The Lynchpin of Global Hegemony is Hegemony and Globalization as Nationalism
Nation-states must overcome domestic, regional and international obstacles simply to exist, so how is it that a very select few have been able to procure enough power to become the global power of an era? What is the formula that extends not only their economic and military forces to dominate all other nation-states around them, but also their influence to be so pervasive that even their culture permeates the borders of other nations? Achieving this global hegemony is rare because it requires a state to first be effective at the exercise of regional hegemony, even if by accident, but then to realize it. Once the leaders come to the realization of regional hegemony they then purposefully focus on political persuasion domestically to create domestic hegemonic tendencies and agreement amongst the majority of the people for international hegemony, or globalization. For global hegemony to be possible, the domestic mindset and culture must be persuaded to align with an attitude of globalization. The easiest way to persuade society is to show proof with the regional hegemony that already exists, and when this occurs, this is the moment in which a state is able to exert its economic coercion and its political persuasion across the globe.
There have only been three examples of hegemony in the modern world, The United Provinces, England, and The United States. The Dutch were strictly a seapower, and economic powerhouse for the globe; they had a weak state that focused on being a seapower focused on a maritime culture that permeated inland where even the people living away from the sea had a cultural connection to it. This was because of the impact it had on their economic and survival militarily during the English, French, and Spanish revolutions (Lambert 163-167). The United Provinces had regional and economic hegemony because of their position as a trade-hub, their ability to exert sea-mercantile protection with their navy, and as a central banking hub for the world (Lambert, 170). This economic control and sea power gave the Dutch power over the global economy and solidified the capitalist world economy for the hegemons of the future. Even with their economic power, the Dutch were never able to exude political persuasion over the world stage, and because of this, their stature as the hegemon was short lived, and the English quickly jumped at the opportunity to fill the position that the world craved. There is no question that The United Provinces were a hegemon, however short their reign, because they possessed all of the necessary components that seem to be essential for hegemonic power to be created.
To be a hegemonic power one must have a firm monopolization of power in specific areas of the economy: agro-industrial, commerce, and finance (Wallerstein, 101). When it came to commerce the Dutch had a mastery over the industry, and they were unquestionably able to use to their advantage. They innovated ship construction and reduced the manufacturing costs considerably, not only making ships smaller and requiring smaller crews, but they also constructed them to carry more products than other state’s industries. The Dutch were also able to hire and provide crews that were incredibly loyal to their country, so much so that they would work for a smaller salary and for less food than French or English (Reynolds, 191). This level of competition could not be rivaled by other states, and the seapower structure and culture of the United Provinces allowed for them to obtain and maintain the clear monopoly on global commerce, evolving into a monopoly on global finance. With globalization of finance, and a cultivated nationalism at home, it is easy for a state to fund their global endeavors with tax policy domestically.
An apparent theme for hegemonic powers is that of regressive domestic taxation. The states within the confederation of the United Provinces were fairly poor, and the majority of the population lived in high density urban areas (Reynolds, 280). Even though there were multiple states within the United Provinces, the structure and institutions between each were very similar. This is how the leaders were able to maintain cooperation, even when there was contention between the regions attempting to balance power, and class relations were more important than state relations within the United Provinces. The institutions within the urban environment were highly organized, and the expansion of suffrage as well as some control over policy to the bourgeois class by means of the judicial system empowered the upper-end of the lower strata (Reynolds, 180). The inclusivity and narrow opening for more people to have political power was an effective form of political persuasion necessary domestically to create a hegemonic power, but finance in general for the Dutch did continue to be controlled by the nobility. This created an elite banking class that first emerged in The United Provinces, and would be mimicked by the future hegemonic powers. The roots of this financial hegemony can be seen as the foundation for the modern banking structure and global lending system that exists today with the World Bank and the IMF. This is the basis for how the United States was able to obtain hegemonic power after WWII (McCormick, 51-52). The ability to fund projects to build, rebuild, and protect are crucial to the requirement that a hegemon be a global policeman, and having the power of global finance is essential to this endeavor as a hegemon.
The area of hegemony that the Dutch did not master the same way that England did was agro-industrial production. Both states lacked the land to do so themselves, but the English found a way around the lack of land by adopting imperialistic and colonial policies that were able to exploit other regions around the world for their resources and manpower (Blake, 544). The British governmental institutions and success in democratization, as well as their influence as an imperial power, gave way for the expansion of English influence globally. The access to land, people, and resources that the English had was unrivaled by any other state at the time, especially as the empire grew. They did not make the same mistake as Portugal and Spain in spreading themselves too thin by attempting to send their own people to colonize these regions, they instead allowed for the regions that they exuded their influence over to exist in their own right while also exploiting the people there for labor and the land for its resources (Blake, 545). The British had the threat of the sea power, large ships and many men, and ship-killing cannons, and it gave them the ability to enter the colonial lands, the ability to break from the European collective, and allow Henry VIII to create an incredibly strong Navy to protect the state from their European counterparts (Lambert, 268-269).
The economic coercion of trade is what allowed English colonialism to continue, more so than the initial power of the British Navy. Without mercantilism there would not have been the funding available to continue to secure the British Navy, nor the spread of the empire (Lambert, 273). The class structure as a culture that existed in England was adopted by the colonial regions and by the native people. As this occurred, the political persuasion that followed solidified English hegemony over the world. British sea power allowed for their imperialism, which allowed for their hegemonic power in trade and economic superiority control and financier all over the world. England became the “global police”, and cultural superior in democratization until the United States was able to overtake them as their decline began starting after WWI and especially after WWII (Lambert, 289).
With the decline of the global economy the rise of imperial Germany threatened the power of England to protect Europe and the rest of the globe. It also disrupted trade routes and economic stability throughout Europe, and England was forced to ask the Americans for help. American leaders had been eyeing the role as the new global hegemon since American Globalism began with the Monroe Doctrine and Wilson’s Fourteen Points policy shifted policy away from protectionism and into globalism (McCormick, 19-22). The steps to hegemonic power that had been taken by The United Provinces and England were well known to the American leaders, and although it took two World Wars for the climate of hegemony to resonate with the American people, it became an inevitability. Hegemony is obtained regionally first, domestically second, and then globally, and this is clear in all examples of hegemony in the modern world. There are clear reasons for this structure. A state needs to be able to master the aspects necessary for hegemony on a regional level with economic coercion of its neighbors in order to create the necessary persuasion of the domestic culture that is supportive of globalism. In The United Provinces, it was the growing bourgeois class, seapower culture, and mercantilism that gave steam to the culture of globalism in trade, in England it was the imperialist history and colonial norms that people grew accustomed to, and in The United States it took an economic depression resulting from isolationism, and two World Wars to create an ideological threat to liberalism that allowed for “freedom of people” and “freedom of commerce” to permeate the culture. That threat to freedom, the value that American people care about more than anything else, was being into the language of global liberalism to “trickle down” from the elites to regular people was the lynchpin in American global hegemony.
The acceptance of an attitude of hegemony starts with the elites, but then the bourgeoisie and merchant classes begin to adopt it as well. There has been a trend of a rising elite banking class to control finance, and at this point it is very easy to find support to expand the military to police not only the region but the entire globe. Once the culture of hegemony has permeated the upper strata it tends to find its way into the culture of the lower strata, this makes finding support domestically to fund this military endeavour less of a challenge. This is the struggle that England encountered that lead to their decline. When the global economy fell into depression in the early 1900s the leaders of the Liberal Party attempted to prevent the effects of the economic crisis with redistributive taxation policies which did not sit well with the wealthy. This vicious circle ended up with any small concession that the government was asking from the upper strata turning into a contentious battle between classes, and the government continued to lose domestic support for globalism as inequality continued to worsen. (Acemoglu, 317). During this time, the United States took a page from England’s book and bolstered support from the people by passing anti-monopoly legislation that broke up the Robber Baron control of industry and pointed fingers at bureaucrats and bankers for the cause of the Great Depression. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson were all focused on reforming the domestic economic system with more quality which gained the trust of the lower strata (Acmoglu, 321). This timing was perfect for the globalism that was necessary for the United States to then begin to garner nationalism, or patriotism, to support the taxation necessary to enter WWII and to become the global policeman. This was the last step to global hegemony. The political persuasion in The United States that was created by the economic coercion via antitrust policies was the key to convince people to get behind the idea of liberalizing global markets and to leave isolationism behind. The people were not ready for the United States to become any more than a regional power until these series of events sparked decisions to orchestrate the nationalism necessary to expand American influence globally. The loss of support for globalism in the United States’ more recent history is likely signaling its decline as a hegemon, much like The United Provinces and England. When domestic support for hegemony, or globalism, starts to decline, so does global power.
All three hegemonic powers in modernity have shown the same signs to the rise and fall of their global power. The state must gain regional hegemony, particularly economically, in order to convince the people domestically that global power is not only possible, but also necessary. The Dutch did this with their innovation in ship building and commerce, the English did this with colonialism and institutions that created a dominance in trade. Only after domestic hegemony, in the form of nationalism, has been established with persuasive policies, can a state expand its political persuasion and economic coercion globally. The Dutch did this with seapower culture, and the English did this with an inclusive government that allowed for expanded access to government by more classes and democratization. Once a state has established itself as the dominant actor, and protector of the global order of finance and commerce, has enough support domestically to justify sufficient taxes to exert itself militarily as the global police-force, then it can use its political persuasion to permeate cultures and policies of other states. This is how a state is not only feared, but also loved as a global power and is able to hold onto hegemony for as long as the balance lasts.
References
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. A. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York, New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Blake, J. W. (1972) First British Empire. History Today 22 no. 8.
Lambert, A. (2018) Seapower States. Newhaven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
McCormick, T.J. (1989, 1995) America’s Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in
the Cold War and After. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Reynolds, S. (1984) The Perspective of the World. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Wallerstein, I. (1983) The Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the Capitalist World-Economy. Bringhamton, New York: State University of New York.
