SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 60

THEORY OF HEGEMONIC (IN)STABILITY

HEGEMONİK İSTİKRAR(SIZLIK) KURAMI

Elçin DORUK
Umut HALAÇ
Pages
179–192
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)

The overall structure demonstrates the fact that unlike the premis e of the theory, US hegemony seeks material gains instead of benelovence or spiritual satisfaciton.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Hegemonic stability theory explains the link between international economic structure and power distribution in the international system from a political economy point of view.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In that regard the study refers to related theoretians and elaborates the main concepts of the theory and their competence to explain current affairs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall structure demonstrates the fact that unlike the premis e of the theory, US hegemony seeks material gains instead of benelovence or spiritual satisfaciton.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Hegemonic stability theory explains the link between international economic structure and power distribution in the international system from a political economy point of view. The theory construes contemporary world economy and related dynamics of international relations by evaluating the economic outcomes of political decisions. This study aims to analyze hegemonic stability theory and its criticism in the scope of current dynamics and variables in international relations. In that regard the study refers to related theoretians and elaborates the main concepts of the theory and their competence to explain current affairs. The notion of hegemon will be exemplified specific to the US hegemony. The overall structure demonstrates the fact that unlike the premis e of the theory, US hegemony seeks material gains instead of benelovence or spiritual satisfaciton.

Özet

Uluslararası politik iktisat dahilinde bir bakış açısı sunan hegemonik istikrar kuramı, uluslararası ekonomik yapı ileuluslararası güç dağılımı arasındaki bağlantıyı açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Siyasi kararların doğurduğu ekonomiksonuçları ele alan kuram, günümüz dünya ekonomisinin ve buna bağlı şekillenen uluslararası ilişkiler dinamiklerin inyorumlanması hususunda faydalıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı güncel gelişmeler ile uluslararası ilişkilerdeki değişkenlerışığında hegemonik istikrar kuramını ve kurama karşı yöneltilen eleştirileri analiz etmektir. Bu bağlamda ilgilikuramcılara atıfla kurama ait temel kavramlar detaylandırılırken kuramın geçerliliği ve güncel gelişmele riaçıklayabilmedeki etkinliği tartışılacaktır. Kuramın temel taşlarından biri olan hegemon kavramı, Amerika nhegemonyası özelinde örneklendirilecektir. Genel yapı göstermektedir ki Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, hegemonikistikrar kuramının işaret ettiği iyilikseverlik ve manevi doyum kavramlarından uzak olarak maddi çıkarı önemseyenbir güç olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DORUK, E., HALAÇ, U. (2022). THEORY OF HEGEMONIC (IN)STABILITY. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 60, 179–192. https://ajindex.com/articles/492546

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Brilmayer, L. (1994). American hegemony: political morality in a one-superpower world. New Haven & London: Yale University. Burges, S. W. (2008). Consensual hegemony: theorizing Brazilian foreign policy after the cold war. International Relations, 22(1), 65-84.
  2. Calleo, D. P. (1970). The Atlantic fantasy: the US, NATO and Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  3. Calleo, D. P. (1987). Beyond American hegemony: the future of the western alliance. New York: Basic Books. Calleo D. P., & Rowland, B. M. (1975). America and the world political economy: Atlantic dreams and national realities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  4. Conybeare, J. A. C. (1984). Public goods, prisoner’s dilemma and the international politica l economy. International Studies Quarterly, 28, 6-13.
  5. Eichengreen, B. (1996). Hegemonic stability theory and economic analysis: reflections on financial instability and the need for an international lender of last resort (UC Berkeley: Center for International and Development Economics Research Working Paper No. 51). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g49p8kj adresinden erişildi. Evans, P. B. (1989). Declining hegemony and assertive industrialization: U.S.-Brazil conflicts in the computer industry. International Organization, 43(2), 207-238.
  6. Gallagher, J., & Robinsoni R. (1953). The imperialism of free trade. The Economic History Review, 2(6), 1-15.
  7. Gilpin, R. (1975). U.S. power and the multinational corporation: the political economy of foreign direct investment. New York: Basic Books. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  9. Gowa, J. (1989). Rational hegemons, excludable goods and small groups: an epitaph for hegemonic stability theory. World Politics, 41, 307-324.
  10. Grunberg, I. (1990). Exploring the ‘myth’ of hegemonic stability. International Organization, 44(4), 431-477.
  11. Haas, E. B. (1982). Words can hurt you or who said what to whom about regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 207-243.
  12. James, S. C., & Lake, D. A. (1989). The second face of hegemony: Britain’s repeal of the corn laws and the American walker tariff of 1976. International Organization, 43(1), 1-30.
  13. Kaiser, K. (1989). A view from Europe: the U.S. role in the next decade. International Affairs, 65, 209-223.
  14. Kaplan, M. (1957). System and process in international politics. New York: Wiley. Kaymak, M. (2016). Hegemon