Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1

BRITISH AND U.S. HEGEMONY IN THE LIGHT OF HEGEMONY DEBATES: FROM GUIDED TO RULE SETTING HEGEMONY

HEGEMONYA TARTIŞMALARI IŞIĞINDA İNGİLİZ VE AMERİKAN HEGEMONYALARI: YÖNLENDİRİCİ

Pages
63–92
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Despite their divergent theoretical premies, these two critical approaches define hegemony as power of a state to exercise governmental functions over a system of sovereign states on the basis of consent.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this article, the supremacy of Britain and U.S. which formulate basic principles and norms shaping the operation of international system in the last two centuries respectively, has been compared in the light of hegemony debates.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within this framework, the conditions which lead to emergence of two different hegemonic leadership and their basic mechanisms have been investigated by focusing on Neo-Gramscian and G.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Despite their divergent theoretical premies, these two critical approaches define hegemony as power of a state to exercise governmental functions over a system of sovereign states on the basis of consent.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this article, the supremacy of Britain and U.S. which formulate basic principles and norms shaping the operation of international system in the last two centuries respectively, has been compared in the light of hegemony debates. Within this framework, the conditions which lead to emergence of two different hegemonic leadership and their basic mechanisms have been investigated by focusing on Neo-Gramscian and G. Arrighi's hegemony analysis that attempts to apply Gramscian hegemony to World-System Theory. Despite their divergent theoretical premies, these two critical approaches define hegemony as power of a state to exercise governmental functions over a system of sovereign states on the basis of consent.

Özet

Bu yazıda uluslararası ilişkilerde hegemonya tartışmaları ışığında, kapitalizmin son iki yüzyıllık tarihinde sistemin uluslararası düzeyde işleyişini biçimlendiren temel ilke ve normları oluşturan İngiltere ve ABD'nin üstünlüğü karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu çerçevede hegemonya kavramını, güçlü bir devletin iktisadi, askeri ve entelektüel kapasitesine dayanarak diğer devletler üzerinde rıza temelinde hükümet benzeri bir fonksiyon icra etmesi biçiminde tartışan NeoGramsciyen Kuram ile Gramsciyen hegemonya anlayışını Dünya Sistemi Kuramına uygulamaya çalışan G. Arrighi'nin ortaya koyduğu hegemonya analizlerinden yararlanarak iki farklı hegemonik liderliğin ortaya çıktığı koşullar ve işleyiş biçimleri tartışılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYMAK, M. (2022). BRITISH AND U.S. HEGEMONY IN THE LIGHT OF HEGEMONY DEBATES: FROM GUIDED TO RULE SETTING HEGEMONY. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1, 63–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/533037

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Anderson, P. (1974),
  2. Lineages of Absolutist State, London: New Left Books. Arrighi, G. (1993), "Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism", in S. Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, New York: Cambridge University Press, 148-185.
  3. Arrighi, G. (2000), Uzun Yirminci Yüzyıl: Para Güç ve Çağımızın Kökenleri, (Çev., R. Boztemur), Ankara:
  4. İmge. Bieler, A., A.D. Morton (2004), "A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations", Capital&Class, 28 (1), 85-113.
  5. Brenner, R. (1977), "The Origins of Capitalist Development: a Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism", New Left Review I, 104, 25-92.
  6. Burnham, P. (1991), "Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order", Capital&Class, Cain, P.J., A.G. Hopkins (1987), "Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Expansion Overseas II: New Imperialism, 1850-1945", The Economic History Review, 40 (1), 1-26.
  7. Carr, E.H. (1999), Milliyetçilik ve Sonrası, (Çev., O. Akınhay), İstanbul:
  8. İletişim. Chirot, D., T.D. Hall (1982), "World-System Theory", Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 81-106.
  9. Clapham, J.H. (1968), The Economic Development of France and Germany 1815-1914, London: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Cox, R.W. (1981), "Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory", Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 10 (2), 126-155.
  11. Cox, R.W. (1983), "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method", Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 12 (2), 162-175.
  12. Cox, R.W. (1987),
  13. Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York: Columbia University Press.
  14. Cox, R.W. (1991), " 'Real Socialism' in Historical Perspective", Socialist Register, 27, 169-193.
  15. Cohn, T.H. (2012), Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice, Boston: Longman Engels, F. (1997), İngiltere'de Emekçi Sınıfların Durumu, (Çev., Y. Fincancı), Ankara:
  16. Sol. Galagher, J., R. Robinson (1953), "The Imperialism of Free Trade", The Economic History Review, 6 (1), 1-15.
  17. Gamble, A. (2002), "Hegemony and Decline: Britain and the United States" in P. K. O'Brien and A. Clesse (eds), Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-1914 and the United States, 1941-2001, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 127-140
  18. Gamble, A. (2007), "Keynes, Anglo-Amerika ve Hegemonik İstikrar Teorisi", (Çev., O Etiman), Mülkiye, 31 (256), 31-44.
  19. Gill, S., D. Law (1988), The Global Political Economy:Perpsectives, Problems, and Policies, Bal