Structural Change on East Asia: Hegemonic Stability Theory

Asih Purwanti

National Sun Yat-sen University

Keywords : Hegemonic Stability Theory, East Asia, structural change

Abstract : Looking at East Asia today can be seen that there is a structural change happens in this region. During the

Cold War time, people believed that the U.S. and Japan are acting as a hegemonic power served in the

region. But today, people may see several important phenomena occurred in the region: (1) the rising power

of the PRC both in economy and military in the region, (2) the growing threat from the North Korea, (3) the

decline economy strength of Japan, (4) the reluctant U.S. under Trump administration towards East Asia’s

intra-region problem. These conditions had left both South Korea and Taiwan at the most vulnerable

position. Therefore it is easy to argue that there is a structural change occurs in East Asia region. But using

Hegemonic Stability Theory as a lens, I argue that there are no structural changes in East Asia. It can be

argued that although Trump is trying to convince the world that the U.S. will be no longer to serve as a

hegemon in the world, the U.S. is still serving as a leader in East Asia. Japan is also still having their

economic power as the major power in the region. South Korea and Taiwan are maintaining their traditional

relations with the U.S. and Japan. And for the PRC, although its growing economic and military power is

clear, but PRC is not acting as a hegemon who sacrifice their attributes to serve as a leader in the region. At

last, even though North Korea is now acting unexpectedly with their nuclear weapons, East Asia region

remains stable because the U.S. still performs as one hegemonic actor who is willing to maintain the stable

relations among actors in the region.

1 INTRODUCTION

International relations according to Hegemonic

Stability Theory (HST) is a structural system.

Although there are no hierarchical manners in the

relationship among states, the international system

somewhat remains stable because of the structure in

international sphere where one or two states are

willing to be the leader among others. In this

situation, the proponents of HST argues that when

the international system changes, so will the

incentives and behaviour among actors. So it is the

‘structure’ which is determined by a hegemonic

major power who will be the main influencer on the

international system. And whenever the structural

scheme is changed, it will definitely change the

international system.

This paper aims to look at whether HST is still

relevant to study the actors’ behaviour in

International Relations. East Asia today can be

argued as one dynamic region in the world because

of the composition of the actors and the structure of

power in the region. We can ignore the fact that the

agenda of the world politics today must have words

such as China, North Korea, the US, nuclear

weapons, and security. I want to look at how HST

can be one good tool to explain the dynamic in East

Asia. First, I present how HST explains the world

works. How this perspective has a strong position in

International Relations. Second, I compare HST to

other perspectives, the Defensive and Offensive

Realism in analyzing actors’ behaviour in

International Relations. Third, how HST explain the

interactions among actors in East Asia.

2 HEGEMONIC STABILITY

THEORY (HST)

My work will be quite similar to Liu and Hung’s

paper in 2011 as they also support that HST is still

applicable in explaining international politics in East

Asia. However, Liu and Hung’s present their

argument in the context of transformations brought

by globalization and focus in world’ realm that the

US has declined and China has arisen. Following

Purwanti, A.

Structural Change on East Asia: Hegemonic Stability Theory.

DOI: 10.5220/0010274300002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 139-142

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

139

Samuel Kim’s words (2004): “With the Korean

peninsula as its strategic pivot, it is the one and only

international region or subregion where the world’s

four major powers – China, Japan, Russia and the

US – uneasily meet and interact and where their

respective interests coalesce, compete, or clash in a

situation-specific way” (Liu and Hung, 2011).

The hegemonic stability argues that whenever a

world order dominated by a single power

(hegemony) will be most stable order and will have

the most open economic order among actors. HST’s

argument is based on Charles Kindelberger

proposition that is an open and liberal world

economy requires the existence of a hegemonic and

dominant power. It is further held that greater

aggregate wealth will be produced under such a

world order (Kindleberger,1973). According to

Kindleberger, “a liberal economic order needs

leadership, a country which is prepared, consciously

or unconsciously, under some system of rules it has

internationalized, to set standards of conduct for

other countries; and to seek to get others to follow

them...” (Kindleberger, 1973). Robert Gilpin

suggests that “a liberal international economy can

only be formed and maintained through the support

of the most powerful state or states in the system”

(Gilpin,1975).

Keohane mentions that Underlying this statement

is one of the two central propositions of the theory

of hegemonic stability: 1) that order in world

politics is typically created by a single dominant

power. Since regimes constitute elements of an

international order, this implies that the formation of

international regimes normally depends on

hegemony. 2) The other major tenet of the theory of

hegemonic stability is that the maintenance of order

requires continued hegemony (Keohane, 1984).

Emphasizing on Kindleberger words, "for the world

economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer,

one stabilizer" (Kindleberger, 1973). This implies

that cooperation, which we define in the next chapter

as mutual adjustment of state policies to one another,

also depends on the perpetuation of hegemony

(Keohane, 1984)

To some extent, it is easy to categorize HST as a

variant theory of international politics, this is

because of their arguments that it is the attributes of

the system which will affect the actors’ behaviour.

However, Keohane rejects the idea that a

deterministic version of the theory of hegemonic

stability, relying only on the Realist concepts of

interest and power is indeed incorrect (Keohane,

1984). As Keohane notes, “There is some validity in

a modest version of the first proposition of the

theory of hegemonic stability—that hegemony can

facilitate a certain type of cooperation—but there is

little reason to believe that hegemony is either a

necessary or a sufficient condition for the emergence

of cooperative relationships. Furthermore, and even

more important for the argument presented here, the

second major proposition of the theory is erroneous:

cooperation does not necessarily require the

existence of a hegemonic leader after international

regimes have been established. Post-hegemonic

cooperation is also possible” (Keohane, 1984).

Therefore according to HST, an international

cooperation will be well developed whenever one

hegemonic power is present. The hegemonic power

will be the only actor who is able to sacrifice itself to

maintain the cooperation among states in the world.

HST also suggests that a stable cooperation will only

happen in a liberal society which will lead to a free

market international economy where there will be

openness and non-discrimination. For a hegemon, it

is important to be able to maintain its role as a leader

in the system, the hegemon should be committed to

the values of liberalism or its social purpose and

domestic distribution of power must be favorably

disposed toward a liberal international order. For

HST, cooperations most likely will develop in the

economic area, but the leader should provide also a

condition of military security to ensure the

development of a free-market international

cooperation.

3 HEGEMONIC STABILITY

THEORY, DEFENSIVE

REALISM, AND OFFENSIVE

REALISM

Meanwhile, defensive realism sees that cooperation

as a tool to survive within the anarchical world.

Therefore defensive realist like Stephen M Walt

suggests that states in order to survive, states need to

cooperate in the form of alliance. Walt suggests that

in an anarchy situation, states form alliances to

protect themselves (Walt, 1987). This behavior is

influenced by a perception of threats, the state

eventually will be likely to choose to create an

alliance with other actors to balance the hegemonic

power. The perceptions of the threat and the

intentions of other actors determine the one state’s

action. Defensive realists suggest that the policy

makers should make policies that deescalate the

threats. Cooperation, according to defensive realism,

will be most likely to occur in the area of economic

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

140

and security where foreign aid will be closely related

to the alliance formation. Foreign aid will be

important in a balancing behaviour because aid is

usually a manifestation of political alignment, not a

cause of alignment. So according to defensive

realism, security cooperation will be conducted prior

to the economic cooperation.

In contrast to defensive realism, offensive

realism departs from a view that the anarchical

structure of an international system is defined by

major powers. To offensive structural realists like

John Mearsheimer, states likely try to be the

hegemon in the system. In this kind of situation,

major powers will be the most important actors in

the systems while the weaker actors will follow the

behaviaour of the major power (Mearsheimer,

2001). Under this circumstances, cooperation is

assumed to be difficult. But, Mearsheimer argues

that cooperation still can be developed where

cooperation takes place in a competition at its core

so that states will take advantage of other states. In

contrast of defensive realism, offensive realist will

suggest that state needs to pursue power so therefore

states should be offensive. Offensive realism will be

most likely to suggest that states need to develop

foreign policy in order to secure their survival.

Cooperation according to offensive realism will be

part of the states’ ultimate goal to gain the absolute

power as hegemony. Therefore, for offensive

realism, states should project their attributes

economically and military to gain the power, in

other words, states should use all strategies for

survival to shift the balance of power in their favour

and to prevent other states from shifting against

them.

The three perspectives offer a different view on

cooperation, based on the ‘realistic’ pictures of the

international relations, where cooperation and non-

cooperation schemes are occuring frequently. To

borrow Keohane’s words, “cooperation then is not

simply a situation without conflicts, but more as a

process that involves the use of means to stimulate

mutual adjustment” (Keohane, 1984). Another critic

for HST comes from Peet (1992). Peet argues that

although HST currently dominates the field of

contemporary political explanations of international

trade operating within the theoretical context of

political realism. As Peet notes, the world trade has

continued to grow, in contradiction to the theory's

predictions, numerous ad hoc explanations have

surfaced which offer an account for the rise in trade

while attempting to bolster hegemonic stability

theory. Peet suggests that HST should include the

domestic and international variables which are

related to the practices of some democratic industrial

states to continue to increase their influence in the

world trade in spite of a decline in the hegemonic

status of the United States.

4 HEGEMONY STABILITY IN

EAST ASIA

Some people argue that there is a structural change

happens in East Asia today. For a long time, people

believe that the U.S. and Japan are acting as a

hegemonic power served in the region. But now,

people may see the rising power of China both in

economy and military, the growing nuclear threats

from North Korea, the decline economy strength of

Japan, the reluctant US under Trump administration.

This situation has left South Korea and Taiwan at

the most vulnerable position.

The above facts lead to an assumption that the

US is no longer the leader or hegemon in East Asia.

The US has lost its leadership position in the

region’s structure. But using HST as a lens we can

see that there are no structural changes in East Asia.

Although Trump is acting to take the US out from

East Asia sphere and no longer willing to sacrifice

herself as a hegemon in the world, the U.S. is still

serving as a leader in East Asia. Japan is still having

their economic power, South Korea, and Taiwan

now are more likely seeking support from the US

and Japan. And regarding China. although its

growing economic and military power is clear,

China is not acting as a hegemon who is willing to

sacrifice her attributes to serve as a leader in the

region. Therefore, even though North Korea is now

acting unexpectedly with its nuclear, East Asia

remains stable because there is one hegemonic actor

who is able to maintain status-quo relations among

actors in the region.

While Ikenberry (2004) points out that to study

the interactions among actors in East Asia. Ikenberry

argues that the old American hegemonic order will

remain a critical component of East Asian order in

the future. The cooperation between the US and East

Asian countries create comprehensive relations

between the parties. The US maintains its role in

security provider in the region. As Ikenberry notes,

China may serve well in the economic dimension

and China shows a close relationship to the US, but

China still needs a long way to take over the US

presence in East Asia particularly in strategic terms.

Related to the hegemony stability, Ikenberry

mentions that “The dangers to today’s liberal

Structural Change on East Asia: Hegemonic Stability Theory

141

hegemonic order are twofold. One is the growing

duality and disjunction between where the region

sees its economic and security futures.

Economically, most East Asian countries

increasingly expect their future economic relations

to be tied to China. In terms of security, most of

these countries continue to expect to rely on

American alliance protection”. Ikenberry

emphasizes that the rise of China lead East Asia to

have a more close security link to the US (Ikenberry,

2004). From here, we can see that the US still play

as a significant major power in East Asia.

Beeson (2006) highlights that East Asia still

cannot refuse the US influence in the region and at

the same time the US also needs East Asia because

the context of Asia Pacific is declining. Moreover,

the rise of China as economic competitor leaves the

US to opt for a closer relationship to East Asia.

According to Beeson, “In the multi-layered political

architecture that is emerging across East Asia, intra-

regional ties are likely to become an increasingly

important, functionally necessary, and normatively

preferable part of regional practise and identity, in a

way the Asia-Pacific never has or could” (Beeson,

2006).

The rise of China’s power is indeed a significant

nuance in East Asia. But it is not necessarily that the

region is looking for a dependence scheme with

China. As Ross notes, ‘the region is becoming

increasingly more economically dependent on China

than on the United States. But the rise of Chinese

military power is less uniform; China is balancing

U.S. power, but in distinct theaters, rather than

throughout the region” (Ross, 2006). In this context,

China may offer an appealling economic

performance, but China still cannot draw attention

from countries such as Japan, South Korea and

Taiwan in military strategic terms.

According to Lui and Hung, the HST remains

applicable in the case of US security architecture in

Northeast Asia because the traditional diplomatic

allies still rely on US military presence in the region

to deter aggression from potential belligerents (Liu

and Hung, 2011). Liu and Hung notes that China is

still undergoing rapid economic development,

internal stability remains an important factor in the

maintenance of regional security. Liu and Hung

suggest that the US is still the dominant actor to

maintain the regional order in East Asia while China

is may play in regional stability and remains a tough

bet for other states in maintaining security (Liu and

Hung, 2011).

5 CONCLUSION

To sum up, looking at East Asian regional structure

in international relations realms, I argue that there is

no significant change in the system. Indeed, that

China is rising as an important player with its

economic power. However, in terms of security and

ideology, China has not yet replace the US as the

hegemon. Looking at the very recent event, when

the world has been patiently watching the talk

between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un in

Singapore this year, it is obvious that the US still an

important player in East Asia. China and North

Korea do not show attitude to abandon the US.

Moreover, the rest of East Asian coutries; Japan,

South Korea and Taiwan are definitely still holding

on the strong US influence in the region.

REFERENCES

Beeson, M. (2006) American Hegemony and Regionalism:

The Rise of East Asia and the End of the Asia-Pacific,

Geopolitics, 11(4), pp. 541-560

Besson, M. and Broome, A. (2010). Hegemonic Instability

and East Asia: Contradictions, Crises and US Power.

Globalizations, 7(4), pp. 507-523

Gilpin, R. (1987). The Political Economy of International

Relations. Ithaca: Princeton University Press.

Ikenberry, G.J. (2004). American Hegemony and East

Asian Order, Australian Journal of International

Affairs, 58(3), pp. 353-367

Keohane, R.O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and

Discord in the World Political Economy. New Jersey:

Princeton University Press

Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The World in Depression

1929–1939. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press

Liu, T.T. And Hung, M.T. (2011). Hegemonic Stability

and Northeast Asia: What Hegemon? What Stability?

Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 2(2), pp. 216-230

Mearsheimer, J.J (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power

Politics. New York: Norton

Peet, C. (1992). Declining Hegemony and Rising

International Trade: Moving Beyond Hegemonic

Stability Theory, International Interactions: Empirical

and Theoretical Research in International Relations,

18(2), pp. 101-127

Ross, R.S. (2006). “Balance of Power Politics and the Rise

of China: Accommodation and Balancing in East

Asia”, Security Studies. 15(3), pp. 185-239

Walt, S.M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances,

Ithaca:Cornell University Press

Yong, W and Pauly, P. (2013). Chinese IPE debates on

(American) hegemony, Review of International

Political Economy, 20(6), pp. 1165-1188,

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

142