The Crisis of US-centric Globalization: Causes, Trends and Scenarios of Development
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-2-71-40-69
Abstract
Traditionally the processes of globalization and the issues of world politics related to hegemony are studied separately in the scientific literature. In this article the authors propose the synthesis of both of these approaches based on the model of transactional and innovative economy spatially structured as a system of “global gateways”. The globalization is conceived in the article as a process of reinforcement of network connections of different parts of the globe. The network is distributed unevenly around the world. The increase of globalization processes stimulates the strengthening of the network interactions and saturation of it with resources. The decline of the globalization we are witnessing at the moment results in the weakening of network relations. Spatial heterogeneity of globalization produces inequality in resource distribution on social as well as regional and country level. Due to this fact the system of global economy based on these gateways requires the stability of political institutes. In the 19th-20th centuries the system of maintenance of global stability (known in IR as hegemonic stability) was established. Increasing globalization provides the effective interaction between economic and political spheres. Declining globalization produces a gap between gateways’ demands for political stability and a hegemon’s ability to provide it. Recently the USA’s abilities as global hegemon have shrunk dramatically in relative terms as well as American electorate’s willingness to bear the costs of hegemony. Washington is unable to maintain stable functioning of “the rules of the game” neither separately, nor with its allies. This situation may be described as “the crisis of US-centric globalization”. The crisis of globalization relates to decline of international regimes, rise of uncertainty and conflicts on all levels of world politics. Presumably, it’s a long-term process. And at the end it may cause the establishment of new political form of economic globalization (e.g. transition to the model of hegemony of a group of superpowers, a scenario mostly close to generally accepted in Russia idea of multi-polar world), or emergence of a new hegemon (e.g. China).
Supporting agencies: This article was prepared with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for basic research, project no. 19-011-31119.
About the Authors
A. A. Kasantzev
Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrei A. Kasantsev – Dr. Sci. (Pol. Sci.), Professor
17/1, Malaya Ordinka St., Moscow, 119017
V. M. Sergeev
Russian Council on Foreign Relations
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Viktor M. Sergeev – Dr. Sci. (Hist.), expert
8, 4th Dobrinenskiy Lane, Moscow, 119049
References
1. Alker H. 1996. Rediscovery and Reformulations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 464 p.
2. Arrighi G. 1994. The long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso. 416 p.
3. Arrighi G. 2009. Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century. (Russ.ed.: Arrighi G. Adam Smit v Pekine. Chto poluchil v nasledstvo XXI vek. Moscow: Institut obshchestvennogo proektirovaniya. 456 p.)
4. Bergesen A. 1984. The Critique of World-System Theory: Class Relations or Division of Labor? Sociological Theory. Vol. 2. P. 365-372
5. Bluestone B., Harrison B. 1982. The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment and the Dismantling of Basic Industry. New York: Basic Books. 323 р.
6. Braudel F. 2007. The Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism, XV-XVIII century. Volume 3. The Time of the World. (Russ.ed.: Braudel F. Material'naya civilizaciya, ekonomika i kapitalizm, XV-XVIII vv. T. 3. Vremya mira. Moscow: Ves' mir. 637 p.)
7. Bröning M. 2016. The Rise of Populism in Europe. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2016-06-03/rise-populismeurope (accessed 30.03.2020) Carmody P. 2011. The New Scramble for Africa. Cambridge: Polity. 244p.
8. Cowie J., Heathcott J., Bluestone B. 2003. Beyond the Ruins: The Meanings of Deindustrialization. Cornell University Press. 372 р.; Fukuyama F. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. 418 p.
9. Fukuyama F. 2012. The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? Foreign Affairs. 91(1). P. 53-61 Funk M., Schularick M., Trebesch C. 2018. The Financial Crisis Is Still Empowering Far-Right Populists. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-09-13/financial-crisis-still-empowering-far-right-populists (accessed 30.03.2020).
10. Gilpin R.G. 1996. No one loves political realist. Security Studies. 5(3). P. 3-26.
11. Gilpin R.G. 1988. The Theory of Hegemonic War. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 18(4). P. 591-613. DOI: 10.2307/204816.
12. Gateways to the Global Economy. 2001. (Russ.ed.: Vorota v global'nuyu ekonomiku. A.Andersson, D. Andersson (Eds.). Moscow: Fazis. 464 p.)
13. Gramsci A. 1982. Selections from the Prison Books. Lawrence and Wishart. 458 p. Granovetter M.S. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology. 78(6). P. 1360-1380.
14. Gunther R., Diamond L. 2003. Species of Political Parties. A New Typology. Party Politics. 9(2). P. 167-199.
15. Hockenos P., Haider J. 1995. Austria’s Far Right Wunderkind. World Policy Journal. 12(3). P. 75-80.
16. Huntington S. 2003. The Clash of Civilizations. (Russ.ed.: Huntington S. Stolknovenie civilizacij. Moscow: AST. 603 p.)
17. Karitzis A. 2016. The Dilemmas and Potentials of the Left: Learning from Syriza. The Politics of the Right: Socialist Register. Pantich L., Albo G. (Eds.). New York: NYU Press. P. 374-382.
18. Kazantsev A.A. 2012. Policy networks in European-Russian Gas Relations: Function and Dysfunction from a Perspective of EU Energy Security. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 45(3-4). P. 305-313.
19. Kazantsev A.A. 2014. Eurasian Perspectives on Regionalism: Central Asia and beyond. Eurasian Integration-The View from Within. P., Sakwa R. (Eds.). Abingdon: Routledge. P. 207-225.
20. Kazantsev A.A. 2015. Social Capital and Development of Civil Society in Central Asia: A Path Dependency Perspective. Civil Society and Politics in Central Asia. Ziegle C. E. (Ed.) The University Press of Kentucky. P. 21-56.
21. Keohane R.O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 312 p.
22. Keohane R.O. 1982. The Demand for International Regimes. International Organization. 36(2). P. 325-355.
23. Kindleberger Ch.P. 1986. Hierarchy versus Inertial Cooperation. International Organization. 40(4). P. 841-847.
24. Kołakowski, L. 2005. Main Currents of Marxism. London: W.W. Norton & Company. 1284 р.
25. Kratochwil F. 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 312 p.
26. Lipset M., Rokkan S. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments: cross-national perspectives. New York: Free Press. 554 p.
27. Lipset S.M. 1960. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. New York: Doubleday & Company. 477 p.
28. Lipset S.M., Marks G. 2000. It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 379 p.
29. Löwy M., Francis S. 2016. The Far Right in France: The Front National in Europe and Perspective. The Politics of the Right: Socialist Register. Panittch L., Albo G. (Eds.) New York: NYU Press. P. 51-67.
30. McLuhan M. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 294 p.
31. McLuhan M. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw Hill. 464p.
32. McLuhan M., Fiore Q. 1968. War and Peace in the Global Village. New York: Bantam. 192 p.
33. Michael G. A. 2015. New American Populist Coalition? The Relationship between the Tea Party and the Far Right. The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives. C. de la Torre (Ed.). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. P. 265-292.
34. Modelski G. 1996. Evolutionary paradigm for global politics. International Studies Quarterly. № 40. P. 321 – 342.
35. Modelski G. 1987. Long Cycles in World Politics, Palgrave Macmillan. 244 p.
36. North D. 1997. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. (Russ.ed.: North D. Instituty, institucional'nye izmeneniya i funkcionirovanie ekonomiki. Moscow: Fond ekonomicheskoj knigi «Nachala».180 p.)
37. North D. 2010. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. (Russ.ed.: North D. Ponimanie processa ekonomicheskih izmenenij. Moscow: Izd. dom GU-VSHE, 2010. 256 p.)
38. North D., Wallis J., Weingast B. Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. (Russ.ed.: North D., Wallis J., Weingast B. Nasilie i sotsial'nye poryadki. Kontseptual'nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis'mennoi istorii chelovechestva. Moscow: Institut Gaydara Publ., 2011. 480 p.)
39. Onuf N. 1995. Intervention for a Common Good. Beyond Westphalia? State Sovereignty and International Intervention. Mastanduno M., Lyons G. (Eds.). Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University press. P. 34-58.
40. Onyishi A. E., Amoke V. Ch. 2016. A Critique of Immanuel Wallenstein’s World System Theory in The Modern World System. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSRJHSS). 21(8). Ver. 10. P. 01-06.
41. Ovenden K. 2015. Syriza: Inside the Labyrinth. London: Pluto Press. 200 p.
42. Pieterse J.N. 1988. A Critique of World System Theory. International Sociology. 3(3). P. 251-266.
43. Ramiro L., Gomez R. 2016. Radical-Left Populism during the Great Recession: Podemos and Its Competition with the Established Radical Left. Political Studies. 65(1). P. 1–19.
44. Sartori G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 383 p.
45. Seitz S. Pushing Against the Populist Tide. Foreign Affairs. 2017. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-12-11/pushing-against-populist-tide (accessed 30.03.2020)
46. Shapiro J. 2018. What "America First" Will Cost Europe. Could Trump's Neglect Undo the EU? Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2018-06-12/whatamerica-first-will-cost-europe (accessed 30.03.2020)
47. Stiglitz J. 2015. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers our Future. (Russ.ed.: Stiglitz J. Cena neravenstva. Chem rassloenie obshchestva grozit nashemu budushchemu. Moscow: Eksmo. 512 p.)
48. Tóth A., Grajczjár I. 2015. The Rise of the Radical Right in Hungary. The Hungarian Patient: Social Opposition to an Illiberal Democracy. Krasztev, P., Van Til, J. (Eds.) Budapest: Central European University Press. P. 133-164.
49. Wallerstein I. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. 109 р.
50. Webb M.C., Krasner S.D. 1989. Hegemonic stability theory: an empirical assessment. Review of International Studies. 15(2). P. 193 – 198.
51. Wendt A. 1999. Social Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. 450 p.
52. Zaslove A. 2011. The Re-invention of the European Radical Right: Populism, Regionalism, and the Italian Lega Nord. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 296 p.
53. Auzan A. 2013. Ekonomika vsego. Kak instituty opredelyayut nashu zhizn' [Economics of Everything. How Institutions Determine our Life]. Moscow: «Mann, Ivanov i Ferber». 160 p. (In Russian).
54. Kobyakov A. B., Hazin M. L. 2003. Zakat imperii dollara i konec «Pax Americana» [The Sunset of the Impair of Dollar and the End of «Pax Americana»]. Moscow: Veche. 283 p. (In Russian).
55. Marx K., Engels F. 1995. Nemeckaya ideologiya. Sobranie sochinenij. 2-e izd. [The German Ideology.Selected Works. 2 nd ed.] Moscow: Politizdat. 603 p. (In Russian).
56. Sergeev V., Kazantsev A. 2007. Setevaya dinamika globalizatsii i tipologiya “global'nykh vorot” [Net Dynamics of Globalization and the Typology of “Global Gateways”]. Polis. Political Studies. №2. P. 18-30. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2007.02.02.
57. Sergeev V., Kazantsev A., Medvedeva S. 2019. Krizis konstruktivizma i metodologicheskie problemy izucheniya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [The Crisis of Constructivism and Methodological Problems of Studying International Relations]. Polis. Political Studies. №5. P. 56-60. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.05.05
58. Sergeev V., Kazantsev A., Petrov K. 2017. Politika «meinstrima» i ee al'ternativy v sovremennom zapadnom mire: na puti ot mirovogo ekonomicheskogo krizisa k “nevozmozhnoi politike”? [The Policy of “Mainstream” and Its Alternatives in the Modern Western World: on the Way from the World Economic Crisis to “Impossible Politics?] Polis. Political Studies. №3. P. 8-29. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.03.02
59. Sergeev V., Kazantsev A., Petrov K., Medvedeva S. 2018. Krizis partiino-politicheskoi sistemy v SShA i stranakh ES: prichiny i kharakteristiki [The Crisis of Contemporary U.S. and EU Party Systems: Causes and Characteristics]. Polis. Political Studies. №2. P. 130-149. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.02.10
60. Sergeev V., Kuzmin A., Alekseenkova E., Kazantsev A. 2007. Moskva i Sankt-Peterburg kak tsentry prityazheniya sotsial'nykh setei [Moscow and St. Petersburg as the Centers of Attraction of Social Networks]. Polis. Political Studies. №2. P. 31-43. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2007.02.03.
61. Sergeev V., Kuzmin A., Nechaev V., Alekseenkova E. 2007. Doverie i prostranstvennoe vzaimodeistvie sotsial'nykh setei [Trust and Spatial Interaction of Social Networks]. Polis. Political Studies. №2. P. 8-17. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2007.02.01.
62. Sergeev V., Kuzmin A., Nechaev V., Alekseenkova E., Kazantsev A., Dozhdikov A., Evstifeev R., Usmanov S., Chernyshov S., Fedorova I., Homutova O., Vinogradova S. 2007. “Khora” moskovskikh “vorot” i stsenarii ee razvitiya [“Hora” of Moscow “Gaits” and the Scenarios of its Development]. Polis. Political Studies. №2. P. 44-62. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2007.02.04
63. Smith A. 1993. Issledovanie o prirode i prichinah bogatstva narodov (knigi I—III) [An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations]. Moscow: Nauka. 520 p. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Kasantzev A.A., Sergeev V.M. The Crisis of US-centric Globalization: Causes, Trends and Scenarios of Development. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2020;13(2):40-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-2-71-40-69
Views:
2786
Email this article 