (1993) ‘Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?’ International Studies Quarterly 37 (4): 459–489.
Lake, David A. (2006) ‘American Hegemony and the Future of East-West Relations’, International Studies Perspectives 7 (1): 23–30.
Lake, David A. (2008) ‘The New American Empire?’ International Studies Perspective 9 (3): 281–289.
Layne, Christopher (1993) ‘The Unipolar Illusion. Why New Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security 17 (4): 5–51.
Layne, Christopher (2009) ‘America's Middle East Grand Strategy after Iraq: The Moment for Offshore Balancing Has Arrived’, Review of International Studies 35 (1): 5–25.
Lempp, Jakob and Stefan Robel (2004) ‘Regionale Entwicklung und US-amerikanische Hegemonie — Der Fall Lateinamerika’, in Alexander Brand and Nicolas von der Goltz, eds, Herausforderung Entwicklung — Neuere Beiträge zur theoretischen und praxisorientierten Entwicklungsforschung, Münster: LIT.
Lempp, Jakob and Stefan Robel (2006) ‘A Tale of Two Worlds? US Hegemony and Regional Development: The Case of Latin America’, Dresdner Arbeitspapiere Internationale Beziehungen, No. 15, Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden.
Loveman, Brian, ed. (2004) Strategy for Empire — US Regional Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era, Lanham: SR Books.
Lundestad, Geir (1990) The American Empire and Other Studies of United States Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective, Oxford/Oslo: Oxford University Press and Norwegian University Press.
MacDonald, Paul (2009) ‘Those Who Forget Historiography are Doomed to Republish it: Empire, Imperialism and Contemporary Debates about American Power’, Review of International Studies 35 (1): 45–67.
Maier, Charles (2006) Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Maier, Charles (2007) ‘America among Empires? Imperial Analogues and Imperial Syndrome’, lecture presented at the German Historical Institute, 8 March, Washington DC.
Mann, Michael (2003) Incoherent Empire, London: Verso.
Mann, Michael (2004) ‘The First Failed Empire of the 21st Century’, Review of International Studies 30 (4): 631–653.
Modelski, George (1987) Long Cycles in World Politics, Seattle/London: University of Washington Press.
Modelski, George and William R. Thompson (1996) Leading Sectors and World Powers: The Coevolution of Global Politics and Economics, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Moravcsik, Andrew (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization 51 (4): 513–553.
Motyl, Alexander J. (2006a) ‘Empire Falls: Washington May be Imperious but it is not Imperial’, Foreign Affairs 85 (4): 190–194.
Motyl, Alexander J. (2006b) ‘Is Everything Empire? Is Empire Everything?’ Comparative Politics 38 (2): 229–249.
Müller, Harald (2003) Supermacht in der Sackgasse? Die Weltordnung nach dem 11. September, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung.
Neumann, Iver (2004) ‘Empire, not Hegemony’, Global Change, Peace and Security 16 (3): 244–245.
Nexon, Daniel H. (2008) ‘What's This, Then? “Romanes Eunt Domus”?’ International Studies Perspective 9 (3): 300–308.
Nexon, Daniel H. and Thomas Wright (2007) ‘What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate’, American Political Science Review 101 (2): 253–271.
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. (1990) ‘The Changing Nature of World Power’, Political Science Quarterly 105 (2): 177–192.
Nye, Joseph (2002) The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ougaard, Morten (1988) ‘Dimensions of Hegemony’, Cooperation and Conflict 23 (2): 197–214.
Prys, Miriam (2004) ‘The Contested Concept of Hegemony: Using Conceptual Analysis as a Tool for Clarification’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, 17–20 March, Montreal, Canada.
Prys, Miriam (2008) Hegemonie in der internationalen Politik: Analyse eines umstrittenen Konzepts, VDM Verlag: Saarbrücken.
Puchala, Donald J. (2002) Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Purdy, Jedediah (2003) ‘Liberal Empire: Assessing the Arguments’, Ethics and International Affairs 17 (2): 35–47.
Rapkin, David P. (1990) ‘The Contested Concept of Hegemonic Leadership’, in David Rapkin, ed., World Leadership and Hegemony, 1–20, London: Lynne Rienner.
Robel, Stefan (1999) ‘‘Bringing Society Back In’ — Gesellschaftsorientierte Theorien internationaler Hegemonie als ‘missing link’ zwischen Außenpolitikforschung und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen’, Paper presented at the workshop ‘Außenpolitikforschung’ of the International Politics section of the German Political Science Association, 11–13 February, in Arnoldshain, Germany.
Robel, Stefan (2001) ‘Hegemonie in den Internationalen Beziehungen: Lehren aus dem Scheitern der ‘Theorie Hegemonialer Stabilität’’, Dresdner Arbeitspapiere Internationale Beziehungen, No. 2, Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden.
Robel, Stefan (2005) ‘Hegemony, Not Empire — Towards a New Theory of US Hegemony: Capabilities, Preferences, and Leadership’, Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, 1–5 March, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Robel, Stefan and Daniel Ristau (2008) ‘US-amerikanische Hegemonie und das ‘Neue Europa’: Der Irak-Krieg, die transatlantischen Beziehungen und der Fall Polen’, in Alexander Brand and Stefan Robel, eds, Internationale Beziehungen — Aktuelle Forschungsfelder, Wissensorganisation und Berufsorientierung, Festschrift für Monika Medick-Krakau, 175–211, Dresden: TUDpress/Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Robel, Stefan (forthcoming) Hegemonie in den Internationalen Beziehungen, Technische Universität Dresden.
Russett, Bruce (1985) ‘The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony. Or, Is Mark Twain Really Dead?’ International Organization 39 (2): 206–231.
Sartori, Giovanni (1984) ‘Guidelines for Concept Analysis’, in Giovanni Sartori, ed., Social Science Concepts. A Systemic Analysis, 15–88, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Saull, Richard (2008) ‘Empire, Imperialism and Contemporary American Global Power’, International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 309–318.
Schmitt, Eric and Mark Landeer (2004) ‘Cheney Calls for More Unity in Fight Against Terrorism’, The New York Times (25 September).
Simes, Dimitri K. (2003) ‘America's Imperial Dilemma’, Foreign Affairs 82 (6): 91–102.
Skinner, Quentin (1989) ‘Language and Political Change’, in Terence Ball, James Farr and Russell L. Hanson, eds, Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, 6–23, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Steven (2003) ‘Dialogue and the Reinforcement of Orthodoxy in International Relations’, International Studies Review 5 (1): 141–143.
Snidal, Duncan (1985) ‘The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory’, International Organization 39 (4): 579–614.
Spruyt, Hendrik (2008) ‘“American Empire” as an Analytic Question or a Rhetorical Move?’ International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 290–299.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2008) ‘The Emperor Wore Cowboy Boots’, International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 319–330.
Strange, Susan (1987) ‘The Persistent Myth of “Lost Hegemony”’, International Organization 41 (4): 551–574.
Strange, Susan (1988) States and Markets, London: Pinter Publishers.
Strange, Susan (1989) ‘Towards a Theory of Transnational Empire’, in Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James Rosenau, eds, Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to the World Politics for the 1990s, 161–176, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Tilly, Charles (1997) ‘How Empires End’, in Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen, eds, After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building, 1–11, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Triepel, Heinrich (1938/1974) Die Hegemonie — Ein Buch von den führenden Staaten, Stuttgart/Berlin: Kohlhammer (Neudruck).
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1984) ‘The Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the Capitalist World Economy’, in Immanuel Wallerstein, ed., The Politics of World Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilizations. Essays by Immanuel Wallerstein, 37–46, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1991) Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World-System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel (2003) ‘The Eagle has Crash Landed’, Foreign Policy 131: 60–68.
Watson, Adam (1992) The Evolution of International Society, London: Routledge.
Wight, Collin (1996) ‘Incommensurability and Cross-Paradigm Communication in International Relations Theory: “What's the Frequency, Kenneth”?’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25 (2): 291–319.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers of JIRD and the editors of the special issue for their comments that helped to improve the original article. Any errors contained herein are entirely the responsibility of the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prys, M., Robel, S. Hegemony, not empire. J Int Relat Dev 14, 247–279 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2010.2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2010.2