Re: Hegemony and Control, was "question folks" (fwd)

This is a very right point Andy! I generally disagree with the
arguments that we have more than one hegemony in the late 20th century
(EU, South East Asian tigers, etc..). This thesis is put forward by
those who tend to emphasize the mobility of capital and competing national
interests. It is said that power is so decentralized that nobody fully
takes control of the economic process. While this is factually true to a
certain extend, this diversity is fostered to globalize and reinforce
American hegemony, so the hegemony is not the nation-state, but the global
power as the US, "Americanization" of the world, so to say..Globalization
is a new cover to ensure this hegemony..

Mine Doyran
SUNY/Albany


>Cox argues that the American way of life has never been a more powerful
>model. The "business civilization" that Strange talks about is
>American-derived. Globalization is in many respects the Americanization
>of
>the world. Ismail is right: the US set the tone for the post WWII
>dynamic,
>and even though the the machinery is differentiated by national entities
>the hegemony is global. It would only make a profound difference that the
>EU control x-share of x-dimension of the world-economy if one assumes
>that
>the EU's economic philosophy fundamentally diverges from Americanism. The
>model remains, as Gill points out, the Anglo-American neo-liberal model.

>Andrew Austin
>Knoxville, TN

On Mon, 8 May 2000 ilagardien@worldbank.org wrote:

>Dennis
>
>You are, of course, correct. The point is that the superstructure that was
>created - the so-called liberal international economic order (Gilpin) - is
>conducive to this type of competition with only one caveat, that does not
>become anti-systemic.
>
>The hegemony that the United States established in teh post-war years
>ensured basic outcomes (regardless of its own position as hegemon).