SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alternatif Politika / 2022 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

Hegemony and Sanctions: The Significance Relationship Between US Hegemony and US Economic Sanctions in the Cold War

Hegemonya ve Yaptırım: Soğuk Savaş Dönemi’nde ABD Hegemonyası ile ABD’nin Ekonomik Yaptırımları Arasındaki Anlamlı İlişki

Akın SAĞIROĞLU
Pages
383–421
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, a statistically significant relationship was determined between the nature of the sanctions and the scales of the target region and target country.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Economic sanctions are preferred by states as a coercive foreign policy tool.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the study is aimed at “Is there a significant difference between the hegemony of the US and the economic sanctions applied by the US during the Cold War?” focused on the question.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, a statistically significant relationship was determined between the nature of the sanctions and the scales of the target region and target country.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Soğuk Savaş · ABD Hegemonyası · ABD Ekonomik Yaptırımları

Abstract

Economic sanctions are preferred by states as a coercive foreign policy tool. During the Cold War, the United States of America (US) frequently used economic sanctions. In addition, the economic sanctions imposed by the US differ from the economic sanctions applied by other states in terms of quality and quantity. In this context, the study is aimed at “Is there a significant difference between the hegemony of the US and the economic sanctions applied by the US during the Cold War?” focused on the question. In the study, categorical variables were created to analyse a statistically significant relationship between US hegemony and economic sanctions. In the direction of these categorical variables, cross-tabulation and chi-square independence test analysis were applied to 230 economic sanctions imposed by the US on target countries during the Cold War (1945-1990). A statistically significant relationship emerged between the hegemony periods of the US and the foreign policy objectives of the economic sanctions, the nature of the sanctions and the target regions. In addition, a statistically significant relationship was determined between the nature of the sanctions and the scales of the target region and target country.

Özet

Ekonomik yaptırımlar, devletler tarafından zorlayıcı bir dış politika aracı olarak tercih edilmektedir. Soğuk Savaş Dönemi’nde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ekonomik yaptırımları sıklıkla kullanmıştır. Bununla birlikte ABD’nin uyguladığı ekonomik yaptırımlar diğer devletlerin uyguladığı ekonomik yaptırımlardan nitelik ve nicelik bakımından ayrışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, “Soğuk Savaş Dönemi’nde, ABD hegemonyası ile ABD’nin uyguladığı ekonomik yaptırımlar arasında anlamlı farklılaşma var mı?” sorusuna odaklanmıştır. Çalışmada, ABD hegemonyası ile ekonomik yaptırımlar arasında istatistiki açıdan anlamlı bir ilişkinin analizi için kategorik değişkenler oluşturulmuştur. Bu kategorik değişkenler doğrultusunda ABD’nin Soğuk Savaş Dönemi’nde (1945-1990) hedef ülkelere uyguladığı 230 ekonomik yaptırıma çapraz tablo ve ki-kare bağımsızlık testi analizi uygulanmıştır. ABD’nin hegemonya dönemleri ile ekonomik yaptırımların dış politika amaçları, yaptırımların niteliği ve hedef bölgeler arasında istatistiki açıdan anlamlı ilişki ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca yaptırımların niteliği ile hedef bölge ve hedef ülke ölçekleri arasında da istatistiki açıdan anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAĞIROĞLU, A. (2022). Hegemony and Sanctions: The Significance Relationship Between US Hegemony and US Economic Sanctions in the Cold War. Alternatif Politika, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 383–421. https://ajindex.com/articles/435243

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Afesorgbor, Sylvanus Kwaku ve Renuka Mahadevan (2016), “The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Income Inequality of Target States”, World Development, 83 (January 2015) (Elsevier Ltd): 1–11.
  2. Agnew, John A. (2005), Hegemony (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). Alexander, Kern (2009),
  3. Economic Sanctions, Law and Public Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Allen, Susan Hannah (2005), “The Determinants of Economic Sanctions Success and Failure”, International Interactions, 32 (2): 117–138.
  4. Allen, Susan Hannah (2008), “The Domestic Political Costs of Economic Sanctions”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52 (6): 916–944.
  5. Bacevich, Andrew J. (2003),
  6. American Empire, The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy Fifth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Bakan, D. ve T. Büyükbese (2004), “Çalısanların İs Güvencesi ve Genel İş Davranışları İlişkisi: Bir Alan Çalışması”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23: 35–59.
  7. Baldwin, David A. (1971), “The Power of Positive Sanctions”, World Politics, 24 (1): 19–38.
  8. Baldwin, David A. (1985), Economic Statecraft (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). Baldwin, David A. (2000a), “Success And Failure In Foreign Policy”, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci, 3: 167–82.
  9. Baldwin, David A. (2000b), “The Sanctions Debate and the Logic of Choice”, International Security, 24 (3): 80–107.
  10. Barber, James (1979), “Economic Sanctions As a Policy Instrument”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs), 55 (3): 367–384.
  11. Barry, Michèle (2000), “Effect of the U.S. Embargo and Economic Decline on Health in Cuba”, Annals of Internal Medicine, 132 (2): 151–154.
  12. Bartlett, Bruce (1985), “What’s Wrong With Trade Sanctions”, Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 64. Blanchard, Jean-Marc F. ve Norrin M. Ripsman (2008), “A Political Theory of Economic Statecraft”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 4 (4): 371–398.
  13. Brooks, Risa A. (2002), “Sanctions and Regime Type: What Works, and When?”, Security Studies, 11 (4): 1–50.
  14. Brooks, Stephen D., G. John Ikenberry ve William C. Wohlforth (2012), “Don’t Come Home, America”, International Security, Winter, 37 (3): 7–51.
  15. Butt, Ahsan I. (2013), “Anarchy and Hierarchy in International Relations: Examining South America’s War-Prone Decade, 1932-41”, International Organization, 67 (3): 575–607.
  16. Carneiro, Cristiane de Andrade Lucena (2014), “Economic Sanctions and Human Rights: An Analysis of Competing Enforcement Strategies in Latin America”, Revista Brasileira de Politica Internaci