American Hegemony or American Primacy?

Mar 9, 2015 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

Because the US-led world order centered around a group of like-minded countries, which comprised less than half of the world, America cannot really be considered a global hegemon. Nonetheless, the US has played a vital role in world affairs for decades, and is likely to continue to do so, though in new and unforeseeable ways.

CAMBRIDGE – No country in modern history has possessed as much global military power as the United States. Yet some analysts now argue that the US is following in the footsteps of the United Kingdom, the last global hegemon to decline. This historical analogy, though increasingly popular, is misleading.

Britain was never as dominant as the US is today. To be sure, it maintained a navy equal in size to the next two fleets combined, and its empire, on which the sun never set, ruled over a quarter of humankind. But there were major differences in the relative power resources of imperial Britain and contemporary America. By the outbreak of World War I, Britain ranked only fourth among the great powers in terms of military personnel, fourth in terms of GDP, and third in military spending.

The British Empire was ruled in large part through reliance on local troops. Of the 8.6 million British forces in WWI, nearly a third came from the overseas empire. That made it increasingly difficult for the government in London to declare war on behalf of the empire when nationalist sentiments began to intensify.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 20 Comments on this article

John Ellis Mar 16, 2015

By 1914 the British empire was in advanced relative decline so picking this year as its apogee is absurd. The 1860's were the pinnacle of British power.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Eric Dynamic Mar 15, 2015

Using your or their soldiers to control them directly, versus using the CIA and NSA, money and murder to control their elites. A rather technical distinction concerning the use of the word "empire". Primacy, Empire, Hegemony. In the end, does the choice of word matter to the subject populations? It's still Control, Coercion, Manipulation, Exploitation, Expropriation, and it's cruel and morally wrong, which is probably why the dance about the right "word" to use for it in the presses of the - Empire.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Mar 13, 2015

I just realized: "Maintaining Prosperity' is a much more useful goal than "Maintaining Primacy", and also a good rhetorical answer to the fishy notion of placing the desire to be first ahead of the desire to be well.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerald Silverberg Mar 13, 2015

What about hegemony in the sense of Charles Kindleberger: as a guarantor of a multilateral trading regime in its national currency and unhindered high-seas trade and capital flows? Following Mahon this primarily requires naval dominance, not armies, so GB and the London City were every bit as much hegemonic powers up to WWI as was the US after WWII under the Bretton Woods Systems (IMF, World Bank, UN, Wall St).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shoshon Tama-Sweet Mar 13, 2015

Another important factor that seems to have have been left out of the picture is global performance in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession. China overspent, has over-invested, and has slowing growth. Europe is stagnant and at war. India is a bright spot, but Brazil, South Africa, and other developing economies are faltering. Stagnating wages in the US has made its labor costs more competitive, it is still the safest place to invest, and its shale and tight oil revolution are in their infancy. In short, US military dominance and an economic resurgence at the expense of Europe, China, and the BRIC's indicate that the American Project is far from over. Throw in a new alliance with India and normalization with Iran, and the US seems on the verge of a renewed period of global dominance. Project for a new a American century, anyone?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shoshon Tama-Sweet Mar 13, 2015

What are America's global goals? We can see proximate goals, like stability (or instability?) in the Near East, or containment of China, etc. But what is the long term vision? What is so clear is that it is not direct control, not direct hegemony. So how do you measure the goal of a 'hegemon' whose goal is not the total hegemonic power of past empires? IF America's ultimate vision for the world is 'free' markets, personal freedom, private property, commercial power, uninhibited capital, and total military dominance, and an occasional democratic gesture, then we should measure its influence against achievement of those goals. In this sense, the American project is a stunning success- most countries in the world subscribe to a large portion of those characteristics. Only a few- North Korea, Russia, Iran, IS- defy it militarily, almost none reject it economically, and most countries and states are on a trend of increasing adoption of those salient characteristics. Significantly, while the rate of progress in achieving this global vision may slow or accelerate over time, the trajectory seems to be irreversible.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paulo Sérgio Mar 10, 2015

The United States is currently going through an extended period of creative destruction. What exactly is the method to the madness that is their current Republican "-lead" Congress remains to be seen. But, it is true, that the rest of the world looks on in disgust, maybe salivating at the chance to take the throne. Many metrics point to internal decline of this American Empire, starting with the squeezed middle class, the state of education in the country, the rubble that was once the mighty city of Detroit on the Empire's periphery, again, the dysfunctional arguing-senate-while-Rome-burns -- these are all synonyms of Rome.

However, while the US is unlikely to clean-up its many problems overnight, it's similarly unlikely to be eclipsed outright overnight. Apart from the EU, no other economic block encompasses so many of the advantages the US does, and if the Republicans don't get their way with maintaining bloodlines, the country will maintain a growing population, growing prosperity -- and when combined with the unique entrepreneurial spirit, capital markets and venture capital achieved on the scale the US operates, it's really hard seeing them fall into the abyss.

Yes, in this day of US "economic decline" the country still accounts for well over half of world market capitalization. It will remain a very potent force in the world for a very long time.

Creative destruction is guaranteed by American open culture. It is not yet likely in closed cultures which do not favor individualism. OF course, it is the prerogative of other commentators here to question the very idea of American culture - or lack thereof - but people should remember that the country, which is basically an idea, has amassed quite a lot of other ideas, and therefore power in a fraction of the time other older civilizations have existed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Mar 10, 2015

Yet again someone tries to focus our attention to a particular tree, without taking into account the forest around it. Very lame and simplistic analysis. It doesn’t matter if you are going to call it empire, hegemon, primacy or whatever, the US today is what Britain, Rome, ancient Greece...... used to be in the past, and it will undoubtedly have the same faith as all those that came before it. Mr. Nye’s logic is like comparing a car in 1900 and today. At first glance they have nothing in common yet the in principle they are the same: four wheels, steering wheel, pedals and an internal combustion engine (that works today using the same principles of mechanics is it did 100 years ago).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jean-Marc Beaugrand Mar 10, 2015

This is a poorly researched article.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Derrick Baragwanath Mar 10, 2015

The author downplays the analogy with Britain. I don't think this is correct. The United States today is playing almost the same role as Britain did in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. During this period Britain was the anchor in any `Coalition Of The Willing' against those powers seeking dominance. It was apparent in the Wars of Succession in the 17th Century, the Seven Years War in the 18th Century and the Napoleonic Wars and Crimean War in the 19th Century. Britain was the master at cobbling together coalitions to block the latest bully boy. This is exactly the role of the United States in the 20th and 21st Centuries. In today's world the US cannot contain China by itself but it can be the backbone of a coalition of mutually minded states who all fear the rise of China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Mar 10, 2015

Primacy is an interesting word. Maybe it's the right one.

I'm a little wary that this may be another bit of "newspeak", like the word "credibility" has been in the past 2 years or so (conflates "trustworthiness" with "reputation for following through on threats"), or "legitimacy" (begs the question of the speaker's authority on the subject),

However, I am willing to give "Primacy" a chance. 1945-1991 was cold war. That was a tale of competing empires. That is when the imperial bad habits became really pronounced. 1991-2004 was unquestionably Hegemony. Now it is once again back to a tale of competing empires, with, as Nye is totally right to remind us, all these interesting non-state actors. (hatched as a result of the imperial bad habits of the last 2-3 generations of American efforts at world leadership!)

So Primacy it is. We'll see how this word is used to cut, or to glue ideas together that otherwise don't want to stick.
- Eric Dynamic Mar 15, 2015
  
  The Cold War ended in 1987. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. Two different things. See Archie Brown, "The Gorbachev Factor".
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 9, 2015

Obviously Joseph Nye sees primacy more appealing than hegemony! "No country in modern history has possessed as much global military power as the United States". Primacy is the state of being the first or the most important part of a whole, and it "seems like a more accurate description" of the US with its "disproportionate (and measurable) share of all three kinds of power resources: military, economic, and soft".
Hegemony is about the control or dominating influence over others. Like a tide, it ebbs and flows. Before the demise of the Soviet Union, the US enjoyed merely "half hegemony". It was the leader of a "group of like-minded countries, ......which comprised less than half of the world". It set "the rules of an international system", called Pax Americana. So a "hegemon does not have to have a formal empire".
For over a decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world was unipolar with the US as its sole hegemon. Yet in recent years its dominance has been challenged by emerging powers like China and other players, signalling a possible end of US primacy. But Nye believes that "at least in the first half of this century, the US will retain its primacy in power resources and continue to play the central role in the global balance of power". Even "if American power resources decline", the "public goods" and the international forum it has provided will inspire many countries to stick to the status quo, unless something better could replace this "institutional framework".
Compared to the British Empire, the US is in a more fortunate position, because it doesn't have to carry the burden and face the problems of an imperialist. The British Empire ruled over swaths of land in Asia and Africa. Its rule-and-divide policies in the Middle East and India were controversial and they still have repercussions on the region today. Besides the US has its geographical advantages that it is "surrounded by unthreatening countries and two oceans".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Mar 9, 2015

Please identify on a map which half of Vietnam the communists did not take over?
- Shoshon Tama-Sweet Mar 13, 2015
  
  Nice.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cheryl Nagy Mar 9, 2015

the description of Great Britain's history is much like a description of Rome's Empire
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Mar 9, 2015

One good look at GOP candidates for 2016 elections should advise any observer the vile and hegemonic nature of American politics; and its manifest provincialism when it is, for example, able and willing to invite Bibi to address a joint-session of Congress on Iran principally to undermine the policy of its won sitting POTUS.

This has not before happened in American politics; ie. the end of global hegemony.

However on 50th anniversary celebration of (US) Selma Civil Rights march found none of the same (racist) leaders – who invited Bibi’s attack on their sitting President - in attendance. Why? Is it American racism or a penchant for Israel-phobia that is misleading US leaders?

If however if it was US political primacy which diktated their myopic preference of Bibi – over their (black) President – it is not only endangering P5+1 negotiations with Iran but ultimately capable of undermining American global primacy, in the process.

Nye has to consider implication of above in context of his defense of American hegemony. Russia, China and EU are currently supporting US sanctions against Iran…but given the egregious intervention of a non-NPT member (Israel) on Iran nuclear program – a NPT signatory – the fallout on American policy primacy may be disastrous.

Moreover, Iranian nuclear issue has become a football for Israeli lobby on Capital Hill. Is Bibi the Senator from West Jerusalem?

How far can this particular development impact American global hegemony is anyone’s guess; but mainland China is studying it with keen interest – for lessons to be learnt.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Mar 9, 2015

Britain's exit from Europe's embrace took intercontinental dimensions when The East India Company - whose flag became the American Flag minus the Union Jack - commenced its work as the World's Greatest Corporation in 1600 AD. Until 1945, The Anglosphere was divorced from the European heartlands for nearly 350 years. The flirting with European Union, in the aftermath of WWII - lasted only 25 years until Bretton Woods collapsed in 1971, ending America's honeymoon with the EU. It took two Californian Presidencies to redefine America's Pacific dimensions, along with Pacific Australia and Canada. America's predicament differs strikingly from Britain in its European dimensions. America's isolationist stance a result of geographic remoteness from Europe - the confrontation with Russia exposes the differences in posture of the Europeans from that of The Anglosphere. The Four corners of The Anglosphere will have already deciphered and defined their strategy for the next 415 years - the Achilles Heel as always is Europe. It is up to America to steer its future in The Anglosphere or play New Constantinople to Rome. Sir Francis Drake, the Duke of Wellington and Sir Winston Churchill had instincts honed inside the Concert of Europe. The American strength is derived from a greater inclusiveness, but only time will tell whether American instincts sustain Planet English.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Arun Motianey Mar 9, 2015

Im greatly disapponted with all of Joseph Nye's recent pieces in the Project Syndicate. This one is the most unsatisfactory of all, a cocktail of hackneyed assertions (is the US an empire? No! is it a hegemony? No!) and self-mythologizing about the US that prompts him to confer on his home country (and mine as well) the benign status of "primacy". I am enough of a realist to know that in the treacherous geopolitical climate of the last 70 years "primacy" would not cut it.

There is something at work here that is deeper than Nye believes. The US is an ideological power to a far greater extent than Great Britain ever was. It's presiding belief system is a Hamiltonian-neoliberal one which it promotes actively through US corporations and,most importantly, US financial institutions that are the instruments by which it maintains the dominant global currency. The obscenely expensive security architecture that it has built and supports is in service of this belief system. It sustains national greatness by getting others to join in this belief system (or "Concert") and punishes those like Russia and Iran that threaten it.

The real problem -- and this is why US global power could unravel faster than Britain's did in the early 20th century -- is because Britain was able to maintain a nationalist glue by delivering the benefits of empire to the British public. The US's Hamiltonian-neliberal framework works only for its elites. The US's unspooling will come as a result of domestic populist discontent rather than the sort of "overreach" explanations that people like Nye and Paul Kennedy have been peddling.
- Michael Public Mar 9, 2015
  
  This.
  
  "The real problem -- and this is why US global power could unravel faster than Britain's did in the early 20th century -- is because Britain was able to maintain a nationalist glue by delivering the benefits of empire to the British public. The US's Hamiltonian-neliberal framework works only for its elites. The US's unspooling will come as a result of domestic populist discontent rather than the sort of "overreach" explanations that people like Nye and Paul Kennedy have been peddling."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/QdahEft

Cookies and Privacy

American Hegemony or American Primacy?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

American Hegemony or American Primacy?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification