Undermining Hegemony. The US, China, Russia, and International Public Goods Substitution

The starting point for the research project Undermining Hegemony has been the on-going changes in world order. When we speak of world order, it normally refers to the number of great powers and where they stand in relation to each other. During the Cold War, the US opposed Russia in a bipolar order. In the decade after the Cold War, many described the world order as relying on only one great power, a hegemon, and the system was described as unipolar. As the 2000s progressed, the perceived US dominance abated, and many raised the question of whether the world is becoming multipolar, that is, are we moving towards a world order with many more or less equally powerful countries? In particular, China and Russia are seen to directly challenge the US as the world's only superpower, whilst other states are seen to support the present US-led word order. Debates about the character of world order have to a large extent centred on the question of whether states side for or against the US. This makes for a caricatured picture, of the functioning of American hegemony as well as how other states relate to this hegemony. In Undermining Hegemony, we have sought to nuance the picture of power politics and order, by distinguishing between counter-hegemonic strategies that are directly aimed at the hegemon and hegemony and those that are more indirect and aimed at the rules and order that this hegemon upholds, seeking change from within. Rather than a direct challenge to the US as a hegemon, we contend that the US-led order itself risks being hollowed out. Thus, where most existing studies focus on direct strategies, we have focused on the indirect ones. More specifically, our take on these widely discussed issues of world order and the role of the US, is to understand the US, China, and Russia as engaging in a competition to provide international public goods, such as loans and security guarantees. Even if great powers such as Russia and China are not necessarily interested in hollowing out the world order, this can become an unintended consequence of the competition to provide alternative public goods to the American ones. In the project, we have conducted fieldwork and interviews in China, the United States, Iceland, Greenland, the Faeroe Islands and Colombia. We have found a number of examples of institutional hollowing-out, but also clear examples of small and middle powers utilizing the leverage inherent in having alternative goods-providers. We have also furthered theorization of what undermining does to hegemony by drawing on network theory. The theoretical output of the project has entered directly into the ongoing academic debate about the future of the liberal world order, and the project has garnered significant interest outside academia as well. At the conclusion of the project, two books are under review, while a journal special issue is under publication. Furthermore, 9 academic articles have been published, 3 are under publication and 2 are awaiting review.

Undermining Hegemony har hatt helt klar akademisk effekt, ved å produsere forskning på et hyperaktuelt felt. Denne forskningen har allerede fått stor oppmerksomhet internasjonalt. For NUPI har prosjektet bidratt til viktig teoretisk kompetanseutvikling. Det er også faglig viktig for NUPI å gjøre teoretisk informert arbeid på Norges nærområder, for å bevare og styrke fagmiljøets internasjonal akademiske relevans og lokale aktuelle relevans. Prosjektet har i tillegg vært viktig for å bevare og utvikle internasjonale akademiske nettverk, og har allerede ledet til nye prosjekter og søknader. Utenfor akademia, har prosjektet blitt møtt med stor interesse både i Norge og USA. I Norge har det vært betydelig interesse fra departementene for seminarene der funnene har blitt presentert, og i USA har forskere fra prosjektet gitt briefings blant annet i State Department.

Developments in the last fifteen years have driven renewed interest in hegemonic-stability and power-transition theory. The persistence of US-centered primacy during the 1990s produced new arguments for the stability of unipolar orders recent attention to the rise of China has made the dynamics of power transitions a central concern for work on grand strategy and interstate security. A key question here, is whether states are status quo or revisionist powers. However, theorists of hegemonic orders pay surprising little attention to the power politics of international order itself, and the mechanisms behind a hollowing out of such orders. Our take on these widely discussed issues will therefore be a framework understanding the US, China, and Russia as engaged in a competition to provide public goods in exchange for support. What is missing from traditional approaches and their views on public goods, is that rising powers have a much broader array of strategies at their disposal than either to challenge or assimilate the hegemon. There can be struggles to challenge the order in itself, without necessarily subduing to or directly challenging the hegemon as an actor. Rather than a direct challenge to the US as a hegemon, we contend that the US hegemonic order itself risks being hollowed out. Although states may not always intend to hollow out liberal order, public-goods substitution often undermines its rules and norms. It does so with or without directly challenging the power-position of the hegemon. These questions do matter, because such developments are at the centre of contemporary theoretical and practical debates, from discussions over multipolarity, US power, and the rise of the BRICS countries, to Russias annexation of Crimea, and Russian and Chinese bids for the Arctic. The project will deliver empirical findings based on fieldwork and interviews in China, Russia, the United States, Iceland, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Brazil, and Colombia.