HEGEMONİK İSTİKRAR(SIZLIK) KURAMI

Uluslararası politik iktisat dahilinde bir bakış açısı sunan hegemonik istikrar kuramı, uluslararası ekonomik yapı ileuluslararası güç dağılımı arasındaki bağlantıyı açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Siyasi kararların doğurduğu ekonomiksonuçları ele alan kuram, günümüz dünya ekonomisinin ve buna bağlı şekillenen uluslararası ilişkiler dinamiklerin inyorumlanması hususunda faydalıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı güncel gelişmeler ile uluslararası ilişkilerdeki değişkenlerışığında hegemonik istikrar kuramını ve kurama karşı yöneltilen eleştirileri analiz etmektir. Bu bağlamda ilgilikuramcılara atıfla kurama ait temel kavramlar detaylandırılırken kuramın geçerliliği ve güncel gelişmele riaçıklayabilmedeki etkinliği tartışılacaktır. Kuramın temel taşlarından biri olan hegemon kavramı, Amerika nhegemonyası özelinde örneklendirilecektir. Genel yapı göstermektedir ki Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, hegemonikistikrar kuramının işaret ettiği iyilikseverlik ve manevi doyum kavramlarından uzak olarak maddi çıkarı önemseyenbir güç olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

THEORY OF HEGEMONIC (IN)STABILITY

Hegemonic stability theory explains the link between international economic structure and power distribution in the international system from a political economy point of view. The theory construes contemporary world economy and related dynamics of international relations by evaluating the economic outcomes of political decisions. This study aims to analyze hegemonic stability theory and its criticism in the scope of current dynamics and variables in international relations. In that regard the study refers to related theoretians and elaborates the main concepts of the theory and their competence to explain current affairs. The notion of hegemon will be exemplified specific to the US hegemony. The overall structure demonstrates the fact that unlike the premis e of the theory, US hegemony seeks material gains instead of benelovence or spiritual satisfaciton.

PDF

___

Brilmayer, L. (1994). American hegemony: political morality in a one-superpower world. New Haven & London: Yale University.
Burges, S. W. (2008). Consensual hegemony: theorizing Brazilian foreign policy after the cold war. International Relations, 22(1), 65-84.
Calleo, D. P. (1970). The Atlantic fantasy: the US, NATO and Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Calleo, D. P. (1987). Beyond American hegemony: the future of the western alliance. New York: Basic Books.
Calleo D. P., & Rowland, B. M. (1975). America and the world political economy: Atlantic dreams and national realities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Conybeare, J. A. C. (1984). Public goods, prisoner’s dilemma and the international politica l economy. International Studies Quarterly, 28, 6-13.
Eichengreen, B. (1996). Hegemonic stability theory and economic analysis: reflections on financial instability and the need for an international lender of last resort (UC Berkeley: Center for International and Development Economics Research Working Paper No. 51). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g49p8kj adresinden erişildi.
Evans, P. B. (1989). Declining hegemony and assertive industrialization: U.S.-Brazil conflicts in the computer industry. International Organization, 43(2), 207-238.
Gallagher, J., & Robinsoni R. (1953). The imperialism of free trade. The Economic History Review, 2(6), 1-15.
Gilpin, R. (1975). U.S. power and the multinational corporation: the political economy of foreign direct investment. New York: Basic Books.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gowa, J. (1989). Rational hegemons, excludable goods and small groups: an epitaph for hegemonic stability theory. World Politics, 41, 307-324.
Grunberg, I. (1990). Exploring the ‘myth’ of hegemonic stability. International Organization, 44(4), 431-477.
Haas, E. B. (1982). Words can hurt you or who said what to whom about regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 207-243.
James, S. C., & Lake, D. A. (1989). The second face of hegemony: Britain’s repeal of the corn laws and the American walker tariff of 1976. International Organization, 43(1), 1-30.
Kaiser, K. (1989). A view from Europe: the U.S. role in the next decade. International Affairs, 65, 209-223.
Kaplan, M. (1957). System and process in international politics. New York: Wiley.
Kaymak, M. (2016). Hegemonya tartışmaları işığında İngiliz ve Amerikan hegemonyalar ı: yönlendirici hegemonyadan kural koyucu hegemonyaya. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 63-92.
Keohane, R. O. (1979). U.S. foreign economic policy toward other advanced capitalist states: the struggle to make others adjust. K. Oye, D. Rothschild & R. Lieber (Eds.), Eagle entangled u.s. foreign policy in a complex world içinde (ss. 89-102). London: Longman.
Keohane, R. O. (1980). The theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international economic regimes, 1967-1977. O. R. Holsti, R. M. Siverson & A. L. George (Eds.), Change in the international system içinde (ss. 131-162). Boulder: Westview Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1976). Systems of economic organizations. D. P. Calleo, (Ed.), Money and the coming world order içinde (ss. 15-40). New York: New York University Press.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1981). Dominance and leadership in the international economy: exploitat ion, public goods and free riders. International Studies Quarterly, 25, 242-254.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). Hierarchy versus inertial cooperation. International Organization, 40, 841-848.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1987). The world in depression, 1929-1939. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.
Kohout, F. (2003). Cyclical, hegemonic, and pluralistic theories of international relations: some comparative reflections on war causation. International Political Science Review, 24(1), 51-66.
Krasner, S. D. (1976). State power and the structure of international trade. World Politics, 28, 317- 347.
Lake, D. A. (1983). International economic structures and American foreign economic policy, 1887-1934. World Politics, 35, 517-543.
Lake, D. A. (1984). Beneath the commerce of nations: a theory of international economic structures. International Studies Quarterly, 28, 143-170.
Lawson, F. H. (1983). Hegemony and the structure of international trade reassessed: a view from Arabia. International Organization, 38, 317-337.
Russett, B. (1985). The mysterious case of vanishing hegemony; or is Mark Twain really dead? International Organization, 39, 207-231.
Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of hegemonic stability theory. International Organization, 39, 579- 614.
Strange, S. (1987). The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International Organization, 41(4), 551- 574.
Webb, M. C. and Krasner, S. D. (1989). Hegemonic stability theory: an empirical assessment. Review of International Studies, 15(2), 183-198.
Wohlforth, W.C. (2008). Realism and foreign policy. S. Smith, A. Hadfield & T. Dunne (Eds.), Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases içinde. Oxford, NY: Oxford University.