Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:37:50.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rational Hegemons, Excludable Goods, and Small Groups: An Epitaph for Hegemonic Stability Theory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Joanne Gowa
Joanne Gowa
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Abstract

In defining international free trade as a public good, “hegemonic stability theory” posited early in the 1970s that its reliable supply depended upon a distribution of international power analogous to that within a privileged group. More recently, however, critics have challenged three assumptions fundamental to hegemonic theory: its premises of free trade, public goods, and privileged groups. They have concluded that hegemony is not necessary for, and indeed may be antithetical to, a stable world economy based on market exchange.

The author argues that the critics overstate their case. The assumptions they attack allow hegemonic theory to represent analytically several critically important barriers to free trade among states. Among these are the existence of strategic interdependence among the actors and the prevalence of informational asymmetries. The most significant flaw in hegemonic theory is its neglect of the essence of the domain to which it applies: the politics of inter-state trade in an anarchic world.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , April 1989 , pp. 307 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1989

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

1 McKeown, Timothy James, “The Rise and Decline of the Open Trading Regime of the Nineteenth Century,” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1982Google Scholar; McKeown, , “Hegemonic Stability Theory and 19th-century Tariff Levels in Europe,” International Organization 37 (Winter 1983), 73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conybeare, John A. C., “Tariff Protection in Developed and Developing Countries,” International Organization 37 (Summer 1983), 441–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), 379–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frieden, Jeff, “Sectoral Conflict and U.S. Foreign Economic Policy,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), 59–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ethier, Wilfred, Modern International Economics New York: W. W. Norton, 1983)Google Scholar.

4 Kindleberger, , The World in Depression, 7929–7959 Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Keohane, , “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole, ed., Change in the International System Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980), 132Google Scholar.

5 Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation New York: Basic Books, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, , “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” World Politics 28 (April 1976), 317–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Kindleberger (fn. 4), 305.

7 A Pareto-superior equilibrium is one in which at least one individual would be better off and no individual would be worse off than at the existing outcome.

8 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 50Google Scholar.

9 Kindleberger (fn. 4), 28.

10 For examples of the large literature that violently and sometimes persuasively objects to every historical interpretation in this paragraph, see McKeown (fn. 1); Oye, Kenneth A., “The Sterling-Dollar-Franc Triangle: Monetary Diplomacy 1929–1937,” World Politics 38 (October 1985), 173–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Russett, Bruce, “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” International Organization 39 (Spring 1985), 207–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Conybeare, John A. C., “Public Goods, Prisoners' Dilemmas and the International Political Economy,” International Studies Quarterly 28 (March 1984), 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 This argument is intended to apply only to single-minded hegemons. Critics acknowledge that hegemons which pursue political as well as economic goals may prefer free trade for political reasons. See, for example, ibid.

13 Caves, Richard E. and Jones, Ronald W., World Trade and Payments: An Introduction Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), 244Google Scholar.

14 For a brief discussion of bribery as an alternative to tariff retaliation in the context of two states of equal size, see Conybeare (fn. 11), 14–15.

15 For a formal analysis of the chain-store paradox, see Kreps, David M. and Wilson, Robert, “Reputation and Imperfect Information,” Journal of Economic Theory 27 (August 1982), 253–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Milgrom, Paul and Roberts, John, “Limit Pricing and Entry Under Incomplete Information: An Equilibrium Analysis,” Econometrica 50 (March 1982), 443–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Since potential entrants are aware of the incentives of established firms to engage in limit pricing, the established firm's strategy may not work. See ibid.

18 In his most recent work, Conybeare notes that heavy export taxes may induce substitution that, in turn, dictates the use of lighter taxes in the interest of maximizing long-run profits. Conybeare dismisses this argument unpersuasively: he maintains that “long-term elasticity . . . arguments merely assert that the hegemon is not really a hegemon.” See Conybeare, John A. C., Trade Wars: The Theory and Practice of International Commercial Rivalry New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), 72Google Scholar.

19 McMillan, John, Game Theory in International Economics New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1986), 67Google Scholar.

20 William Cunningham, cited in McCloskey, Donald N., “Magnanimous Albion: Free Trade and British National Income, 1841–1881,” Explorations in Economic History 17 (July 1980), 303–20, at 304CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but see also fn. 23 below.

21 For an analysis that suggests that the Great Depression would have led to the same outcome even without this provocation by the United States, see Barry Eichengreen, “The Political Economy of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff,” NBER Working Paper No. 2001, 1986 (cited in Bhagwati, Jagdish, Protectionism [Cambridge, MIT Press, 1988], 22Google Scholar).

22 The present analysis seems to suggest that the American encouragement of what became the European Economic Community was illogical. Even without introducing security factors, however, the U.S. action can be interpreted as taking control of, rather than waiting for, the inevitable: in promoting the formation of the EEC when it did, the United States had an opportunity to exert significant leverage over the direction of the union. Thus, it could successfully demand, for example, that the EEC treat foreign direct investment as it did national investment, thus ensuring that U.S. firms would be able to circumvent EEC tariffs, albeit at some cost to those firms. See Gilpin (fn. 5).

23 Donald McCloskey has argued that Britain lost “at most” 4% of national income when it chose free trade rather than an optimum tariff (fn. 20, p. 305). Bhagwati notes that Mc- Closkey's analysis relies on “intuition”; he observes that Douglas Irwin has estimated British foreign trade elasticities for that period and calculated the welfare loss of unilateral tariff reduction at about 0.5 percent of national income in the very short run. As Irwin points out, though, longer-run elasticities imply an extremely small welfare loss, and if foreign tariff reductions are factored in (resulting from Britain's demonstration effect promoting free trade) Irwin finds that Britain was made better off. Irwin, “Welfare Effects of British Free Trade: Debate and Evidence from the 1840s,” presented to Mid-West International Economics Meetings, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1987, cited in Bhagwati (fn. 21), 29–30.

24 Conybeare (fn. 11), 6.

25 This assumes that states possess similar degrees of market power. If they do not, it is possible for one state to be better off, even after the cycle has been completed, than if it had pursued free trade. See Johnson, H. G., “Optimum Tariffs and Retaliation,” Review of Economic Studies 21 (No. 55, 1953–54), 142–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Axelrod, Robert and Keohane, Robert O., “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions,” World Politics 38 (October 1985), 226–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Laver, , “Political Solutions to the Collective Action Problem,” Political Studies 28 (June 1980), 195–209, at 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Oye, Kenneth A., “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions,” World Politics 38 (October 1985), 1–24, at 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Stigler, , “A Theory of Oligopoly,” Journal of Political Economy 72 (February 1964), 44–61, at 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Yarbrough, Beth V. and Yarbrough, Robert M., “Cooperation in the Liberalization of International Trade: After Hegemony, What?” International Organization 41 (Winter 1987), 1–26, at 7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Thus, the supply of information assumes a central role in recent analyses of international regimes. See, for example, Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 259Google Scholar; Russett (fn. 10), 222.

32 Schelling, , “Hockey Helmets, Daylight Savings, and Other Binary Choices,” in Schelling, , ed., Micromotives and Macrobehavior New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 211–44Google Scholar.

33 Keohane (fn. 31), 6; Snidal, Duncan, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” International Organization 39 (Autumn 1985), 579–614, at 603CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Haggard, Stephan and Simmons, Beth A., “Theories of International Regimes,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), 491–517, at 506CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Keohane's book (fn. 31) is titled, after all, AFTER Hegemony (emphasis added).

35 See, for example, Organski, A.F.K. and Kugler, Jacek, The War Ledger Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

36 Shapiro, Carl, “Theories of Oligopoly Behavior,” Discussion Papers in Economics, No. 126 (Princeton University: Woodrow Wilson School, March 1987), 56–58 (cited by permission)Google Scholar.

37 Snidal, however, provides a good discussion of the distributional problems that small groups encounter with respect to collective action generally. See Snidal (in. 33), 604–12.

38 Friedman, , Oligopoly and the Theory of Games Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977), 15Google Scholar.

39 Luce, R. Duncan and Raiffa, Howard, Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958), 121Google Scholar.

40 Friedman, James W., Game Theory with Applications to Economics New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 170Google Scholar.

41 Luce and Raiffa (fn. 39), 134.

42 Friedman (fn. 38), 28.

43 Luce and Raiffa (fn. 39), 180; see also Snidal (fn. 33), 605.

44 Young, Oran R., “Introduction,” in Young, , ed., Bargaining: Format Theories of Negotiation Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975), 32, n. 40Google Scholar.

45 Williamson, , Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization New York: Free Press, 1975), 224Google Scholar.

46 Schelling, Thomas C., cited in Baldwin, David A., “Politics, Exchange, and Cooperation,” paper prepared for delivery to the 28th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC, 1987, p. 30Google Scholar.

47 Chan, Kenneth S., “The International Negotiating Game: Some Evidence from the Tokyo Round,” Review of Economics and Statistics 67 (August 1985), 456–64, at 463CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 McGinnis, Michael D., “Issue Linkage and the Evolution of International Cooperation,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30 (March 1986), 141–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 164.

49 Keohane (fn. 31), 100, 104–5.

50 For discussion, see Sebenius, James K., “Negotiation Arithmetic: Adding and Subtracting Issues and Parties,” International Organization 37 (Spring 1983), 281–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tollison, Robert D. and Willett, Thomas D., “An Economic Theory of Mutually Advantageous Issue Linkages,” International Organization 33 (Autumn 1979), 425–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oye, Kenneth A., “The Domain of Choice: International Constraints and the Carter Administration,” in Oye, Kenneth A., Rothchild, Donald, and Lieber, Robert J., eds., Eagle Entangled: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Complex World New York: Longman, 1979), 3–33Google Scholar.

51 It is this combination that motivates the role of reputations in such games as the chainstore paradox and formal analyses of cooperation in finite PDs. See Kreps and Wilson (fn. 15); also Kreps, David M., Milgrom, Paul, Roberts, John, and Wilson, Robert, “Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma,” Journal of Economic Theory 27 (August 1982), 245–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Lebow, Richard Ned, “Conclusion,” in Jervis, Robert, Lebow, Richard Ned, and Stein, Janice Gross, eds., Psychology and Deterrence (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985) 303–32Google Scholar.

53 Moreover, any government known to put stock in past behavior invites others to cheat it L. G. Telser observes: The accumulation of a fund of goodwill of a buyer toward a seller that depends on past experience stands as a ready temptation to the seller to cheat the buyers and convert their goodwill into ready cash. It is the prospect of the loss of future gain that deters and the existence of past goodwill that invites cheating. Therefore, rational behavior by the parties to an agreement requires that the probability of continuing their relation does not depend on their past experience with each other. See Telser, , “A Theory of Self-enforcing Agreements,” Journal of Business 53 (January 1980) 27–44, at 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Frank, , Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions New York: W. W Norton, 1988), 74–75 emphasis in originalGoogle Scholar.

55 Salisbury, Lord, “The Terms of Peace,” in The Quarterly Review 129 (October 1870), 540 56, at 546Google Scholar.

56 Keohane (fn. 31), 100. One article that does briefly discuss this solution is Yarbrough, Beth V. and Yarbrough, Robert M., “Reciprocity, Bilateralism, and Economic 'Hostages': Selfenforcing Agreements in International Trade,” International Studies Quarterly 30 (March 1986), 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Snidal (fn. 33), 610–11.

58 See Bendor, Jonathan and Mookherjee, Dilip, “Institutional Structure and the Logic of Collective Action,” American Political Science Review 81 (March 1987), 129–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Friedman, James W., Oligopoly Theory New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 For a discussion of these limits, see Friedman, ibid., 133; also Bendor and Mookherjee (fn. 58), 133–34.

61 Friedman (fn. 59), 133–34.

62 Kindleberger, , “Systems of International Economic Organization,” in Calleo, David P., ed., Money and the Coming World Order New York: New York University Press, 1976), 24–26, quotation at 24Google Scholar.

63 More generally, an external economy “is said to be emitted when an activity undertaken by an individual or firm yields benefits to other individuals or firms in addition to the benefits accruing to the emitting party.” External diseconomies inflict injury rather than confer benefits. See Boadway, Robin W. and Wildasin, David E., Public Sector Economics, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984), 60Google Scholar.

64 Root, William A., “Trade Controls that Work,” Foreign Policy 56 (Fall 1984), 61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Baldwin, David A., Economic Statecraft Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

66 McKeown (fn. 1), 225.

67 As Baldwin observes, trade “is by far the most [cost-] effective . . . way for one country to acquire the goods or services of another.” Baldwin (fn. 65), 116.

68 In theory, it is possible for states negotiating with each other to conclude an agreement that improves the absolute welfare of each while it preserves the pre-existing balance of power between them. The prerequisites of such an agreement are formidable, however: the utility functions of the states must be common knowledge, and the contracting states must agree on a utility scale that will determine both the status quo ante and the division of benefits from cooperation. (Rapoport, Anatol, Fights, Games, and Debates [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1974], chap. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar) In practice, it seems unlikely that these conditions will be fulfilled.