Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:01:33.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is the Point of the Ikenberry-Acharya Debate?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

KEISUKE IIDA
KEISUKE IIDA*
Affiliation:
Professor in the Graduate School for Law and Politics at the University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the outbreak of the Great Recession triggered by the Lehman shock in 2008, writings on American decline have proliferated. World-renowned scholars and commentators have all pointed out that the American hegemony or empire is rapidly coming to an end, and that as a consequence the world is in greater turmoil than ever (for example, Zakaria, 2008; Friedman and Mandelbaum, 2011; Kupchan, 2012; Bremmer, 2012). Although there are differences among various works, most commentators predict a bleak prospect for the future.

Type
Mini-Special Issue Articles: Whither American World Order?
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 429 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, Amitav (2004), ‘How Ideas Spread: Whose Ideas Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism’, International Organization, 58, 2: 239–75.Google Scholar
Acharya, Amitav (2009), Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, Amitav (2014), The End of American World Order, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Acharya, Amitav and Iain Johnston, Alastair (eds.) (2007), Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bremmer, Ian A. (2012), Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, New York, NY: Portfolio.Google Scholar
Breslin, Shaun and Croft, Stuart (eds.) (2012), Comparative Regional Security Governance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friedman, Thomas L. and Mandelbaum, Michael (2011), That Used to be US: How America Fell behind in the World and How We can Come Back, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert (1981), War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John (2011), Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the American World Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, Charles P. (1973), The World in Depression, 1929–1939, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. (1976), ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’, World Politics, 28, 3: 317–47.Google Scholar
Kupchan, Charles A. (2012), No One's World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zakaria, Fareed (2008), The Post-American World, New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar