Editor's Note: Dr. Joseph S. Nye is a professor at Harvard and author of The Future of Power. For more from Nye, visit Project Syndicate's website, or check it out on Facebook and Twitter.
By Joseph S. Nye
UNITED KINGDOM – When one state is preponderant in power resources, observers often refer to the situation as hegemonic. Today, many pundits argue that other countries’ rising power and the loss of American influence in a revolutionary Middle East point to the decline of “American hegemony.”
But the term is confusing. For one thing, possession of power resources does not always imply that one can get the outcomes one prefers. Even the recent death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of United States special forces does not indicate anything about American power one way or the other.
To see why, consider the situation after World War II. The U.S. accounted for more than one-third of global product and had an overwhelming preponderance in nuclear weapons. Many considered it a global hegemon. Nonetheless, the U.S. was unable to prevent the “loss” of China, “roll back” communism in Eastern Europe, prevent stalemate in the Korean War, defeat Vietnam’s National Liberation Front, or dislodge the Castro regime in Cuba.
Even in the era of alleged American hegemony, studies show that only one-fifth of America’s efforts to compel change in other countries through military threats were successful, while economic sanctions worked in only half of all cases. Yet many believe that America’s current preponderance in power resources is hegemonic, and that it will decline, like that of Britain before it. Some Americans react emotionally to that prospect, though it would be ahistorical to believe that the U.S. will have a preponderant share of power resources forever.
But the term “decline” conflates two different dimensions of power: absolute decline, in the sense of decay or loss of ability to use one’s resources effectively, and relative decline, in which the other states’ power resources become greater or are used more effectively.
For example, in the seventeenth century, the Netherlands flourished domestically but declined in relative power as other states grew in strength. Conversely, the Western Roman Empire did not succumb to another state, but instead to internal decay and swarms of barbarians. Rome was an agrarian society with low economic productivity and a high level of internecine strife.
While the U.S. has problems, it hardly fits the description of absolute decline in ancient Rome, and the analogy to British decline, however popular, is similarly misleading. Britain had an empire on which the sun never set, ruled more than a quarter of humankind, and enjoyed naval supremacy.
But there are major differences in the relative power resources of imperial Britain and contemporary America. By World War I, Britain ranked only fourth among the great powers in terms of military personnel, fourth in GDP, and third in military spending. The costs of defense averaged 2.5-3.4% of GDP, and the empire was ruled in large part with local troops.
In 1914, Britain’s net export of capital gave it an important financial kitty to draw upon (though some historians consider that it would have been better to have invested the money in domestic industry). Of the 8.6 million British forces in WWI, nearly one-third were provided by the overseas empire.
With the rise of nationalism, however, it became increasingly difficult for London to declare war on behalf of the empire, the defense of which became a heavier burden.
By contrast, America has had a continental-scale economy immune from nationalist disintegration since 1865. For all the loose talk of American empire, the U.S. is less tethered and has more degrees of freedom than Britain ever had. Indeed, America’s geopolitical position differs profoundly from that of imperial Britain: while Britain faced rising neighbors in Germany and Russia, America benefits from two oceans and weaker neighbors.
Despite these differences, Americans are prone to cycles of belief in decline. The Founding Fathers worried about comparisons to the decline of the Roman republic. Moreover, cultural pessimism is very American, extending back to the country’s Puritan roots. As Charles Dickens observed a century and a half ago, “if its individual citizens, to a man, are to be believed, [America] always is depressed, and always is stagnated, and always is in an alarming crisis, and never was otherwise.”
More recently, polls showed widespread belief in decline after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, then again during the Nixon-era economic shocks in the 1970’s, and after Ronald Reagan’s budget deficits in the 1980’s. At the end of that decade, American’s believed the country was in decline; yet, within a decade, they believed that the U.S. was the sole superpower.
Now many have gone back to believing in decline.
Cycles of declinism tell us more about American psychology than about underlying shifts in power resources. Some observers, such as the Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, believe that “debating the stages of decline may be a waste of time – it is a precipitous and unexpected fall that should most concern policy makers and citizens.” Ferguson believes that a doubling of public debt in the coming decade cannot erode U.S. strength on its own, but that it could weaken a long-assumed faith in America’s ability to weather any crisis.
Ferguson is correct that the U.S. will have to come to terms with its budget deficit to maintain international confidence, but, as I show in my book The Future of Power, doing so is within the range of possible outcomes. America enjoyed a budget surplus only a decade ago, before George W. Bush’s tax cuts, two wars, and recession created fiscal instability. The U.S. economy is still ranked near the top in competitiveness by the World Economic Forum, and the political system, in its own messy way, has slowly begun to wrestle with the necessary changes.
Some believe a political compromise between Republicans and Democrats can be reached before the 2012 election; others suggest an agreement is more likely after the election. Either way, fuzzy statements about hegemonic decline would again prove misleading.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
I read it twice and could find no point to this story.. Some people think we're in our power is in decline? Yeah? And?
Blast.. Came out wrong at the end there. I don't think our power is in decline, some do, big deal
The point was to discuss the evidence that some give that America power is in decline as many in the media are suggesting. It is largely an academic argument. I wonder if some read stories about the royal wedding and asked "People get married everyday ... so what?"
Power is never absolute. It is always changing and real strength of any country is its economical strength, military strength, international reputation, national spirit to fight back in adverse condition. USA has proven that they alone have capacity to attack enemy in any part of the world. This we saw when US commando entered in other country unknowingly and killed its enemy like Bin Laden in 40 minutes. Action speaks lounder than all words, all measurements and all expert's conclusions. Economy is concerned USA experienced such bad situation first time after World war -II. American people were in bad habit of over spending and careless. Present economic disaster has taught much needed good lesson to American people. Best part of USA is American pride, national spirit, its cohesive cosmopolitans society, its freedom, its quality constitution, ,law system, good quality infrastructures, good communication and other technologial systems, best education facilities. Now, what USA need is rethinking in there spending habit, to cut healthcare expenses, rethinking on saving habit, rethinking on higher education, reduction in deficiet, export, strong relationship with rising Asian countries and cutting mililitary budget. People of USA are unique, cosomopolitans, love there country with national pride. USA has helped many countries in the past financially and given military support. No country have this generous quality compare to USA. I am very optimistic that under President Obama, USA with all its inner inbuilt strength will bounce back in next 5 years .
It all sounds good but it will not happen under Obama. It will not happen until the party lines can come together and quit the internal government fighting. You stated cut the Military....I agree that cuts need to be made but it should be done within the government itself. When you have government leaders serving one or two terms and paid for the rest of their life….that is where the cuts need to start!!! Public service is not a life long pay check. When you have law makers make laws that don’t apply to them, and paid insane amounts of money for the rest of their life, and taking vacations several times a year, and only working part of that year…..C’mon Man! Where would this country be if every day citizens had that mentality? Cut the pay checks within the government before you start cutting other areas!!!
You could not of said it better. KUDOS to you on a very well written and thoughtful comment!!!
I get disgusted when I think of how much of our tax money goes to the military. We have an Air Force 5 times larger than we need,a Navy 6 to times larger and an Army also that many or more times as large. And the jerks in Washington can't figure out a way to balance the national budget. There's definately something wrong here and I'm sick and tired of it!!!
I bet you are happy that you can express your opinion partly because of the large military though.
AMEN!
May I ask you just what does the military have to do with my rights? If we didn't own the Pacific Ocean,I'd be just as free.
That is what happens when you are the "World Police"
20 years ago,we stopped being the "World's Police" and then became the "World's Bully"!
In response to:
Onesmallvoice
20 years ago,we stopped being the "World's Police" and then became the "World's Bully"!
Let's see, 20 years ago we stopped Iraq from occupying Kuwait. Was that an act of a bully?
In the last 20 years we have allowed, via currency valuation, China to absorb at least 10 million jobs that used to be here. Is that type of self destructive behavior an act of a bully or a sucker? We were a leading aid giver in a number of other countries natural disaster, from Pakistan to Haiti to Japan. Is that bully-like behavior.
Next time you post that sort of accusation, give some examples please or didn't your mother teach you not to break wind with your mouth?
One example you say.. Since you conveniently forgot to mention it, how about Iraq war number 2. And don't try to justify it with "well, Saddam wasn't good".. He wasn't the excuse to go in there.. There were far worst rulers, such as in Sudan. And even if the countries have bad rulers, they are sovereign countries, nonetheless. Second, there's Afghanistan. Third, there's Libya. Trying to justify these genocidal wars is picking nonsense out of your butt like a circus clown and excusing war criminals such as,. bush, blair, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, obama, clinton, and other thugs in kind.
Dr. Joseph S. Nye can predict the future no more than you or I can, he is simply trying to sell his book (which he manages not only to plug, but insert a link to its Amazon page).
If or when the US does fail as a World power, nobody will see it coming, just as nobody foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This article was clearly not profound. It is rather interesting though that America has always thought of themselves as in decline while they may or may not have been. Some parts of the world may think America is screwed considering the economic crisis they may be in and it will fall but I believe they are comparing it their own own experiences. America has been up and down but always has been able to quickly adapt to economic and political changes for all of its life time. I think its perhaps one of the key attributes the founding fathers created. Every country will have it set backs from time to time and those with massive economical responsibility are more sensitive but America has shown over the century that it will over come. America is not a dictator and it is not leader also. America is more of an influencer. Clearly, it has set the stage of trading through the whole world. Britain first started it but the trading infrastructure was influenced from the US to the eastern world like China, Japan, and Korea. Europe, like the British Empire, whom had trading posts all over started it all, America expanded on the concept with full industry might. Just like US's industrial revolution, China is having theirs and soon the middle east will have theirs. China won't hold out in treating their citizens as cheap labor much since even cheaper labor will be soon offered in the middle east. China will need to become innovative and free thinking like Japan. This could possibly mean the end of the communist regime in China.
I find the topic "American Power after Bin Laden" misleading! Why "after Bin Laden"? Was it because Bin Laden challenged the Americans on September 11 2001 that shook their confidence in their country's abilities to protect its citizens and questioned their position in the world?
Joseph Nye missed the point on the decline of the British Empire! The "rule and divide" policy that the Brits employed didn't catch up with the Zeitgeist movement in their colonies. Keeping up their appearances of being gentlemanlike losers they granted their colonies independence.
The only thig this article made clear is this guy wants to sell his book and a Harvard education doesn't necessarily make you very intelligent...
Economic power has become a supra-national corporate phenomenon. US cultural and economic influence has changed post war Europe, influenced the fall of the Iron Curtain, lifted Japan, China and India. Even the Arab Spring of 2011 has it's roots in young people around the globe adopting internationalism. The perceived decline in US military power is more than offset by the ever-expanding reach of US culture and corporate power.
Absolutely true, we need to cut the paychecks of all the senate, and congress...extend benefits only so long as they serve, not life long....we need to have term limits on congress and senate, and pass anti-lobby laws and stringent immigration implementations....o.k, yes, Obama is doing very good job in focusing on Energy Independence, Infrastructure, Education....kudos to Obama...This nation is going to be stronger than ever before....crying on Reagan, and Bush that messed is of no use.....
Yes let's outlaw experience in Congress because people in their states cannot be expected to chose for themselves if their representative has been in Washington DC too long.
The assumption Obama wrote in his book is that Washington corrupts idealistic leaders through time. I'd like to see more data on that before I accept it as truth.
You're so right Diridi and by the by Recheck Facts, as the old saying goes, "power corrupts, and more power corrupts absolutely", one need only look at the careers of any long standing politician through history to see that in action, especially in the Third world or Communist nations. The same holds true in First world nations as well so long as one cares to look. When one has someone in office for too long a time said individuals tend to move away from the possibly noble reason they originally sought office for but rather to fuel their own ends eventually. Hence the reason why term limits are so important lest they devolve into oligarchy. More's the point politicians should not be continued to be paid once out of office. Doing so is neither practical nor works within the confines of true public service.
It is easy for some to conflate "Hegemony" and "Sphere of Influence". We need to be more precise in the domains we refer: military might, economic superiority, cultural domination, or social-psychological advantage? "Decline" as a historical reference has as much to do with an obsession to retain some static or superior level power that brings about its own demise as a product of unintended consequences. The notions of power and authority are ellusive because the rest of the world does not stand pat – there are too many dynamic, moving parts. The obsession with who is "Top Dog" is a form of narcisism that indicates the nostalgia wrapped around "better times", without any humility around tenuos nature, in the global arena, that power is not enough without some consciousness of moral authority to command center stage. George W. Bush helped lead a period of relative decline, do to the arrogance surrounding the assumptions he and his team had around the pressumption of intitlement to lead. America and Americans are their best when they are ethical actors in the world that excude a humble pride, engaging the world with strong identity and their own brand of engagement, but without the presumption of intitlement or wrapped in false superiority and thinly veiled arrogance. Authority to express and use power is granted when their is a sensiblity that the authority is warranted and earned. Internationally, with respect to all forms of power, this is the challenge of the Obama adminstration to try to regain. If we focus on hegemony, the appearence of impearialism and Social Darwinism is not to far behind. Neither projects serve the interests of authority to lead in global power structure of the 21st Century. Paz siempre.
Just like Carter accused the American people of "crises of confidence" an even bigger threat than economy. He just misjudged that the attitude experienced in the 1970's were not unique to his term in office, as the article states there is a long history of people thinking we are in decline.
And why not? If you're number one in the world or perceive yourself to be #1, then you are always looking over your shoulder to see if someone is catching up and if another country makes strides in a certain area then the alarms go off leading to the perception of decline.
It surely has been a iconic TIME from the fall of the wall in Berlin to the fall of the oil region. The outcome of the earlier one was out of every one's imagination and so is the next one. It is interesting in the human civilization how TIME has made history in the past and will continue to do in the future.
Pakistan"s nukes will be used by the talebanis against india, the usa and the eu- the world should act before that happens-