I came across this article to see what others thought of Gilpin's theory of hegemonic stability, and I found this article.
https://policytensor.com/2013/02/25/theory-of-hegemonic-war/
For those unfamiliar with Gilpin, here is what he has to say about hegemonic stability:
My question is more centered around "Is the realist view of war more correct than the liberal?" and more importantly " are these wars a thing of the past with nuclear weapons.". Keep in mind Gilpin wrote this idea in 1988, so he is well aware of the effect that nuclear weapons have on international relations. Realist, like Gilpin believe a hegemonic cycle continues forever. In this cycle in which a new hegemon wins a war, then dictates the new world order, then sets up institutions to try to preserve the hegemonic status, and then has to fight off the new challenger.
If the hegemonic stability theory is true then we are in the third phase right now in making institutions. Gilpin and many other realists believe in the concept of "hard power" in which the hegemon invest mostly in its military. You can see this clearly with the US. They also argue that despite any attempt made to prevent the inevitable decline, they will indeed decline. The liberal ideal differs at this one stage. They tend to believe in a global hegemony in which all will share in the global democratic enterprise.
Here is Haut's definition:
Then a liberal thinker would probably say that interstate war is a thing in the past with nuclear weapons, but the article has this to say:
https://policytensor.com/2013/02/25/theory-of-hegemonic-war/
For those unfamiliar with Gilpin, here is what he has to say about hegemonic stability:
My question is more centered around "Is the realist view of war more correct than the liberal?" and more importantly " are these wars a thing of the past with nuclear weapons.". Keep in mind Gilpin wrote this idea in 1988, so he is well aware of the effect that nuclear weapons have on international relations. Realist, like Gilpin believe a hegemonic cycle continues forever. In this cycle in which a new hegemon wins a war, then dictates the new world order, then sets up institutions to try to preserve the hegemonic status, and then has to fight off the new challenger.
If the hegemonic stability theory is true then we are in the third phase right now in making institutions. Gilpin and many other realists believe in the concept of "hard power" in which the hegemon invest mostly in its military. You can see this clearly with the US. They also argue that despite any attempt made to prevent the inevitable decline, they will indeed decline. The liberal ideal differs at this one stage. They tend to believe in a global hegemony in which all will share in the global democratic enterprise.
Here is Haut's definition:
But a realist would probably point out that the British hegemony from 1763-1940 also tried the route of a global enterprise with free trade, but only accomplished in strengthening the German and American states in the process by doing so.
Then a liberal thinker would probably say that interstate war is a thing in the past with nuclear weapons, but the article has this to say:
Thoughts?
Last edited:
