Page 107 - Global Political Economy_Understanding The International Economic Order

CHA PTER F OUR
self-centered and irresponsible American behavior that began in the
1960s, if not earlier. 38
A major reason for the criticisms of the theory by political scientists
is that it was never adequately formulated. Indeed, the “theory” was
more an intuitive idea based on a particular reading of history than
a scientific theory. Because the theory was underdeveloped, it was
open to both warranted and unwarranted criticisms. A number of
critics, for example, interpreted the theory to mean that a dominant
power is necessary to the emergence of a liberal international econ-
omy; they have gone on to make the point that Soviet hegemony did
not create a liberal Soviet-dominated international economy. How-
ever, as I have emphasized in numerous writings, a liberal interna-
tional economy requires a hegemon committed to liberal economic
principles, as Great Britain was in the nineteenth century and the
United States was in the twentieth century; the theory was never in-
tended to suggest that a Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or militaristic
Japan would promote a liberal world economy. Moreover, despite the
implied criticisms of some authors, the theory, at least in my opinion,
posited that a hegemon is a necessary but not a sufficient condition
for establishment of a liberal international economy. It is possible, as
some critics have argued, that a hegemon’s interests would be best
served by an optimum tariff; yet, such an aggressive tactic would be
a highly unlikely course of action for a strong liberal power such as
Great Britain or the United States. Instead, the theory rests on the
idea of international cooperation. Hegemony makes cooperation
more feasible and is not, as some have suggested, opposed to coopera-
tion.
The strongest support for the theory, or at least for the idea that
strong leadership is necessary, has come from economists. This en-
dorsement is rather amazing, because economists (with the notable
exception of Kindleberger)are likely to argue that markets by them-
selves will manage the world economy. The most detailed and system-
atic empirical critique of HST by an economist is that of economic
39
historian Barry Eichengreen (1989). However, support for the the-
ory was not the purpose avowed by Eichengreen; in fact, he believed

38
Susan Strange criticized my argument that the irresponsible behavior of the United
States was not due to America’s relative economic decline. She was quite correct. See
Susan Strange, “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” International Organization
41, no. 4 (1987): 259–74.
39
Barry Eichengreen, “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary
System,” in Richard N. Cooper et al., Can Nations Agree?: Issues in International
Economic Cooperation (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1989), 255–98.
94