After Hegemony

Online Description

Examines the current state of international politics and economics, discusses theories of rational cooperation, and considers the importance of institutions

🧭 60‑Second Brief

• Core claim (1–2 sentences): Durable cooperation is possible under anarchy even after the decline of a hegemon because international regimes—enduring principles, norms, rules, and procedures—reduce uncertainty and transaction costs, supply information, and enable decentralized enforcement through reciprocity and reputation. 

• Causal mechanism in a phrase: Rule‑guided, information‑rich iteration → lower transaction costs & uncertainty → credible reciprocity/reputation → sustained policy coordination.

• Paradigm & level(s) of analysis: Institutionalism on Realist foundations; primarily systemic/state level.

• Why it matters for policy/strategy (1–2 bullets):

  • Don’t rely on hegemonic dominance; design and maintain regimes that provide information and predictable rules. 

  • Accept some constraints (“tie yourself to the mast”) to gain predictability and reduce risk. 

🧪 Theory Map (IR)

• Paradigm(s): Institutionalism that incorporates Realist assumptions about power/egoism; critique and partial uptake of Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST).

• Level(s) of analysis: Systemic (rules, regimes, power distribution); State (government strategies under bounded rationality).

• Unit(s) of analysis: States (principal actors), with roles for international organizations and transgovernmental networks.

• Dependent variable(s): Degree/persistence of international cooperation (policy coordination), regime maintenance/change. 

• Key independent variable(s): Information provision; transaction costs; iteration/repetition; reciprocity & reputation; issue‑linkage; number of actors; hegemonic support (esp. for regime creation); decision costs (bounded rationality).

• Causal mechanism(s): Regimes generate symmetrical information, standardize expectations, limit strategy sets, and enable decentralized retaliation (“tit‑for‑tat”) that sustains cooperation among egoists.

• Scope conditions: Anarchy/self‑help persists; complementary interests exist; interactions are repeated among a manageable number of major actors; existing institutional density matters; governments face bounded rationality.

• Observable implications / predictions:

  • Regimes are easier to maintain than to create; persistence after hegemonic decline, with adaptation across issue areas.

  • Variation across money, trade, oil; cooperation and discord coexist post‑hegemony. 

• Potential falsifiers / disconfirming evidence: No cooperation after hegemony; cooperation appears mainly in “wrong places” (e.g., many small states without great‑power leadership, or single‑play PD issues); agreements mostly ad hoc outside regimes. 

🎓 Course Questions (from syllabus)

1. What role do regimes play in continuity and change of the international system?

2. What influences cooperation, according to Keohane?

3. Why is cooperation difficult to achieve?

4. What is the relationship between hegemony and international institutions?

5. What conditions or factors complicate Keohane’s theory?

6. What levers of influence does Keohane identify for us and how do they operate to create change in state behavior?

✅ Direct Responses to Course Questions

Q1. What role do regimes play in continuity and change of the international system?

Answer: Regimes mediate between power shifts and state behavior, sustaining continuity by reducing uncertainty and transaction costs, generating transgovernmental ties, and standardizing expectations; they also adapt and sometimes self‑limit innovation, shaping how change unfolds. They are easier to maintain than create, which helps explain persistence after hegemonic decline. (p. 100–103, 210–211, 182–183)  ✓

Q2. What influences cooperation, according to Keohane?

Answer: Cooperation is fostered by shared/complementary interests, repeated interaction, information and monitoring, lower transaction costs, issue‑linkage, credible reciprocity (reputation/retaliation), manageable numbers of actors, and decision rules that economize on bounded rationality. (p. 83–85; 89–91; 100–106; 103–104; 114–116; 213)  ✓

Q3. Why is cooperation difficult to achieve?

Answer: Under anarchy/self‑help, sovereignty and the possibility of coercion persist; uncertainty and high transaction costs impede agreement; distributional conflicts and domestic pressures (e.g., protectionism) complicate bargains; enforcement is decentralized, so actors fear defection. (p. 61–62; 100; 224–226; 104–105; 46)  ✓

Q4. What is the relationship between hegemony and international institutions?

Answer: Symbiotic: hegemons often create regimes and invest in institutions to embed preferred rules; yet cooperation can persist after hegemony because established regimes lower uncertainty and facilitate coordination. Hegemony is neither necessary nor sufficient for order. (p. 45–46; 49–50; 100)  ✓

Q5. What conditions or factors complicate Keohane’s theory?

Answer: Issue‑area variation (money/trade/oil), domestic politics, macroeconomic shifts, and learning/ideas complicate causal stories; the theory is non‑deterministic and sets explicit falsifiers (e.g., no post‑hegemonic cooperation). (p. 182–183; 28–29, 146; 213; 219–220)  ✓

Q6. What levers of influence does Keohane identify for us and how do they operate to create change in state behavior?

Answer: Design/manipulate regimes to: supply information; reduce transaction costs; link issues; structure decision procedures; cultivate transgovernmental networks; and bind future behavior (accepting obligations to gain predictability). These levers shift incentives toward longer time horizons and cooperative equilibria. (p. 89–91; 100–103; 103–104; 100; 115–116; 257–258)  ✓

📚 Section-by-Section Notes

Chapter 1: Realism, Institutionalism, and Cooperation

• Purpose: Frame the puzzle—cooperation without hegemony—and position Institutionalism alongside Realism. 

• Key claims: We must go beyond Realism, not discard it; power matters, but so do institutions that shape expectations. (p. 9) 

• Implications: Set up a synthesis: Realist premises + Institutional mechanisms. 

Chapter 2: Politics, Economics, and the International System

• Purpose: Define wealth & power goals; justify a primarily systemic analysis with states as crucial actors. (pp. 24–25) 

• Key claims: States seek wealth/power and build frameworks of rules to secure them; contrasts inside‑out vs outside‑in explanations. 

• Implications: Cooperation is instrumentally valuable to states’ goals. 

Chapter 3: Hegemony in the World Political Economy

• Purpose: Assess HST; relate hegemony to cooperation. 

• Key claims: HST’s general claims are overstated; hegemony and cooperation are symbiotic; hegemons must often invest in institutions. (pp. 45–46) 

• Implications: Hegemony helps create order, but it’s not a permanent or sufficient condition. 

Chapter 4: Cooperation and International Regimes

• Purpose: Define cooperation and regimes; distinguish from harmony/discord. (pp. 50–58, 63) 

• Key claims: Cooperation is policy coordination amid potential conflict; regimes are shared principles, norms, rules, procedures guiding expectations. (pp. 50–58, 63) 

• Limits: In a self‑help system, regime rules are fragile absent supporting interests. (pp. 61–62) 

Chapter 5: Rational‑Choice and Functional Explanations

• Purpose: Show how egoists can cooperate without hegemony under certain conditions. (pp. 83–85) 

• Key claims: With repeated play and credible reciprocity, institutions can help solve coordination/PD problems. 

Chapter 6: A Functional Theory of International Regimes

• Purpose: Articulate why regimes are valuable. (pp. 89–106) 

• Key claims: Regimes lower transaction costs, reduce uncertainty, create information symmetry, promote issue‑linkage, and are easier to maintain than to create. (pp. 100–104)

• Mechanisms: Regimes foster transgovernmental networks that sustain cooperation. (p. 100) 

Chapter 7: Bounded Rationality and Redefinitions of Self‑Interest

• Purpose: Relax perfect rationality; consider rules of thumb and empathy. (pp. 110–116, 123–131)

• Key claims: Bounded rationality increases the value of regimes (multilateral rules substitute for unilateral rules); reciprocity can be negative, balanced, generalized; empathy may expand perceived common interests. (pp. 115–116, 128–131, 123–124)

Chapter 8: Hegemonic Cooperation in the Postwar Era

• Purpose: Show how U.S. leadership constructed postwar monetary/trade regimes and managed oil. (pp. 149–177)

• Key claims/evidence: Bretton Woods par‑value system functioned as intended by late 1950s; the Suez oil‑lift (1956–57) illustrates hegemonic cooperation with firms and allies. (pp. 149–150, 169–173)

• Implication: Hegemony can substitute for regimes temporarily, but domestic politics limited U.S. leadership. (pp. 173–177) 

Chapter 9: The Incomplete Decline of Hegemonic Regimes

• Purpose: Trace regime change 1960s–early 1980s in money, trade, oil. (pp. 183–224) 

• Key claims: HST explains part of change, but cooperation persisted where regimes adapted; institutions mattered for expectations/transactions. (pp. 182–183, 208–209, 222–223)

• Trade politics: Domestic pressures complicate cooperation. (p. 210–213) 

Chapter 10: The Consumers’ Oil Regime, 1974–81

• Purpose: Case of post‑hegemonic cooperation: IEA. (pp. 219–240) 

• Key claims: Without an ongoing regime, the U.S. had to accept contingent obligations (e.g., oil sharing) to build credibility; the regime’s performance was mixed (1979 “fiasco,” 1980 improvement). (pp. 219–221, 16)

• Mechanism: Small‑N, repeated interaction + rules lowered defection incentives. (pp. 219–221) 

Chapter 11: The Value of Institutions and the Costs of Flexibility

• Purpose: Normative/policy wrap‑up.

• Key claims: Information is a public good regimes can produce; sometimes it is rational to bind oneself (“Ulysses to the mast”) because excess flexibility is costly. (pp. 257–258) 

🧩 Key Concepts & Definitions (author’s usage)

• Cooperation: “A process that involves the use of discord to stimulate mutual adjustment” and policy coordination—distinct from harmony. (pp. 46, 50–51, 63)

• International regimes: Enduring principles, norms, rules, procedures around which actor expectations converge; not world government. (pp. 57–58) 

• Harmony vs cooperation vs discord: Harmony makes cooperation unnecessary; cooperation happens amid potential conflict; discord can be instrumental. (pp. 50–51, 46)

• Reciprocity: Negative, balanced, and generalized forms; regimes facilitate non‑simultaneous exchange and credibly commit parties. (pp. 128–131) 

• Bounded rationality: Decision costs make rules of thumb and regime rules attractive substitutes for case‑by‑case calculation. (pp. 114–116) 

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Actors & Perspectives

• Great powers/hegemon: Create and underwrite regimes; may trade short‑run costs for long‑run influence; but domestic politics can undercut leadership. (pp. 24–25, 173–177)

• International organizations (IMF/GATT/IEA): Information hubs and coordinators; adapted to post‑1971 monetary world. (pp. 208–209, 219–221)

• Transgovernmental officials/networks: Regularized contact builds trust, symmetrical information, and informal coalitions. (p. 100) 

• Domestic groups/industries: Shape state preferences; e.g., protectionist pressures. (pp. 210–213) 

🕰 Timeline of Major Events

• 1944–1958 — Bretton Woods regime consolidated (par‑value, IMF centrality); trade regime embedded; cooperation flourishes. Significance: Hegemonic leadership builds liberal regimes. (pp. 149–150) 

• 1956–1957 — Suez crisis and Emergency Oil Lift: U.S. orchestrates company/government coordination to supply Europe. Significance: Archetype of hegemonic cooperation. (pp. 169–173) 

• 1971–1973 — Bretton Woods breakdown (Nixon shock; float). Significance: Rules changed, but institutional principles and cooperation persisted/adapted. (pp. 206–209, 222–223)

• 1973–1974 — Oil crisis; IEA formed. Significance: Post‑hegemonic regime built via contingent commitments. (pp. 219–221) 

• 1979–1980 — IEA fiasco then partial success. Significance: Regime limits and learning under stress. (p. 16) 

🧠 Policy & Strategy Takeaways

• Invest in regimes as information systems: Fund, staff, and protect reporting/monitoring to reduce uncertainty for all sides. (p. 100) 

• Design for reciprocity & iteration: Build procedures that make retaliation credible yet proportionate (“tit‑for‑tat”) to deter defection. (pp. 104–105, 213)

• Use issue‑linkage and binding commitments: Link bargains across issues; sometimes self‑bind to enhance credibility and stabilize expectations. (pp. 103–104, 257–258)

• R/B/C: Risks: over‑demanding partners exploit regime value; Benefits: predictability & lower risk; Conditions: repeated play, shared interests, robust information. (pp. 213, 100–103)

⚔️ Comparative Placement in the IR Canon

• Closest kin / contrasts: Sits between Realism (power/hegemony) and Institutionalism (regimes/expectations). Differs from strong HST (hegemony not necessary/sufficient). (pp. 45–46; 9)

• Placement: Institutionalism with Realist microfoundations—beyond Realism, not discarding it. (p. 9) 

🧐 Critical Reflections

• Strengths: Clear mechanisms (information/transactions/reciprocity); explicit scope and falsifiers; careful issue‑area comparisons. (pp. 100–106; 219–220)

• Weaknesses / blind spots: Acknowledged non‑determinism; heavy focus on advanced industrial states; testing requires time‑series beyond author’s horizon. (pp. 182–183; 219–220)

• What would change your mind? Persistent failure of post‑hegemonic cooperation, or cooperation led by small states on single‑play issues absent regimes. (p. 219–220) 

❓ Open Questions for Seminar

• When do regimes become self‑limiting, requiring shocks to expand cooperation? (pp. 210–211) 

• How much domestic politics (elections, lobbies) can regimes absorb before cooperation unravels? (pp. 210–213) 

✍️ Notable Quotes (with pages)

• “Cooperation… involves the use of discord to stimulate mutual adjustment.” (p. 46) 

• “Cooperation must be distinguished from harmony.” (p. 50) 

• “Regimes are easier to maintain than they are to create.” (p. 100) 

• “Hegemony and cooperation are… found in symbiotic relationships.” (pp. 45–46) 

• “Regimes… empower governments rather than shackling them.” (p. 13) 

• “It may be better, on occasion, to have oneself tied to the mast.” (pp. 257–258) 

📝 Exam Drills

• Likely prompt: “Explain how Keohane shows that cooperation can persist after hegemony. Identify the mechanisms and apply them to one post‑1973 issue area.”

  Skeleton answer (3‑part outline):

  1. Thesis: Cooperation persists because regimes provide information, reduce transaction costs, and enable reciprocity under anarchy (not because of hegemony alone). (p. 100–106) 

  2. Mechanisms & scope: Define cooperation vs harmony; show maintenance > creation; add bounded rationality and rules of thumb; note conditions (iteration, shared interests). (pp. 50–51, 100, 114–116)

  3. Application: Briefly analyze IEA (1974–81): initial commitments to build credibility; mixed performance; lessons on information/iteration/obligations. (pp. 219–221) 

---