The Experts below are selected from a list of 133104 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Stefan Robel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Hegemony, not empire
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2011Co-Authors: Miriam Prys, Stefan RobelAbstract:After a period of terminological indecision, ‘empire’ has staged a startling academic comeback since the beginning of this century. Like the notion of Hegemony, which dominated earlier debates on the United States and world order, the term ‘empire’ has never been uncontested. Furthermore, no clear delineation between the two concepts emerged, and under-conceptualisation resulted in a lasting confusion about their analytical value. Analysing the pitfalls of the central debates on empire and hegemonic stability, the article contends that the choice of terminology has frequently been motivated politically rather than by scientific standards. We find that proponents of ‘empire’ have largely misinterpreted the policy strategy of empire — as applied by the George W. Bush administration — for the real thing, an existing empire . In this article, instead, using Gary Goertz’ (2006) approach to conceptual analysis, we suggest a reformulation of the concept of Hegemony to capture the current international system in which the US still enjoys an undisputed preponderance of power. With a focus on how power is used , Hegemony is understood as a specific form of leadership that is dependent on the perception of its legitimacy and is differentiated with regard to its regional and global reach.
Jeroen Warner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transboundary ‘hydro-Hegemony’: 10 years later: Hydro-Hegemony 10 years after
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2017Co-Authors: Jeroen Warner, Filippo Menga, Naho Mirumachi, Rebecca Leanne Farnum, Mattia Grandi, Mark ZeitounAbstract:This article places the theorization and analysis of hydro-Hegemony in the context of the scholarship on transboundary water conflict and cooperation. We discuss critiques, developments, and debates in this domain over the past 10 years, focusing particularly on the contributions of the London Water Research Group, showing how thinking on the theorization and analysis of hydro-Hegemony—and hydropolitics—has moved beyond the state-centricity, the tendency to see Hegemony as solely negative, and the conceptually hegemonic potential of hydro-Hegemony itself. Various strands of international relations theory (realism, neo-institutionalism, critical theory) have left their mark on the London School. Intense interaction between analysts and pragmatic practitioners is found to invite (or incite) eclecticism as well as promote vibrancy.
-
You gain some funding, you lose some freedom: The ironies of flood protection in Limburg (The Netherlands)
Environmental Science and Policy, 2013Co-Authors: Anna Wesselink, Jeroen Warner, Matthijs KokAbstract:In this paper we show how applying an analytical framing of Hegemony to policy making can draw out strategic positioning and negotiation of the actors involved that would remain hidden with a more rationalistic analysis. We show how long established flood protection management from the Dutch lowlands was imported into Limburg after two major flood events (1993/1995) and we argue this case highlights how existing Hegemony is easily replicated in new situations. With the shock caused by these floods came a securitising discourse that transformed the portrayal of flood risks in Limburg as 'safety' rather than 'costly nuisance'. After an intense lobby by Limburg, the Meuse and its floodplains were included into the Dutch Flood Defence Law in 2005, becoming a national responsibility. While most Limburg inhabitants see increased protection against flooding as beneficial, the new law also meant strict design procedures and planning restrictions. Water expertise plays an important role in setting the new rules that determine which local ambitions are compatible with the national laws and policies. While securitisation helped to actively reproduce the existing (perception of) hegemonic relations in this case, the relationship between securitisation and Hegemony is context-dependent, and both hegemon and non-hegemon can use a securitisation strategy to their advantage. Exactly how this will happen cannot be predicted, but 'securitization' and 'Hegemony' are important sensitising concepts that can alert the observer to mechanisms of power re-distribution in other situations and settings. ?? 2012 Elsevier Ltd.
-
hydro Hegemony a framework for analysis of trans boundary water conflicts
Water Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Mark Zeitoun, Jeroen WarnerAbstract:The increasing structural and physical scarcity of water across the globe calls for a deeper understanding of trans-boundary water conflicts. Conventional analysis tends to downplay the role that power asymmetry plays in creating and maintaining situations of water conflict that fall short of the violent form of war and to treat as unproblematic situations of cooperation occurring in an asymmetrical context. The conceptual Framework of Hydro-Hegemony presented herein attempts to give these two features – power and varying intensities of conflict – their respective place in the perennial and deeply political question: who gets how much water, how and why? Hydro-Hegemony is Hegemony at the river basin level, achieved through water resource control strategies such as resource capture, integration and containment. The strategies are executed through an array of tactics (e.g. coercion-pressure, treaties, knowledge construction, etc.) that are enabled by the exploitation of existing power asymmetries within a weak international institutional context. Political processes outside the water sector configure basin-wide hydro-political relations in a form ranging from the benefits derived from cooperation under hegemonic leadership to the inequitable aspects of domination. The outcome of the competition in terms of control over the resource is determined through the form of hydro-Hegemony established, typically in favour of the most powerful actor. The Framework of Hydro-Hegemony is applied to the Nile, Jordan and Tigris and Euphrates river basins, where it is found that current hydro-hegemonic configurations tend towards the dominative form.. There is evidence in each case of power asymmetries influencing an inequitable outcome – at the expense of lingering, low-intensity conflicts. It is proposed that the framework provides an analytical paradigm useful for examining the options of such powerful or hegemonized riparians and how they might move away from domination towards cooperation.
Miriam Prys - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Hegemony, not empire
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2011Co-Authors: Miriam Prys, Stefan RobelAbstract:After a period of terminological indecision, ‘empire’ has staged a startling academic comeback since the beginning of this century. Like the notion of Hegemony, which dominated earlier debates on the United States and world order, the term ‘empire’ has never been uncontested. Furthermore, no clear delineation between the two concepts emerged, and under-conceptualisation resulted in a lasting confusion about their analytical value. Analysing the pitfalls of the central debates on empire and hegemonic stability, the article contends that the choice of terminology has frequently been motivated politically rather than by scientific standards. We find that proponents of ‘empire’ have largely misinterpreted the policy strategy of empire — as applied by the George W. Bush administration — for the real thing, an existing empire . In this article, instead, using Gary Goertz’ (2006) approach to conceptual analysis, we suggest a reformulation of the concept of Hegemony to capture the current international system in which the US still enjoys an undisputed preponderance of power. With a focus on how power is used , Hegemony is understood as a specific form of leadership that is dependent on the perception of its legitimacy and is differentiated with regard to its regional and global reach.
Li Xing - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Markets, Emerging Societies: Global Responses
2020Co-Authors: Steen Fryba Christensen, Li XingAbstract:In Chapter 1, we presented our understanding of the “great transformations” taking place in international relations and in the international political economy. These transformations are also creating responses at national level in terms of economic/market orientation, political alliance, development strategy, and so on. One of the book’s key objectives is to provide a good framework for understanding the relationship between the rise of emerging powers and the existing world order, with an empirical focus on worldwide responses. The questions which were raised in Chapter 1 were designed with the aim of looking for answers as to the “global impact” of the rise of emerging powers and the “responses” from different countries and regions. But we also are aware of the interconnectedness, complexity, multiplicity and dialectics of development in the world order (Figure 11.1). Therefore, if we are making an attempt to offer some conclusions, there is no doubt that these are open-ended conclusions. Here are some key conclusive findings offered by this book. Firstly, in an era of global capitalism it is impossible for the emerging powers to establish an alternative independent Hegemony; rather, the world is witnessing a new era of “interdependent Hegemony” (or “intertwined Hegemony”), in which both the existing hegemons and the emerging powers are engaged in a constant process of shaping and reshaping the world order in the nexus of national priority, regional orientation, market interests, political support and potential conflicts (Li, 2014; Li and Agustin, 2014). This conclusion is supported by the chapter contributions (chapters 4 and 5) in which global responses are characterized by or embedded within ongoing interactions of order-shaping and
-
From “Hegemony and World Order” to “Interdependent Hegemony and World Re-order”
Emerging Powers Emerging Markets Emerging Societies, 2016Co-Authors: Li XingAbstract:In studies of world politics and international relations (IR, IPE and world order), the concept of “Hegemony” is often applied to describe different enduring aspects of an order in the international system. It is a useful instrument in conceptualizing and understanding the dynamic and dialectic interplays in world order and international relations/systems. Realism perceives Hegemony as the dominance by one leading state in interstate relations, such as in the concept often used by realism: “hegemonic stability”. Liberalism sees Hegemony as being embedded in the interactions of each individual at the bottom, and in the norms and values of international institutions as rule-settlers at the top. And world system theory emphasizes state-based class and material forms of a Hegemony which is shaped and maintained by a global division of labor. This division of labor constantly generates and regenerates unequal exchange, and that, in turn, differentiates the strong/rich versus the weak/poor, not only economically, but also politically and militarily.
-
The Crisis of Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony under Transnational Capitalism
2007Co-Authors: Li XingAbstract:This paper explores the issue of Hegemony under transnational capitalism. It conceptualizes how transnational accumulation and supraterritorial space has altered capitalism in general and its Hegemony in particular. It aims to provide a framework of understanding and analyzing the way globalization has reshaped the terrain and parameters of social, economic and political relations both at the national and the global levels, and exerted pressure on the resilient and hegemonic capacities of capitalism. It proposes to examine the ways social relations of domination, subordination and organic interplay are produced, maintained, decomposed and delinked while continuously undergoing transformations. Inspired by the Gramscian and Polanyian theoretical and analytical categories, the paper analyses the fading “organic” linkage between state, market and civil society under transnational capitalism. In concludes that transnational capitalism is creating serious dual contradictions: the crisis of both Hegemony and counterHegemony. Transnational capitalism is not able to create a “transnational Hegemony” similar to that under nation-state capitalism, nor is it able to foster a transnational consensual power of civil society and organic counter-Hegemony social forces. Rather, transnational capitalism is producing the opposite result: reducing the legitimacy of capitalism’s Hegemony and limiting its resilient capacities while creating non-organic counter-hegemonic movements in various forms and directions including fundamentalism and terrorism.
Danture Wickramasinghe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
appearance of accounting in a political Hegemony
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2008Co-Authors: Chandana Gnanapriya Alawattage, Danture WickramasingheAbstract:This paper addresses an empirical issue: the non-constitutive role of accounting in a political Hegemony. An 11-month fieldwork in Sri Lankan tea plantations shows how labour control is manifested in a complex historical and socio-political context which gave shape to a political Hegemony infusing economic enterprise, civil society and the political state to blur the boundaries of organisation hierarchy. The managerial rationales of accounting have been subsumed by the rationales of a political Hegemony and, in turn, the roles of accounting have been confined, on the one hand, to the reproduction and representation of everyday practices of ‘the nature of tea-making’ and their hegemonic control and, on the other hand, to information processing for financial control and external reporting. A theoretical framework, drawn on cultural-Marxist discourses on Hegemony, explains the emergence and sustenance of political Hegemony as the dominant mode of control in Third World enterprises. The framework illustrates that political Hegemony constitutes structural and agential hegemonies, and that ensuing hegemonic governance and the mundane of labour controls interact with each other. Having linked the framework with the political history, post-colonial politics and everyday control practices, it illuminates the ways in which accounting appears in a political Hegemony. In contrast to Western experience that accounting plays a constitutive role in labour control, we argue that the role accounting has assumed within political hegemonies of the Third World is rather representational and reproductive: it reproduces rather than constitutes the constitutive role of the political Hegemony by representing it as a calculated ‘truth’ or a ‘nature’.
