Online library: digital copies

Copyright Notice

Staff and students of the University of London are reminded that copyright subsists in
this extract and the work from which it was taken. This Digital Copy has been made under
the terms of a CLA licence which allows Course Users to:
• access and download a copy;
• print out a copy.
This Digital Copy and any digital or printed copy supplied under the terms of this Licence
are for use in connection with this Course of Study. They should not be downloaded or
printed by anyone other than a student enrolled on the named course.
All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and shall be
destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by the University.
Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or distribution
(including by e-mail) is permitted without the consent of the copyright holder.
The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral rights in the
work and neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, the distortion, mutilation or
other modification of the work, or any other derogatory treatment of it, which would be
prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
Name of Designated Person authorising scanning:
Publishing Manager, University of London International Programmes

Course of study: EMFSS - International Political Economy - IR3026

Extract title: Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory

Title author: Cox, Robert W.

Publication year, Volume, Issue: 1981, 10 (2)

Page extent: 126-155

Source title: Millennium

ISBN: 03058298
Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 10, No . 2

Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond

International Relations Theory

Robert W. Cox

Academic conventions divide up the seamless web of the real social world into
separate spheres, each with its own theorising; this is a necessary and practical way
of gaining understanding. Contemplation of undivided totality may lead to
profound abstractions or mystical revelations, but practical knowledge (that
which can be put to work through action) is always partial or fragmentary in
origin. Whether the parts remain as limited, separated objects of knowledge, or
become the basis for constructing a structured and dynamic view of larger wholes
is a major question of method and purpose. Either way, the starting point is some
initial subdivision of reality, usually dictated by convention.
It is wise to bear in mind that such a conventional cutting up of reality is at best
just a convenience of the mind. The segments which result , however, derive
indirectly from reality insofar as they are the result of practices, that is to say, the
responses of consciousness to the pressures of reality. Subdivisions of social
knowledge thus may roughly correspond to the ways in which human affairs are
organised in particular times and places. They may, accordingly, appear to be
increasingly arbitrary when practices change .
. International relations is a case in point. It is an area of study concerned with
the interrelationships among states in an epoch in which states, and most
commonly nation-states, are the principal aggregations of political power. It is
concerned with the outcomP.s of war and peace and thus has obvious practical
importance. Changing practice has, however, generated confusion as to the
nature of the actors involved (different kinds of state, and non-state entities),
extended the range of stakes (low as well as high politics), introduced a greater
diversity of goals pursued, and produced a greater complexity in the modes of
interaction and the institutions within which action takes place.
One old intellectual convention ·which contributed to the definition of
international relations is the distinction between state and civil society. This
distinction made practical sense in the Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries
when it corresponded to two more or Jess distinct spheres of human activity or
practice: to an emergent society of individuals based on contract and market
relations which replaced a status-based society, on the one hand, and a state with
functions limited to maintaining internal peace, external defence and the requisite

126
conditions for markets, on the other. Traditional international relations theory
maintains the distinctness of the two spheres, with foreign policy appearing as the
pure expression of state interests. Today, however, state and civil society are so
interpenetrated that the concepts have become almost purely analytical (referring
to difficult-to-define aspects of a complex reality) and are only very vaguely and
imprecisely indicative of distinct spheres of activity.
One recent trend in theory has undermined the conceptual unity of the state by
perceiving it as the arena of competing bureaucratic entities, while another has
reduced the relative importance of the state by introducing a range of private
transnational activity and transgovernmental networks of relationships among
fragments of state bureaucracies. The state, which remained as the focus of
international relations thinking, was still a singular concept : a state was a state
was a state. There has been little attempt within the bounds of international
relations theory to consider the state/society complex as the basic entity of
international relations. As a consequence, the prospect that there exist a plurality
of forms of state, expressing different configurations of state/society complexes,
remains very largely unexplored, at least in connection with the study of
international relations .
The Marxist revival of interest in the state might have been expected to help fill
this gap by broadening and diversifying the notion of state and, in particular, by
amplifying its social dimensions. Some of the foremost products of this revival,
however, either have been of an entirely abstract character, defining the state as a
"region" of a singularly-conceived capitalist mode of production (Althusser,
Poulantzas), or else have shifted attention away from the state and class conflict
towards a motivational crisis in culture and ideology (Habermas). Neither goes
very far towards exploring the actual or historical differences among forms of
state, or considering the implications of the differences for international
behaviour .
Some historians, both Marxist and non-Marxist, quite independently of
theorising about either international relations or the state, have contributed in a
practical way towards filling the gap. E.H. Carr and Eric Hobsbawm have both
been sensitive to the continuities between social forces, the changing nature of the
state and global relationships. In France, Fernand Braudel has portrayed these
interrelationships in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries on a vast canvas of
the whole world. 1 Inspired by Braudel's work a group led by Immanuel
Wallerstein has proposed a theory of world systems defined essentially in terms of
social relations. The exploitative exchange relations between a developed core
and an underdeveloped periphery, to which correspond different forms of labour
control (e.g. free labour in the core areas, coerced labour in the peripheries, with
intermediate forms in what are called semi-peripheries). 2 Though it offers the
most radical alternative to conventional international relations theory, the world
systems approach has been criticised on two main grounds: first, for its tendency
to undervalue the state by considering the state as merely derivative from its
position in the world system (strong states in the core, weak states in the
periphery); second, for its alleged, though unintended, system-maintenance bias.
Like structural-functional sociology, the approach is better at accounting for
forces that maintain or restore a system's equilibrium, than identifying
contradictions which can lead to a system's transformation. 3

127
 The above comments are not, however, the central focus of this essay but
warnings prior to the following attempt to sketch a method for understanding
global power relations: look at the problem of world order in the whole, but
beware of reifying a world system. 4 Beware of underrating state power, but in
addition give proper attention to social forces and processes and see how they
relate to the development of states and world orders. Above all, do not base
theory on theory but rather on changing practice and empirical-historical study,
which are a proving ground for concepts and hypotheses.

On Perspectives and Purposes

Theory is always for someone and for some purpose. All theories have a
perspective. Perspectives derive from a position in time and space, specifically
social and political time and space. The world is seen from a standpoint
defineable in terms of nation or social class, of dominance or subordination, of
rising or declining power, of a sense of immobility or of present crisis, of past
experience, and of hopes and expectations for the future. Of course,
sophisticated theory is never just the expression of a perspective. The more
sophisticated a theory is, the more it reflects upon and transcends its own
perspective; but the initial perspective is always contained within a theory and is
relevant to its explication. There is, accordingly, no such thing as theory in itself,
divorced from a standpoint in time and space. When any theory so represents
itself, it is the more important to examine it as ideology, and to lay bare its
concealed perspective.
To each such perspective the enveloping world raises a number of issues; the
pressures of social reality present themselves to consciousness as problems. A
primary task of theory is to become clearly aware of these problems, to enable the
mind to come to grips with the reality it confronts. Thus, as reality changes, old
concepts have to be adjusted or rejected and new concepts forged in an initial
dialogue between the theorist and the particular world he tries to comprehend.
This initial dialogue concerns the problematic proper with a particular
perspective. Social and political theory is history-bound at its origin, since it is
always traceable to an historically-conditioned awareness of certain problems and
issues, a problematic, while at the same time it attempts to transcend the
particularity of its historical origins in order to place them within the framework
of some general propositions or laws.
Beginning with its problematic, theory can serve two distinct purposes. One
is a simple, direct response: to be a guide to help solve the problems posed within
the terms of the particular perspective which was the point of departure. The
other is more reflective upon the process of theorising itself: to become clearly
aware of the perspective which gives rise to theorising, and its relation to other
perspectives (to achieve a perspective on perspectives); and to open up the
possibility of choosing a different valid perspective from which the problematic
becomes one of creating an alternative world. Each of these purposes gives rise to
a different kind of theory.
The first purpose gives rise to problem-solving theory. It takes the world as it
finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions
into which they are organised, as the given framework for action. The general

128
aim of problem-solving is to make these relationships and institutions work
smoothly by dealing effectively with particular sources of trouble. Since the
general pattern of institutions and relationships is not called into question,
particular problems can be considered in relation to the specialised areas of
activity in which they arise. Problem-solving theories are thus fragmented among
a multiplicity of spheres or aspects of action, each of which assumes a certain
stability in the other spheres (which enables them in practice to be ignored) when
confronting a problem arising within its own. The strength of the problem-
solving approach lies in its ability to fix limits or parameters to a problem area
and to reduce the statement of a particular problem to a limited number of
variables which are amenable to relatively close and precise examination. The
ceteris paribus assumption, upon which such theorising is based, makes it
possible to arrive at statements of laws or regularities which appear to have
general validity but which imply, of course, the institutional and relational
parameters assumed in the problem-solving approach.
The second purpose leads to critical theory. It is critical in the sense that it 1
stands apart from the prevailing order of the world and asks how that order came
about. Critical theory, unlike problem-solving theory, does not take institutions
and social and power relations for granted but calls them into question by
concerning itself with their origins and how and whether they might be in the
process of changing. It is directed towards an appraisal of the very framework for
action, or problematic, which problem-solving theory accepts as its parameters.
Critical theory is directed to the social and political complex as a whole rather
than to the separate parts. As a matter of practice, critical theory, like problem-
solving theory, takes as its starting point some aspect or particular sphere of
human activity. But whereas the problem-solving approach leads to further
analytical sub-division and limitation of the issue to be dealt with, the critical
approach leads towards the construction of a larger picture of the whole of which
the initially contemplated part is just one component, and seeks to understand
the processes of change in which both parts and whole are involved.
Critical theory is theory of history in the sense of being concerned not just with
the past but with a continuing process of historical change. Problem-solving
theory is non-historical or ahistorical, since it, in effect, posits a continuing
present (the permanence of the institutions and power relations which constitute
its parameters). The strength of the one is the weakness of the other. Because it
deals with a changing reality, critical theory must continually adjust its concepts
to the changing object it seeks to understand and explain. 5 These concepts and
the accompanying methods of enquiry seem to lack the precision that can be
achieved by problem-solving theory, which posits a fixed order as its point of
reference. This relative strength of problem-solving theory, however , rests upon a
false premise, since the social and political order is not fixed but (at least in a
long-range perspective) is changing. Moreover, the assumption of fixity is not
merely a convenience of method, but also an ideological bias. Problem-solving
theories can be represented, in the broader perspective of critical theory, as
serving particular national, sectional, or class interests, which are comfortable
within the given order. Indeed, the purpose served by problem-solving theory is
conservative, since it aims to solve the problems arising in various parts of a
complex whole in order to smooth the functioning of the whole . This aim rather

129
 belies the frequent claim of problem-solving theory to be value-free. It is
methodologically value-free insofar as it treats the variables it considers as
objects (as the chemist treats molecules or the physicist forces and motion); but it
is value-bound by virtue of the fact that it implicitly accepts the prevailing order
as its own framework. Critical theory contains problem-solving theories within
itself, but contains them in the form of identifiable ideologies, thereby pointing
to their conservative consequences, not to their usefulness as guides to action.
Problem-solving theory tends to ignore this kind of critique as being irrelevant to
its purposes and in any case, as not detracting from its practical applicability.
Problem-solving theory stakes its claims on its greater precision and, to the extent
that it recognises critical theory at all, challenges the possibility of achieving any
scientific knowledge of historical processes.
Critical theory is, of course, not unconcerned with the problems of the real
world. Its aims are just as practical as those of problem-solving theory, but it
approaches practice from a perspective which transcends that of the existing
order, which problem-solving theory takes as its starting point. Critical theory
allows for a normative choice in favour of a social and political order different
from the prevailing order, but it limits the range of choice to alternative orders
which are feasible transformations of the existing world. A principal objective of
critical theory, therefore, is to clarify this range of possible alternatives . Critical
theory thus contains an element of utopianism in the sense that it can represent a
coherent picture of an alternative order, but its utopianism is constrained by its
comprehension of historical processes. It must reject improbable alternatives just
as it rejects the permanency of the existing order. In this way critical theory can
be a guide to strategic action for bringing about an alternative order, whereas
problem-solving theory is a guide to tactical actions which, intended or
unintended, sustain the existing order.
The perspectives of different historical periods favour one or the other kind of
theory. Periods of apparent stability or fixity in power relations favour the
problem-solving approach. The Cold War was one such period. In international
relations, it fostered a concentration upon the problems of how to manage an
apparently enduring relationship between two superpowers. However, a
condition of uncertainty in power relations beckons to critical theory as people
seek to understand the opportunities and risks of change. Thus the events of the
1970s generated a sense of greater fluidity in power relationships, of a many-
faceted crisis, crossing the threshold of uncertainty and opening the opportunity
for a new development of critical theory directed to the problems of world order.
To reason about possible future world orders now, however, requires a
broadening of our enquiry beyond conventional international relations, so as to
encompass basic processes at work in the development of social forces and forms
of state, and in the structure of global political economy. Such, at least, is the
central argument of this essay.

Realism, Marxism and an Approach to a Critical Theory of World Order

Currents of theory which include works of sophistication usually share some of
the features of both problem-solving and critical theory but tend to emphasise
one approach over the other. Two currents which have had something important

130
to say about inter-state relations and world orders - realism and Marxism - are
considered here as a preliminary to an attempted development of the critical
approach .
The realist theory of international relations had its origin in an historical mode
of thought. Friedrich Meinecke, in his study on raison d'etat, traced it to the
political theory of Machiavelli and the diplomacy of Renaissance Italian city-
states, which marked the emergence of a sense of the specific interests of particular
states quite distinct from the general norms propagated by the ideologically
dominant institution of medieval society, the Christian church. 6 In perceiving the
doctrines and principles underlying the conduct of states as a reaction to specific
historical circumstances, Meinecke's interpretation of raison d'etat is a
contribution to critical theory. Other scholars associated with the realist
tradition, such as E.H. Carr and Ludwig Dehio, have continued this historical
mode of thought, delineating the particular configurations of forces which fixed
the framework for international behaviour in different periods and trying to
understand institutions, theories and events within their historical contexts.
Since the Second World War, some American scholars, notably Hans
Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, have transformed realism into a form of
problem-solving theory. Though individuals of considerable historical learning,
they have tended to adopt the fixed ahistorical view of the framework for action
characteristic of problem-solving theory, rather than standing back from this
framework, in the manner of E.H. Carr, and treating it as historically
conditioned and thus susceptible to change. It is no accident that this tendency in
theory coincided with the Cold War, which imposed the category of bipolarity
upon international relations, and an overriding concern for the defence of
American power as a bulwark of the maintenance of order.
The generalised form of the framework for action postulated by this new
American realism (which we shall henceforth call neo-realism, which is the
ideological form abstracted from the real historical framework imposed by the
Cold War) is characterised by three levels, each of which can be understood in
terms of what classical philosophers would call substances or essences, i.e.
fundamental and unchanging substrata of changing and accidental
manifestations or phenomena. These basic realities were conceived as: (I) the
nature of man, understood in terms of Augustinian original sin or the Hobbesian
"perpetual and restless desire for power after power that ceaseth only in death";
(2) the nature of states, which differ in their domestic constitutions and in their
capabilities for mobilising strength, but are similar in their fixation with a
particular concept of national interest (a Leibnizian monad) as a guide to their
actions; and (3) the nature of the state system, which places rational constraints
upon the unbridled pursuit of rival national interests through the mechanism of
the balance of power .
Having arrived at this view of underlying substances , history becomes for neo-
realists a quarry providing materials with which to illustrate variations on always
recurrent themes . The mode of thought ceases to be historical even though the
materials used are derived from history. Moreover, this mode of reasoning
dictates that, with respect to essentials , the future will always be like the past. 9
In addition, this core of neo-realist theory has extended itself into such areas as
game theory, in which the notion of substance at the level of human nature is

131
presented as a rationality assumed to be common to the competing actors who
appraise the stakes at issue, the alternative strategies, and the respective payoffs
in a similar manner. This idea of a common rationality reinforces the non-
historical mode of thinking. Other modes of thought are to be castigated as inapt,
and incomprehensible in their own terms (which makes it difficult to account for
the irruption into international affairs of a phenomenon like Islamic integralism,
for instance).
The "common rationality" of neo-realism arises from its polemic with liberal
internationalism. For neo-realism, this rationality is the one appropriate response
to a postulated anarchic state system. Morality is effective only to the extent that
it is enforced by physical power . This has given neo-realism the appearance of
being a non-normative theory. It is 'value-free' in its exclusion of moral goals
(wherein it sees the weakness of liberal internationalism) and in its reduction of
problems to their physical power relations. This non-normative quality is,
however, only superficial. There is a latent normative element which derives from
the assumptions of neo-realist theory: security within the postulated inter-state
system depends upon each of the major actors understanding this system in the
same way, that is to say, upon each of them adopting neo-realist rationality as a
guide to action. Neo-realist theory derives from its foundations the prediction
that the actors, from their experiences within the system, will tend to think in this
way; but the theory also performs a proselytising function as the advocate of this
form of rationality. To the neo-realist theorist, this proselytising function
(wherein lies the normative role of neo-realism) is particularly urgent in states
which have attained power in excess of that required to balance rivals, since such
states may be tempted to discard the rationality of neo-realism and try to impose
their own moral sense of order, particularly if, as in the case of the United States,
cultural tradition has encouraged more optimistic and moralistic alternative views
of the nature of man, the state and world order. 10
The debate between neo-realists and liberal internationalists reproduces, with
up-to-date materials, the Seventeenth century challenge presented by the civil
philosophy of Hobbes to the natural law theory of Grotius. Each of the
arguments is grounded in different views of the essences of man, the state and the
inter-state system. An alternative which offered the possibility of getting beyond
this opposition of mutually exclusive concepts was pointed out by the Eighteenth
century Neapolitan Giambattista Vico, for whom the nature of man and of
human institutions (amongst which must be included the state and the inter-state
system) should not be thought of in terms of unchanging substances but rather as
a continuing creation of new forms. In the duality of continuity and change,
where neo-realism stresses continuity, the Vichian perspective stresses change; as
Vico wrote, " ... this world of nations has certainly been made by men, and its
guise must therefore be found within the modifications of our own human
mind." 11
This should not be taken as a statement of radical idealism, (i.e. that the world
is a creation of mind). For Vico, ever-changing forms of mind were shaped by the
complex of social relations in the genesis of which class struggle played the
principal role, as it later did for Marx. Mind is, however, the thread connecting
the present with the past, a means of access to a knowledge of these changing
modes of social reality. Human nature (the modifications of mind) and human

132
institutions are identical with human history; they are to be understood in genetic
and not in essentialist terms (as in neo-realism) or in teleological terms (as in
functionalism). One cannot, in this Vichian perspective, properly abstract man
and the state from history so as to define their substances or essences as prior to
history, history being but the record of interactions of manifestations of these
substances. A proper study of human affairs should be able to reveal both the
coherence of minds and institutions characteristic of different ages, and the
process whereby one such coherent pattern - which we can call an historical
structure - succeeds another. Vico's project, which we would now call social
science, was to arrive at a "mental dictionary", or set of common concepts, with
which one is able to comprehend the process of "ideal eternal history", or what is
most general and common in the sequence of changes undergone by human
nature and institutions . 12 The error which Vico criticised as the "conceit of
scholars", who will have it that "what they know is as old as the world", consists
in taking a form of thought derived from a particular phase of history (and thus
from a particular structure of social relations) and assuming it to be universally
valid . 13 This is an error of neo-realism and more generally, the flawed foundation
of all problem-solving theory. It does not, of course, negate the practical utility
of neo-realism and problem-solving theories within their ideological limits. The
Vichian approach, by contrast, is that of critical theory.
How does Marxism relate to this method or approach to a theory of world
order? In the first place, it is impossible, without grave risk of confusion, to
consider Marxism as a single current of thought. For our purposes, it is necessary
to distinguish two divergent Marxist currents, analogous to the bifurcation
between the old realism and the new. There is a Marxism which reasons
historically and seeks to explain, as well as to promote, changes in social
relations; there is also a Marxism, designed as a framework for the analysis of the
capitalist state and society, which turns its back on historical knowledge in favour
of a more static amd abstract conceptualisation of the mode of production. The
first we may call by the name under which it recognises itself: historical
materialism. It is evident in the historical works of Marx, in those of present-day
Marxist historians such as Eric Hobsbawm, and in the thought of Gramsci. It has
also influenced some who would not be considered (or consider themselves)
Marxist in any strict sense, such as many of the French historians associated with
the Anna/es. The second is represented by the so-called structural Marxism of
Althusser and Poulantzas ("so-called" in order to distinguish their use of
"structure" from the concept of historical structure in this essay) and most
commonly takes the form of an exegesis of Capital and other sacred texts.
Structural Marxism shares some of the features of the neo-realist problem-solving
approach such as its ahistorical, essentialist epistemology, though not its
precision in handling data nor, since it has remained very largely a study in
abstractions, its practical applicability to concrete problems. To this extent it
does not concern us here. Historical materialism is, however a foremost source of
critical theory and it corrects neo-realism in four important respects.
The first concerns dialectic, a term which, like Marxism, has been appropriated
to express a variety of not always compatible meanings, so its usage requires some
definition. It is used here at two levels: the level of logic and the level of real
history. At the level of logic, it means a dialogue seeking truth through the

133
exploration of contradictions. 14 One aspect of this is the continual confrontation
of concepts with the reality they are supposed to represent and their adjustment
to this. reality as it continually changes. Another aspect, which is part of the
method of adjusting concepts, is the knowledge that each assertion concerning
reality contains implicitly its opposite and that both assertion and opposite are
not mutually exclusive but share some measure of the truth sought, a truth,
moreover, that is always in motion, never to be encapsulated in some definitive
form. At the level of real history, dialectic is the potential for alternative forms of
development arising from the confrontation of opposed social forces in any
concrete historical situation.
Both realism and historical materialism direct attention to conflict. Neo-
realism sees conflict as inherent in the human condition, a constant factor
flowing directly from the power-seeking essence of human nature and taking the
political form of a continual reshuffling of power among the players in a zero-
sum game, which is always played according to its own innate rules. Historical
materialism sees in conflict the process of a continual remaking of human nature
and the creation of new patterns of social relations which change the rules of the
game and out of which - if historical materialism remains true to its own logic
and method - new forms of conflict may be expected ultimately to arise. In
other words, neo-realism sees conflict as a recurrent consequence of a continuing
structure, whereas historical materialism sees conflict as a possible cause of
structural change.
Second, by its focus on imperialism, historical materialism adds a vertical
dimension of power to the horizontal dimension of rivalry among the most
powerful states, which draws the almost exclusive attention of neo-realism. This
dimension is the dominance and subordination of metropole over hinterland,
centre over periphery, in a world political economy.
Third, historical materialism enlarges the realist perspective through its
concern with the relationship between the state and civil society. Marxists, like
non-Marxists, are divided between those who see the state as the mere expression
of the particular interests in civil society and those who see the state as an
autonomous force expressing some kind of general interest. This, for Marxists,
would be the general interest of capitalism as distinct from the particular interests
of capitalists. Gramsci contrasted historical materialism, which recognises the
efficacy of ethical and cultural sources of political action (though always relating
them with the economic sphere), with what he called historical economism or the
reduction of everything to technological and material interests. 15 Neo-realist
theory in the United States has returned to the state/civil society relationship,
though it has treated civil society as a constraint upon the state and a limitation
imposed by particular interests upon raison d'etat, which is conceived of, and
defined as, independent of civil society. 16 The sense of a reciprocal relationship
between structure (economic relations) and superstructure (the ethico-political
sphere) in Gramsci's thinking contains the potential for considering state/society
complexes as the constituent entities of a world order and for exploring the
particular historical forms taken by these complexes .
Fourth, historical materialism focuses upon the production process as a critical
element in the explanation of the particular historical form taken by a
state/society complex. The production of goods and services which creates both

134
the wealth of a society and the basis for a state's ability to mobilise power behind
its foreign policy, takes place through a power relationship between those who
control and those who execute the tasks of production. Political conflict and the
action of the state either maintain, or bring about changes in, the:>e power
relations of production. Historical materialism examines the connections between
power in production, power in the state, and power in international relations.
Neo-realism has, by contrast, virtually ignored the production process. This is the
point on which the problem-solving bias of neo-realism is most clearly to be
distinguished from the critical approach of historical materialism. Neo-realism
implicitly takes the production process and the power relations inherent in it as a
given element of the national interest, and therefore as part of its parameters.
Historical materialism is sensitive to the dialectical possibilities of change in the
sphere of production which could affect the other spheres, such as those of the
state and world order.
This discussion has distinguished two kinds of theorising as a preliminary to
proposing a critical approach to a theory of world order. Some of the basic
premises for such a critical theory can now be restated:
(I) an awareness that action is never absolutely free but takes place within a
framework for action which constitutes its problematic. Critical theory would
start with this framework, which means starting with historical enquiry or an
appreciation of the human experience that gives rise to the need for theory; 17
(2) a realisation that not only action but also theory is shaped by the problematic.
Critical theory is conscious of its own relativity but through this consciousness
can achieve a broader time-perspective and become less relative than problem-
solving theory . It knows that the task of theorising can never be finished in an
enclosed system but must continually be begun anew;
(3) the framework for action changes over time and a principal goal of critical
theory is to understand these changes;
(4) this framework has the form of an historical structure, a particular
combination of thought patterns, material conditions and human institutions
which has a certain coherence among its elements. These structures do not
determine people's actions in any mechanical sense but constitute the context of
habits, pressures, expectations and constraints within which action takes place;
(5) the framework or structure within which action takes place is to be viewed,
not from the top in terms of the requisites for its equilibruim or reproduction
(which would quickly lead back to problem-solving), but rather from the bottom
or from outside in terms of the conflicts which arise within it and open the
possibility of its transformation. 18

Frameworks for Action: Historical Structures

At its most abstract, the notion of a framework for action or historical structure
is a picture of a particular configuration of forces . This configuration does not
determine actions in any direct, mechanical way but imposes pressures and
constraints. Individuals and groups may move with the pressures or resist and
oppose them, but they cannot ignore them. To the extent that they do successfully
resist a prevailing historical structure, they buttress their actions with an
alternative, emerging configuration of forces, a rival structure.

135
 Three categories of forces (expressed as potentials) interact in a structure:
material capabilities, ideas and institutions. No one-way determinism need be
assumed among these three; the relationships can be assumed to be reciprocal.
The question of which way the lines of force run is always an historical question
to be answered by a study of the particular case .

~Ideas~

Material
Institutions
capabilities

Figure I

Material capabilities are productive and destructive potentials. In their

dynamic form these exist as technological and organisational capabilities, and in
their accumulated forms as natural resources which technology can transform,
stocks of equipment (e.g. industries and armaments), and the wealth which can
command these .
Ideas are broadly of two kinds . One kind consists of intersubjective meanings,
or those shared notions of the nature of social relations which tend to perpetuate
habits and expectations of behaviour. 19 Examples of intersubjective meanings in
contemporary world politics are the notions that people are organised and
commanded by states which have authority over defined territories; that states
relate to one another through diplomatic agents; that certain rules apply for the
protection of diplomatic agents as being in the common interest of all states; and
that certain kinds of behaviour are to be expected when conflict arises between
states, such as negotiation, confrontation, or war. These notions, though durable
over long periods of time, are historically conditioned. The realities of world
politics have not always been represented in precisely this way and may not be in
the future. It is possible to trace the origins of such ideas and also to detect signs
of a weakening of some of them. 20
The other kind of ideas relevant to an historical structure are collective images
of social order held by different groups of people. These are differing views as to
both the nature and the legitimacy of prevailing power relations, the meanings of
justice and public good, and so forth. Whereas intersubjective meanings are
broadly common throughout a particular historical structure and constitute the
common ground of social discourse (including conflict), collective images may be
several and opposed. 2 1 The clash of rival collective images provides evidence of
the potential for alternative paths of development and raises questions as to the
possible material and institutional basis for the emergence of an alternative
structure .
Institutionalisation is a means of stabilising and perpetuating a particular
order. Institutions reflect the power relations prevailing at their point of origin
and tend, at least initially, to encourage collective images consistent with these
power relations. Eventually, institutions take on their own life; they can become

136
either a battleground of opposing tendencies, or stimulate the creation of rival
institutions reflecting different tendencies. Institutions are particular amalgams
of ideas and material power which in turn influence the development of ideas and
material capabilities.
There is a close connection between institutionalisation and what Gramsci
called hegemony. Institutions provide ways of dealing with internal conflicts so as
to minimise the use of force. (They may, of course, also maximise the capacity
for using force in external conflicts, but we are considering here only the internal
conflicts covered by an institution.) There is an enforcement potential in the
material power relations underlying any structure, in that the strong can clobber
the weak if they think it necessary. But force will not have to be used in order to
ensure the dominance of the strong to the extent that the weak accept the
prevailing power relations as legitimate. This the weak may do if the strong see
their mission as hegemonic and not merely dominant or dictatorial, that is, if they
are willing to make concessions that will secure the weak's acquiescence in their
leadership and if they can express this leadership in terms of universal or general
interests, rather than just as serving their own particular interests. 22 Institutions
may become the anchor for such a hegemonic strategy since they lend themselves
both to the representations of diverse interests and to the universalisation of
policy .
It is convenient to be able to distinguish between hegemonic and non-
hegemonic structures, that is to say between those in which the power basis of the
structure tends to recede into the background of consciousness, and those in
which the management of power relations is always in the forefront. Hegemony
cannot, however, be reduced to an institutional dimension. One must beware of
allowing a focus upon institutions to obscure either changes in the relationship of
material forces, or the emergence of ideological challenge to an erstwhile
prevailing order. Institutions may be out of phase with these other aspects of
reality and their efficacy as a means of regulating conflict (and thus their
hegemonic function) thereby undermined. They may be an expression of
hegemony but cannot be taken as identical to hegemony.
The method of historical structures is one of representing what can be called
limited totalities. The historical structure does not represent tte whole world but
rather a particular sphere of human activity in its historically located totality. The
ceteris paribus problem, which falsifies problem-solving theory by leading to an
assumption of total stasis, is avoided by juxtaposing and connecting historical
structures in related spheres of action. Dialectic is introduced, firstly, by deriving
the definition of a particular structure, not from some abstract model of a social
system or mode of production, but from a study of the historical situation to
which it relates, and secondly, by looking for the emergence of rival structures
expressing alternative possibilities of development. The three sets of forces
indicated in Figure I are an heuristic device, not categories with a predetermined
hierarchy of relationships. Historical structures are contrast models: like ideal
types they provide, in a logically coherent form, a simplified representation of a
complex reality and an expression of tendencies, limited in their applicability to
time and space, rather than fully realised developments.
For the purpose of the present discussion, the method of historical structures is
applied to the three levels, or spheres of activity: (I) the organisation of

137
production, more particularly with regard to the social forces engendered by the
production process; (2) forms of state as derived from a study of state/society
complexes; and (3) world orders, i.e. the particular configurations of forces
which successively define the problematic of war or peace for the ensemble of
states. Each of these levels can be studied as a succession of dominant and
emergent rival structures.
The three levels are interrelated. Changes in the organisation of production
generate new social forces which, in turn, bring about changes in the structure of
states; and the generalisation of changes in the structure of states alters the
problematic of world order. For instance, as E.H. Carr argued, the incorporation
of the industrial workers (a new social force) as participants within western states
from the late-Nineteenth century, accentuated the movement of these states
towards economic nationalism and imperialism (a new form of state), which
brought about a fragmentation of the world economy and a more conflictual
phase of international relations (the new structure of world order). 23
The relationship among the three levels is not, however, simply unilinear.
Transnational social forces have influenced states through the world structure, as
evidenced by the effect of expansive Nineteenth century capitalism, (les bourgeois
conquerants}2 4 upon the development of state structures in both core and
periphery. Particular structures of world order exert influence over the forms
which states take: Stalinism was, at least in part, a response to a sense of threat to
the existence of the Soviet state from a hostile world order; the military-industrial
complex in core countries, justifies its influence today by pointing to the
conflictual condition of world order; and the prevalence of repressive militarism
in periphery countries can be explained by the external support of imperialism as
well as by a particular conjunction of internal forces. Forms of state also affect
the development of social forces through the kinds of domination they exert, for
example, by advancing one class interest and thwarting others. 25
Considered separately, social forces, forms of state, and world orders can be
represented in a preliminary approximation as particular configurations of
material capabilities, ideas and institutions (as indicated in Figure 1). Considered
in relation to each other, and thus moving towards a fuller representation of
historical process, each will be seen as containing, as well as bearing the impact
of, the others (as in Figure 2). 26

//soda! forces\\
forms of world
state orders

Figure 2

Hegemony and World Orders

How are these reciprocal relationships to be read in the present historical
conjuncture? Which of the several relationships will tell us the most? A sense of

138
the historicity of concepts suggests that the critical relationships may not be the
same in successive historical periods, even within the post-Westphalian era for
which the term "state system" has particular meaning . The approach to a critical
theory of world order, adumbrated here, takes the form of an interconnected
series of historical hypotheses.
Neo-realism puts the accent on states reduced to their dimension of material
force and similarly reduces the structure of world order to the balance of power
as a configuration of material forces. Neo-realism, which generally dismisses
social forces as irrelevant, is not much concerned with differentiating forms of
state (except insofar as "strong societies" in liberal democratic polities may
hamper the use of force by the state or advance particular interests over the
national interest), and tends to place a low value on the normative and
institutional aspects of world order.
One effort to broaden the realist perspective to include variations in the
authority of international norms and institutions is the theory of "hegemonic
stability" which, as stated by Robert Keohane, "holds that hegemonic structures
of power, dominated by a single country, are most conducive to the development
of strong international regimes, whose rules are relatively precise and well-
obeyed." 27 The classic illustrations of the theory discussed by Keohane are the
pax britannica of the mid-Nineteenth century and the pax americana of the years
following the Second World War. The theory appears to be confirmed by the
decline in observance of the norms of the Nineteenth century order which
accompanied Britain's relative decline in state power from the late-Nineteenth
century. Exponents of the theory see a similar decline, since the eariy 1970s, in the
observance of norms of the post-war order, relating it to a relative decline in US
power. Robert Keohane has tested the theory in particular issue areas (energy,
money and trade) on the grounds that power is not a fungible asset, but has to be
differentiated according to the contexts in which a state tries to be influential. He
finds that, particularly in the areas of trade and money, changes in US power are
insufficient to explain the changes that have occurred and needs to be
supplemented by the introduction of domestic political, economic and cultural
factors.
An alternative approach might start by redefining what it is that is to be
explained, namely, the relative stability of successive world orders. This can be
done by equating stability with a concept of hegemony that is based on a coherent
conjunction or fit between a configuration of material power, the prevalent
collective image of world order (including certain norms) and a set of institutions
which administer the order with a certain semblance of universality (i.e. not just
as the overt instruments of a particular state's dominance) . In this formulation,
state power ceases to be the sole explanatory factor and becomes part of what is
to be explained. This rephrasing of the question addresses a major difficulty in
the realist version signalled by Keohane and others, namely, how to explain the
failure of the US to establish a stable world order in the inter-war period despite
its preponderance of power. If the dominance of a single state coincides with a
stable order on some occasions but not on others, then there may be some merit
in looking more closely at what is meant by stability and more broadly at what
may be its sufficient conditions. Dominance by a powerful state may be a
necessary but not a sufficient condition of hegemony.

139
 The two periods of the pax britannica and the pax americana also satisfy the
reformulated definition of hegemony. In the mid-Nineteenth century, Britain's
world supremacy was founded on its sea power, which remained free from
challenge by a continental state as a result of Britain's ability to play the role of
balancer in a relatively fluid balance of power in Europe. The norms of liberal
economics (free trade, the gold standard, free movement of capital and persons)
gained widespread acceptance with the spread of British prestige, providing a
universalistic ideology which represented these norms as the basis of a harmony
of interests. While there were no formal international institutions, the ideological
separation of economics from politics meant that the City could appear as
administrator and regulator according to these universal rules, with British sea
power remaining in the background as potential enforcer.
This historical structure was transformed in its three dimensions during the
period running from the last quarter of the Nineteenth century through the
Second World War. During this period British power declined relatively, !<?,sing
its undisputed supremacy at sea, first with the German challenge and then with
the rise of US power; economic liberalism foundered with the rise of
protectionism, the new imperialisms and ultimately the end of the gold standard;
and the belated and abortive attempt at international institutionalisation through
the League of Nations, unsustained either by a dominant power or a widely-
accepted ideology, collapsed in a world increasingly organised into rival power
blocs.
The power configuration of the pax americana was more rigid than that of the
earlier hegemony, taking the form of alliances (all hinging on US power) created
in order to contain the Soviet Union. The stabilisation of this power
configuration created the conditions for the unfolding of a global economy in
which the United States played a role similar to that of Britain in mid-Nineteenth
century. The United States rarely needed to intervene directly in support of
specific national economic interests; by maintaining the rules of an international
economic order according to the revised liberalism of Bretton Woods, the
strength of US corporations engaged in the pursuit of profits was sufficient to
ensure continuing national power. The pax americana produced a greater number
of formal international institutions than the earlier hegemony. The Nineteenth
century separation of politics and economics had been blurred by the experience
of the Great Depression and the rise of Keynesian doctrines. Since states now had
a legitimate and necessary overt role in national economic management, it
became necessay both to multilateralise the administrative management of the
international economy and to give it an intergovernmental quality.
The notion of hegemony as a fit between power, ideas and institutions makes it
possible to deal with some of the problems in the theory of state dominance as the
necessary condition for a stable international order; it allows for lags and leads in
hegemony. For example, so appealing was the nostalgia for the Nineteenth
century hegemony that the ideological dimension of the pax brittanica flourished
long after the power configuration that supported it had vanished. Sustained, and
ultimately futile, efforts were made to revive a liberal world economy along with
the gold standard in the inter-war period . Even in the post-war period, British
policy continued to give precedence to balance of payments problems over
national industrial development and employment considerations. 28 Another

140
prime example is the case of the US, where the growth indicators of material
power during the inter-war period were insufficient predictors of a new
hegemony. It was necessary that US leaders should come to see themselves in
ideological terms as the necessary guarantors of a new world order. The
Roosevelt era made this transition, including both the conscious rejection of the
old hegemony (e.g. by torpedoing the world economic conference in 1933 and
abandoning the gold standard) and the gradual incorporation of New Deal
principles into the ideological basis of the new world order. There followed US
initiatives to create the institutions to administer this order . 29 Neo-mercantilists
in the United States now warn against a danger of repeating the British error,
urging US policy-makers not to continue to operate according to doctrines
appropriate to the pax americana when the United States can no longer afford to
act as guarantor for a universalist world order. Their persuasive efforts underline
the point that in these matters ideology is a determining sphere of action which
has to be understood in its connections with material power relations .

Social Forces, Hegemony and Imperialism

Represented as a fit between material power, ideology and institutions, hegemony
may seem to lend itself to a cyclical theory of history; the three dimensions fitting
together in certain times and places and coming apart in others . This is
reminiscent of earlier notions of virtu, or of the weltgeist migrating from people
to people. The analogy merely points to something which remains unexplained.
What is missing is some theory as to how and why the fit comes about and comes
apart. It is my contention that the explanation may be sought in the realm of
social forces shaped by production relations.
Social forces are not to be thought of as existing exclusively within states.
Particular social forces may overflow state boundaries, and world structures can
be described in terms of social forces just as they can be described as
configurations of state power. The world can be represented as a pattern of
interacting social forces in which states play an intermediate though autonomous
role between the global structure of social forces and local configurations of
social forces within particular countries. This may be called a political economy
perspective of the world: power is seen as emerging from social processes rather
than taken as given in the form of accumulated material capabilities, that is as the
result of these processes. (Paraphrasing Marx, one could describe the latter, neo-
realist view as the "fetishism of power".) Jo In reaching for a political economy
perspective, we move from identifying the structural characteristics of world
orders as configurations of material capabilities, ideas and institutions (Figure l)
to explaining their origins, growth and demise in terms of the interrelationships
of the three levels of structures (Figure 2) .
It is, or course, no great discovery to find that, viewed in the political economy
perspective, the pax britannica was based both on the ascendancy of
manufacturing capitalism in the international exchange economy, of which
Britain was the centre, and on the social and ideological power, in Britain and
other parts of northwest Europe, of the class which drew its wealth from
manufacturing. The new bourgeoisie did not need to directly control states; its
social power became the premiss of state politics. JI

141
 The demise of this hegemonic order can also be explained by the development
of social forces. Capitalism mobilised an industrial labour force in the most
advanced countries, and from the last quarter of the Nineteenth century
industrial workers had an impact on the structure of the state in these countries.
The incorporation of the industrial workers, the new social force called into
existence by manufacturing capitalism, into the nation involved an extension in
the range of state action in the form of economic intervention and social policy.
This in turn brought the factor of domestic welfare (i.e. the social minimum
required to maintain the allegiance of the workers) into the realm of foreign
policy. The claims of welfare competed with the exigencies of liberal
internationalism within the management of states; whilst the former gained
ground as protectionism, the new imperialism and ultimately the end of the gold
standard marked the long decline of liberal internationalism. 32 The liberal form
of state was slowly replaced by tile welfare nationalist form of state.
The spread of industrialisation, and the mobilisation of social classes it
brought about, not only changed the nature of states but also altered the
international configuration of state power as new rivals overtook Britain's lead.
Protectionism, as the means of building economic power comparable to
Britain's, was for these new industrial countries more convincing than the liberal
theory of comparative advantage. The new imperialisms of the major industrial
powers were a projection abroad of the welfare nationalist consensus among
social forces sought or achieved within the nations. As both the material
predominance of the British economy and the appeal of the hegemonic ideology
weakened, the hegemonic world order of the mid-Nineteenth century gave place
to a non-hegemonic configuration of rival power blocs .
Imperialism is, thus, a rather loose concept which in practice has to be newly
defined with reference to each historical period . There is little point in looking for
any "essence" of imperialism beyond the forms which dominance and
subordination take in different successive world order structures. The actual
form, whether activated by states, by social forces (e.g . the managements of
multinational corporations), or some combination of both, and whether
domination is primarily political or economic, is to be determined by historical
analysis, and not deductive reasoning.
The expansive capitalism of the mid-Nineteenth century brought most of the
world into the exchange relations of an international economy centred in
London. The liberal imperialism of this phase was largely indifferent as to
whether or not peripheral countries were formally independent or under the
political-administrative control of a colonial power, provided that the rules of the
international economy were observed. 33 Canada and Argentina, for example,
had similar positions in real terms, though one had colonial and the other
independent status. In the phase of liberal imperialism, local authorities, who
were often pre-capitalist in their relationship to the production process (e.g.
traditional agrarian-based rulers), kept their countries in the commercial system.
During the second phase, that of the so-called new imperialism following the
1870s, direct state control began to supplant the less formal patterns of the
commercial period. Capitalist production relations under this political aegis
penetrated the periphery more thoroughly, notably in the extraction of raw
materials and the building of the infrastructure (roads, railways, ports and

142
commercial and governmental administrations) required to link the colonies more
closely with the metropole.
Capitalist production relations generated new social forces in the periphery.
Outsiders came to play important roles in the local society, some as agents of the
colonial administration and of big capital from the metropole, others in smaller
businesses, filling the interstices between big capital and traditional local
production (for example, the Chinese in southeast Asia, the Indians in east Africa
or the Lebanese in west Africa.) A local workforce often numerically small and
materially better-off than the majority of the population, was drawn into
capitalist production. This politically strategic group was opposed to capital on
wage and labour issues but aligned wiih it as regards the development of the
capitalist production sector. An indigenous petty bourgeoisie also grew up,
occupying the subordinate positions in colonial administration and metropole-
based enterprises, as well as in local small business. A local state apparatus
emerged under colonial tutelage, encouraging the new production relations by
methods ranging from the introduction of compulsory labour or a head tax as a
means of generating a labour force, to reproducing, in the colonial context,
some of the institutions and procedures of the industrial relations of the
metro pole.
The existence in the colonial territory of these new social forces, labour and the
petty bourgeoisie, which could agree on a nationalist political programme,
together with the introduction by the colonial administration of the elements of a
modern state apparatus, (control of which could be the aim of this programme)
laid the basis for the anti-colonial revolt which swept the colonial world after the
Second World War. This movement reacted against administrative control from
the metropole, but not continued involvement in capitalist production and
exchange relations. The anti-imperialist label on the forces which replaced the
structures created by the second phase or new imperialism obscured their role in
ushering in yet a third phase of imperialism.
James Petras, in his use of the concept of an imperial state system, has posed a
number of questions concerning the structural characteristics of states in the
present world order. The dominant imperial state and subordinate collaborator
states differ in structure and have complementary functions in the imperial
system; they are not just more and less powerful units of the same kind, as might
be represented in a simple neo-realist model. A striking feature in his framework
is that the imperial state he analyses is not the whole US government; it is ''those
executive bodies within the 'government' which are charged with promoting and
protecting the expansion of capital across state boundaries." 34 The imperial
system is at once more than and less than the state. It is more than the state in that
it is a transnational structure with a dominant core and dependent periphery. This
part of the US government is at the system's core, together (and here we may
presume to enlarge upon Petras' indications) with inter-state institutions such as
the IMF and the World Bank, symbiotically related to expansive capital, and with
collaborator governments (or at any rate parts of them linked to the system) in
the system's periphery. It is less than the state in the sense that non-imperial, or
even anti-imperial, forces may be present in other parts of both core and
periphery states. The unity of the state, posited by neo-realism, is fragmented in
this image, and the struggle for and against the imperial system may go on within

143
the state structures at both core and periphery as well as among social forces
ranged in support and opposition to the system. The state is thus a necessary but
insufficient category to account for the imperial system. The imperial system
itself becomes the starting point of enquiry.
The imperial system is a world order structure drawing support from a
particular configuration of social forces, national and transnational, and of core
and periphery states . One must beware of slipping into the language of reification
when speaking of structures; they are constraints on action, not actors. The
imperial system includes some formal and less formal organisations at the system
level through which pressures on states can be exerted without these system-level
organisations actually usurping state power. The behaviour of particular states or
of organised economic and social interests, however, finds its meaning in the
larger totality of the imperial system. Actions are shaped either directly by
pressures projected through the system or indirectly by the subjective awareness
on the part of actors of the constraints imposed by the system. Thus one cannot
hope to understand the imperial system by identifying imperialism with actors, be
they states or multinationals; they are both dominant elements in the system, but
the system as a structure is more than their sum. Furthermore, one must beware
of ignoring the principle of dialectic by over emphasising the power and
coherence of a structure, even a very dominant one. Where a structure is
hegemonic, critical theory leads one to look for a counter-structure, even a latent
one, by seeking out its possible bases of support and elements of cohesion.
At this point, it is preferable to revert to the earlier terminology which referred
to hegemonic and non-hegemonic world order structures. To introduce the term
''imperial' ' with reference to the pax americana risks both obscuring the important
difference between hegemonic and non-hegemonic world orders and confusing
structurally different kinds of imperialism (e.g. liberal imperialism, the new or
colonial imperialism, and the imperial system just outlined). The contention here
is that the pax americana was hegemonic: it commanded a wide measure of
consent among states outside the Soviet sphere and was able to provide sufficient
benefits to the associated and subordinate elements in order to maintain their
acquiescence. Of course, consent wore thin as one approached the periphery
where the element of force was always apparent, and it was in the periphery that
the challenge to the imperial system first became manifest.
It was suggested above how the particular fit between power, ideology and
institutions constituting the pax americana came into being. Since the practical
issue at the present is whether or not the pax americana has irretrievably come
apart and if so what may replace it, two specific questions deserving attention
are: (I) what are the mechanisms for maintaining hegemony in this particular
historical structure? and (2) what social forces and/or forms of state have been
generated within it which could oppose and ultimately bring about a
transformation of the structure?

The Internationalisation of the State

A partial answer to the first question concerns the internationalisation of the
state. The basic principles of the pax americana were similar to those of the pax
britannica - relatively free movement of goods, capital and technology and a

144
reasonable degree of predictability in exchange rates. Cordell Hull's conviction
that an open trading world was a necessary condition of peace could be taken as
its ideological text, supplemented by confidence in economic growth and ever-
rising productivity as the basis for moderating and controlling conflict. The post-war
hegemony was, however, more fully institutionalised than the pax britannica and
the main function of its institutions was to reconcile domestic social pressures
with the requirements of a world economy. The International Monetary Fund
was set up to provide loans to countries with balance of payments deficits in order
to provide time in which they could make adjustments, and to avoid the sharp
deflationary consequences of an automatic gold standard . The World Bank was
to be a vehicle for longer term financial assistance. Economically weak countries
were to be given assistance by the system itself, either directly through the
system's institutions or by other states nominally certified by the system's
institutions. These institutions incorporated mechanisms to supervise the
application of the system 's norms and to make financial assistance effectively
conditional upon reasonable evidence of intent to live up to the norms.
This machinery of surveillance was, in the case of the western allies and
subsequently of all industrialised capitalist countries, supplemented by elaborate
machinery for the harmonisation of national policies. Such procedures began
with the mutual criticism of reconstruction plans in western European countries
(the US condition for Marshall aid funds), continued with the development of
annual review procedures in NATO (which dealt with defence and defence
support programmes), and became an acquired habit of mutual consultation and
mutual review of national policies (through the OECD and other agencies).
The notion of international obligation moved beyond a few basic
commitments, such as observance of the most favoured nation principle or
maintenance of an agreed exchange rate, to a general recognition that measures
of national economic policy affect other countries and that such consequences
should be taken into account before national policies are adopted. Conversely,
other countries should be sufficiently understanding of one country's difficulties
to acquiesce in short-term exceptions. Adjustments are thus perceived as
responding to the needs of the system as a whole and not to the will of dominant
countries. External pressures upon national policies were accordingly
internationalised.
Of course, such an internationalised policy process presupposed a power
structure, one in which central agencies of the US government were in a dominant
position. But it was not necessarily an entirely hierarchical power structure with
lines of force running exclusively from the top down, nor was it one in which the
units of interaction were whole nation-states. It was a power structure seeking to
maintain consensus through bargaining and one in which the bargaining units
were fragments of states. The power behind the negotiation was tacitly taken into
account by the parties.
The practice of policy harmonisation became such a powerful habit that when
the basic norms of international economic behaviour no longer seemed valid, as
became the case during the 1970s, procedures for mutual adjustment of national
economic policies were, if anything, reinforced. In the absence of clear norms,
the need for mutual adjustment appeared the greater. 35
State structures appropriate to this process of policy harmonisation can be

145
contrasted with those of the welfare nationalist state of the preceding period.
Welfare nationalism took the form of economic planning at the national level and
the attempt to control external economic impacts upon the national economy. To
make national planning effective, corporative structures grew up in most
industrially advanced countries for the purpose of bringing industry, and also
organised labour, into consultation with the government in the formulation and
implementation of policy. National and industrial corporative structures can
raise protectionist or restrictive obstacles to the adjustments required for
adaptation of national economies to the world economy in a hegemonic system.
Corporatism at the national level was a response to the conditions of the inter-
war period; it became institutionally consolidated in western Europe just as the
world structure was changing into something for which national corporatism was
ill-suited.
The internationalisation of the state gives precedence to certain state agencies
- notably ministries of finance and prime ministers' offices - which are key
points in the adjustment of domestic to international economic policy . Ministries
of industries, labour ministries, planning offices, which had been built up in the
context of national corporatism, tended to be subordinated to the central organs
of internationalised public policy. As national economies became more integrated
in the world economy, it was the larger and more technologically advanced
enterprises that adapted best to the new opportunities. A new axis of influence
linked international policy networks with the key central agencies of government and
with big business . This new informal corporative structure overshadowed the
older more formalised national corporatism and reflected the dominance of the
sector oriented to the world economy over the more nationally-oriented sector of
a country's economy. 36
The internationalisation of the state is not, of course, limited to advanced
capitalist core countries. It would not be difficult to make a catalogue of recent
cases in peripheral countries where institutions of the world economy, usually as
a condition for debt renewal, have dictated policies which could only be sustained
by a coalition of conservative forces. Turkey, Peru and Portugal are among those
recently affected. As for Zaire, a conference of creditors laid down the condition
that officials of the IMF be placed within the key ministries of the state to oversee
the fulfilment of the conditions of debt renewal. 37

The Internationalisation of Production

The internationalisation of the state is associated with the expansion of
international production. This signifies the integration of production processes
on a transnational scale, with different phases of a single process being carried
out in different countries. International production currently plays the formative
role in relation to the structure of states and world order that national
manufacturing and commercial capital played in the mid-Nineteenth century.
International production expands through direct investment, whereas the
rentier imperialism, of which Hobson and Lenin wrote, primarily took the form
of portfolio investment. With portfolio investment, control over the productive
resources financed by the transaction passed with ownership to the borrower.
With direct investment, control is inherent in the production process itself and

146
remains with the originator of the investment. The essential feature of direct
investment is possession, not of money, but of knowledge - in the form of
technology and especially in the capacity to continue to develop new technology .
The financial arrangements for direct investment may vary greatly, but all are
subordinated to this crucial factor of technical control. The arrangements may
take the form of wholly-owned subsidiaries, joint ventures with local capital
sometimes put up by the state in host countries, management contracts with state-
owned enterprises, or compensation agreements with socialist enterprises
whereby, in return for the provision of technology, these enterprises become
suppliers of elements to a globally organised production process planned and
controlled by the source of the technology. Formal ownership is less important
than the manner in which various elements are integrated into the production
system .
Direct investment seems to suggest the dominance of industrial capital over
finance capital. The big multinational corporations which expand by direct
investment are, to some degree, self-financing and to the extent that they are not
they seem capable of mobilising money capital in a number of ways, such as
through local capital markets (where their credit is better than that of national
entrepreneurs), through the Eurocurrency markets, through infusions of capital
from other multinationals linked to technology and production agreements,
through state subsidies, and so forth. And yet, particularly since the 1970s,
finance capital seems to be returning to prominence through the operations of the
multinational banks, not only in the old form of rentier imperialism
administering loans to peripheral states, but also as a network of control and
private planning for the world economy of international production . This
network assesses and collectivises investment risks and allocates investment
opportunities among the participants in the expansion of international
production, that is, it performs the function of Lenin's 'collective capitalist' in
the conditions of late Twentieth century production relations.

International Production and Class Structure

International production is mobilising social forces, and it is through these forces
that its major political consequences vis-a-vis the nature of states and future
world orders may be anticipated. Hitherto, social classes have been found to exist
within nationally-defined social formations, despite rhetorical appeals to the
international solidarity of workers. Now, as a consequence of international
production, it becomes increasingly pertinent to think in terms of a global class
structure alongside or superimposed upon national class structures .
At the apex of an emerging global class structure is the transnational
managerial class. Having its own ideology, strategy and institutions of collective
action, it is both a class in itself and for itself. Its focal points of organisation, the
Trilateral Commission, World Bank, IMF and OECD, develop both a
framework of thought and guidelines for policies. From these points, class action
penetrates countries through the process of internationalisation of the state. The
members of this transnational class are not limited to those who carry out
functions at the global level, such as executives of multinational corporations or
as senior officials of international agencies, but includes those who manage the

147
 internationally-oriented sectors within countries, the finance ministry officials,
local managers of enterprises linked into international production systems, and
so on. 38
National capitalists are to be distinguished from the transnational class. The
natural reflex of national capital faced with the challenge of international
production is protectionism. It is torn between the desire to use the state as a
bulwark of an independent national economy and the opportunity of filling
niches left by international production in a subordinate symbiotic relationship
with the latter.
Industrial workers have been doubly fragmented. One line of cleavage is
between established and non-established labour. Established workers are those
who have attained a status of relative security and stability in their jobs and have
some prospects of career advancement. Generally they are relatively skilled, work
for larger enterprises, and have effective trade unions. Non-established workers,
by contrast, have insecure employment, have no prospect of career advancement,
are relatively less skilled, and confront great obstacles in developing effective
trade unions. Frequently, the non-established are disproportionately drawn from
lower-status ethnic minorities, immigrants and women. The institutions of
working class action have privileged established workers. Only when the ideology
of class solidarity remains powerful, which usually means only in conditions of
high ideological polarisation and social and political conflict, do organisations
controlled by established workers (unions and political parties) attempt to rally
and act for non-established workers as well.
The second line of cleavage among industrial workers is brought about by the
division between national and international capital (i.e. that engaged in
international production). The established workers in the sector of international
production are potential allies of international capital. This is not to say that
those workers have no conflict with international capital, only that international
capital has the resources to resolve these conflicts and to isolate them from
conflicts involving other labour groups by creating an enterprise corporatism in
which both parties perceive their interest as lying in the continuing expansion of
international production.
Established workers in the sector of national capital are more susceptible to the
appeal of protectionism and national (rather than enterprise) corporatism in
which the defence of national capital, of jobs and of the workers' acquired status
in industrial relations institutions, are perceived to be interconnected. 39
Non-established labour has become of particular importance in the expansion
of international production . Production systems are being designed so as to make
use of an increasing proportion of semi-skilled (and therefore frequently non-
established) in relation to skilled (and established) labour. 40 This tendency in
production organisation makes it possible for the centre to decentralise the actual
physical production of goods to peripheral locations in which an abundant supply
of relatively cheap non-established labour is to be found, and to retain control of
the process and of the research and development upon which its future depends.
As a non-established workforce is mobilised in Third World countries by
international production, governments in these countries have very frequently
sought to pre-empt the possibilit?y of this new social force developing its own
class-conscious organisations by imposing upon it structures of state corporatism

148
in the form of unions set-up and controlled by the government or the dominant
political party. This also gives local governments, through their control over local
labour, additional leverage with international capital regarding the terms of
direct investment. If industrial workers in Third World countries have thus
sometimes been reduced to political and social quiescence, state corporatism may
prove to be a stage delaying, but in the long run not eliminating, a more articulate
self consciousness. 4 1
Even if industry were to move rapidly into the Third World and local
governments were, by and large, able to keep control over their industrial
workforces, most of the populations of these countries may see no improvement,
but probably a deterioration, in their conditions. New industrial jobs lag far
behind increases in the labour force, while changes in agriculture dispossess many
in the rural population. No matter how fast international production spreads, a
very large part of the world's population in the poorest areas remains marginal to
the world economy, having no employment or income, or the purchasing power
derived from it. A major problem for international capital in its aspiration for
hegemony is how to neutralise the effect of this marginalisation of perhaps one-
third of the world's population so as to prevent its poverty from fuelling revolt. 42

Social forces, state structures, and future world order prospects

It would, of course, be logically inadmissible, as well as imprudent, to base
predictions of future world order upon the foregoing considerations. Their utility
is rather in drawing attention to factors which could incline an emerging world
order in one direction or another. The social forces generated by changing
production processes are the starting point for thinking about possible futures.
These forces may combine in different configurations, and as an exercise one
could consider the hypothetical configurations most likely to lead to three
different outcomes as to the future of the state system. The focus on these three
outcomes is not, of course, to imply that no other outcomes or configurations of
social forces are possible.
First, is the prospect for a new hegemony being based upon the global structure
of social power generated by the internationalising of production. This would
require a consolidation of two presently powerful and related tendencies: the
continuing dominance of international over national capital within the major
countries, and the continuing internationalisation of the state. Implicit in such an
outcome is a continuance of monetarism as the orthodoxy of economic policy,
emphasising the stabilisation of the world economy (anti-inflationary policies and
stable exchange rates) over the fulfilment of domestic socio-political demands
(the reduction of unemployment and the maintenance of real wages levels).
The inter-state power configuration which could maintain such a world order,
provided its member states conformed to this model, is a coalition centring upon
the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan, with the support
of other OECD states, the co-optation of a few of the more industrialised Third
World countries, such as Brazil, and of leading conservative OPEC countries, and
the possibility of revived detente allowing for a greater linkage of the Soviet
sphere into the world economy of international production . The new
international division of labour, brought about through the progressive

149
decentralisation of manufacturing into the Third World by international capital,
would satisfy demands for industrialisation from those countries. Social conflict
in the core countries would be combatted through enterprise corporatism, though
many would be left unprotected by this method, particularly the non-established
workers. In the peripheral countries, social conflict would be contained through a
combination of state corporatism and repression.
The social forces opposed to this configuration have been noted above.
National capital, those sections of established labour linked to national capital,
newly mobilised non-established workers in the Third World, and socially
marginal in the poor countries are all in some way or another potentially opposed
to international capital, and to the state and world order structures most
congenial to international capital. These forces do not, however, have any
natural cohesion, and might be dealt with separately, or neutralised, by an
effective hegemony. If they did come together under particular circumstances in a
particular country, precipitating a change of regime, then that country might be
dealt with in isolation by the world structure. In other words, where hegemony
failed within a particular country, it could reassert itself through the world
structure.
A second possible outcome is a non-hegemonic world structure of conflicting
power centres. Perhaps the most likely way for this to evolve would be through
the ascendancy in several core countries of neo-mercantilist coalitions which
linked national capital and established labour, and were determined to opt out of
arrangements designed to promote international capital and to organise their own
power and welfare on a national or sphere of influence basis. The continuing
pursuit of monetarist policies may be the single most likely cause of neo-
mercantilist reaction. Legitimated as anti-inflationary, monetarist policies have
been perceived as hindering national capital (because of high interest rates),
generating unemployment (through planned recession), and adversely affecting
relatively deprived social groups and regions dependent upon government
services and transfer payments (because of budget-balancing cuts in state
expenditures). An opposing coalition would attack monetarism for subordinating
national welfare to external forces, and for showmg an illusory faith in the
markets (which are perceived to be manipulated by corporate-administered
pricing). The likely structural form of neo-mercantilism within core states would
be industry-level and national-level corporatism, bringing nati'Jnal capital and
organised labour into a relationship with .the government for the purpose of
making and implementing of state policy. Peripheral states would have much the
same structure as in the first outcome, but would be more closely linked to one or
another of the core country economies .
A third and more remotely possible outcome would be the development of a
counter-hegemony based on a Third World coalition against core country
dominance and aiming towards the .autonomous development of peripheral
countries and the termination of the core-peripheral relationship . A counter-
hegemony would consist of a coherent view of an alternative world order, backed
by a concentration of power sufficient to maintain a challenge to core countries.
While this outcome is foreshadowed by the demand for a New International
Economic Order, the prevailing consensus behind this demand lacks a sufficiently
clear view of an alternative world political economy to constitute counter-

150
hegemony. The prospects of counter-hegemony lie very largely in the future
development of state structures in the Third World.
The controlling social force in these countries is, typically, what has been called
a "state class", 43 a combination of party, bureaucratic and military personnel
and union leaders, mostly petty bourgeois in origin, which controls the state
apparatus and through it attempt to gain greater control over the productive
apparatus in the country. The state class can be understood as a local response to
the forces generated by the internationalising of production, and an attempt to
gain some local control over these forces. The orientation of the state class is
indeterminate. It can be either conservative or radical. It may either bargain for a
better deal within the world economy of international production, or it may seek
to overcome the unequal internal development generated by international capital.
State classes of the first orientation are susceptible to incorporation into a new
hegemonic world economy, and to the maintenance of state corporatist structures
as the domestic counterpart to international capital. The second orientation could
provide the backing for counter-hegemony. However, a state class is only likely to
maintain the second and more radical orientation if it is supported from below in
the form of a genuine populism (and not just a populism manipulated by political
leaders). One may speculate that this could come about through the unfolding
social consequences of international production, such as the mobilisation of a
new non-established labour force coupled with the marginalisation of an
increasing part of the urban population. The radical alternative could be the form
of response to international capital in Third World countries, just as neo-
mercantilism could be the response in richer countries. Each projects a particular
state structure and vision of world order.

Robert W. Cox is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at York

University, Toronto, Canada.

REFERENCES

I . Fernand Braudel, Civilisation materielle, Economie et Capitalisme, XVe - XVI/le Siecle, 3

vols. (Paris: Armand Colin, 1979) . Braudel's theory and method are outlined in his essay first
published in 1958 in Annales E.S.C. "Histoire et sciences sociales . La tongue duree" (republished in
Bruadel, Ecrits sur l'histoire Paris : Flammarion , I 969).
2. There is now quite a large literature produced by this school. The basic work is I.
Wallerstein, The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European
World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, I 974). A brief summary of the
world systems theory is in Wallerstein, "The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system:
Concepts for comparative analysis", Comparative Studies in Society and History (vol. 16, no. 4,
Sept. 1974), pp. 387-415 .
3. Among critics of the world systems approach, note especially Theda Skocpal, "Wallerstein's
World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique", American Journal of Sociology
(Vol. 82, No .5, March 1977), pp. 1075-90; and more generally, her major study, States and Social
Revolutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Also see Robert Brenner, "The Origins
of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism", New Left Review (No . 104, July-
August 1977) pp. 25 -92.
4. I use the term "world order" in preference to "inter-state system" as it is relevant to all
historical periods (and not only those in which states have been the component entities) and in
preference to "world system" as it is more indicative of a structure having only a certain duration in
time and avoiding the equilibrium connotations of "system". "World" designates the relevant

151
 I
totalit y, geographically limited by the range of probable interactions (some past "worlds" being
limited to the Medi terranean, to Europe, to China, etc.). "Order " is used in the sense of the way
things usually happen (not the absence of turbulence); thus disorder is included in the concept of
order. An inter-state system is one historical form of world order. The term is used in the plural to
indicate that particular patterns of power relationships which have endured in time can be contrasted
in terms of their principal characteristics as distinctive world orders.
5. E.P. Thompson argues that historical concepts must often "display extreme elasticity and
allow for great irregularity". His treatment of historical logic develops this point in his essay "The
Poverty of Theory" in The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press, 1978). esp.
pp. 231-242.
6. Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and its Place in Modern
History trans. by Douglas Scott (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957).
7. This is most clearly expressed in K. Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia
University Press. 1954).
8. Leviathan, Part I, chap.xi
9. Kenneth Waltz, in a paper presented to a panel discussion at the American Political Science
Association in August 1980 for which a first version of the present essay was written, asked the
question "Will the future be like the past?", which he answered affirmatively - not only was the
same pattern of relationships likely to prevail but it would be for the good of all that this should be so.
It should be noted that the future contemplated by Waltz was the next decade or so .
10. A recent example of this argument is Stephen Krasner , Defending the National Interest: Raw
Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). The
normative intent of the new realism is most apparent as a polemic response to liberal moralism. This
was also the case for E .H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939 (London: Macmillan, 1942)
which offered a "scientific" mode of thinking about international relations in opposition to the
" utopianism " of the supporters of the League of Nations in Britain. Dean Acheson and George
Kennan, in laying the foundations for US Cold War policy acknowledged their debt to Reinhold
Niebuhr whose revival of a pessimistic Augustinian view of human nature challenged the optimistic
Lockean view native to American culture. Krasner's chosen target is "Lockean liberalism" which he
sees as having undermined the rational defence of US national interests.
11. The New Science of Giambattista Vico trans. from the third edition by Thomas Goddard
Bergin and Max Harold Fisch (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1970), p.62, para. 349.
12. Ibid., p.6, para. 35; p.22, para. 145; p.25, para. 161; p.62, para. 349.
13. Ibid., p.19, para. 127.
14. See, for instance, R.G . Collingwood's distinction between dialectical a nd eristical reasoning,
The New Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942). Collingwood takes dialectic back to its
Greek origins and spares us the assertions of theological Marxism concerning "Diamat".
15. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks edited and trans . by Quintin Hoare
and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York : International Publishers, 1971), esp . pp. 158-168. The full
critical Italian edition Quaderni de/ carcere (Torino : Einaudi editore, 1975) contains additional
passages on this point, e.g. pp. 471, 1321, 1492. Gramsci saw ideas, politics and economics as
reciprocally related, convertible into each other and bound together in a blocco storico. "Historical
materialism", he wrote, " is in a certain sense a reform and development of Hegelianism. It is
philosophy freed from unilateral ideological element s, the full consciousness of the contradictions of
philosophy ." (Einaudi edition, p.471, my rough translation) .
16. As in Krasner, op. cit., and Peter Katzenstein (ed.) Beyond Power and Plenty. Foreign
Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1978). The United States is represented by these authors as a state which is weak in relation to
the strength of civil society (or more particularly of interests in civil society), whereas other states, e.g.
Japan or France, are stronger in relation to their societies. Civil society is thus seen in the US case as
limiting the effectiveness of the state.
17. The notion of a framework for act ion recalls what Machiavelli called necessita, a sense that
the conditions of existence require action to create or sustain a form of social order. Necissita
engenders both the possibility of a new order and all the risks inherent in changing the existing order
" . .. few men ever welcome new laws setting up a new order in the state unless necessity makes it
clear to them that there is a need for such laws; and since such a necessity cannot arise without danger,
the state may easily be ruined before the new order has been brought to completion." Niccolo
Machiavelli, The Discourses (ed.) Bernard Crick (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1970)
pp. 105-106.
18. In this regard, Stanley Hoffmann has written: "Born and raised in America, the discipline of
international relations is, so to speak, too close to the fire. It needs triple distance: it should move
away from the contemporary world towards the past; from the perspective of a superpower (and a
highly conservative one), toward that of the weak and the revolutionary - away from the impossible
quest for stability; from the glide into policy science, back to the steep ascent toward the peaks which

152
 the questions raised by traditional political philosophy represent." In "An American social science:
international relations", Daedalus (Summer 1977), p. 59.
19. On intersubjective meanings, see Charles Taylor, "Hermeneutics and Politics", in Paul
Connerton (ed .) Critical Sociology (Harmondsworth , Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1965), chap. VI.
Also relevant is Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality
(Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1971).
20. C. Taylor, op. cit. points out that expectations with regard to negotiating behaviour are
culturally differentiated in the present world. Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (London:
Cape, 1955) studied the origin of the ideas outlined in this paragraph which are implicit in the modern
state system .
21. Collective images are not aggregations of fragmented opinions of individuals such as are
compiled through surveys; they are coherent mental types expressive of the world views of specific
groups such as may be reconstructed through the work of historians and sociologists, e.g. Max
Web~reconstructions of forms of religious consciousness.
'tbJGramsci's principal application of the concept of hegemony was to the relations among
social classes, e.g. in explaining the inability of the Italian industrial bourgeoisie to establish its
hegemony after the unification of Italy and in examining the prospects of the Italian industrial
workers establishing their class hegemony over peasantry and petty bourgeoisie so as to create a new
blocco storico (historic bloc) - a term which in Gramsci's work corresponds roughly to the notion of
historic structure in this essay. The term "hegemony" in Gramsci 's work is linked to debates in the
international Communist movement concerning revolutionary strategy and in this connection its
application is specifically to classes. The form of the concept, however, draws upon his reading of
Machiavelli and is not restricted to class relations but has a broader potential applicability. Gramsci's
adjustment of Machiavellian ideas to the realities of the world he knew was an exercise in dialectic in
the sense defined above. It is an appropriate continuation of his method to perceive the applicability
of the concept to world order structures as suggested here. For Gramsci, as for Machiavelli, the
general question involved in hegemony is the nature of power, and power is a centaur, part man, part
beast, a combination of force and consent. See Machiavelli, The Prince, Norton Critical Ed ition (ed.)
Robert M. Adams (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), pp. 49-50; Gramsci, Selections op. cit., pp.
169-170.
23. E.H . Carr, Nationalism and After (London: Macmillan, 1945).
24. Charles Moraze, Les bourgeois conquerants (Paris: Colin, 1957).
25. A recent discussion of the reciprocal character of these relations is in Peter A. Go urevitch,
"The Second Image Reversed", International Organization (Vol. 32, No.4, Au tumn 1978), pp.
881-91 I.
26. I have been engaged with Jeffrey Harrod in a study of production relations on a world scale
which begins with an examination of distinctive patterns of power relations in the production process
as separate historical structures and which then leads to a consideration of different forms of state and
global political economy. Bringing in these last two levels is necessary to an understanding of the
existence of the different patterns of production relations and the hierarchy of relationships among
them. One could equally well adopt forms of state or world orders as the point of departure and
ultimately be required to bring the other levels in to explain the historical process.
i1) Robert 0. Keohane, "The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International
Economic Regimes, 1967-77", in Ole Holsti, Randolph Siverson, and Alexander George (eds.),
Change in the International System (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981). Keohane cites as
others who have contributed to this theory Charles Kindleberger, Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner.
"Hegemony" is used by Keohane in the limited sense of dominance by a state . This meaning is to be
distinguished from its meaning in this article wh ich is derived from Gramsci, i.e. hegemony as a
structure of dominance, leaving open the question of whether the dominant power is a state, or a
group of states, or some combination of state and private power, which is sustained by broadly-based
consent through acceptance of an ideology and of institutions consistent with this structure. Thus a
hegemonic structure of world order is one in which power takes a primarily consensual form, as
distinguished from a non-hegemonic order in which there are manifestly rival powers and no power
has been able to establish the legitimacy of its dominance. There can be dominance without
hegemony; hegemony is one possible form dominance may take. Institutionalised hegemony, as used
in this essay, corresponds to what Keohane calls a "strong international regime" . His
theory can be restated in our terms as: dominance by a powerful state is most conducive to the
development of hegemony. In the present text, the term "hegemony" is reserved for a consensual
order and "dominance" refers only to a preponderance of material power.
28. Two classic studies relevant particularly to the inter-war period are Karl Polanyi, The Great
Transformation (Boston, Mass: Little, Brown, 1957) and E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, op.
cit. The chapter by Stephen Blank, "Britain : The Politics of Foreign Economic Policy, the Domestic
Economy and the Problem of Pluralistic Stagnation", in Katzenstein (ed.), op. cit., comments on
post-war British economic policy; as does Stephen Krasner in, "State Power and the Structure of

153
International Trade", World Politics (Vo! 28, No.3, April 1976). Also see R.F. Harrod , The Life of
John Maynard Keynes (London: Macmillan, 1951).
29. The international implications of the New Deal are dealt with in several passages in Arthur
M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Roosevelt, esp. Vol. II, The Coming of the New Deal (London:
Heinemann, 1960). Charles Meier, "The Politics of Productivity: Foundations of American
International Economic Policy after World War II", in Katzenstein, op .cit., discusses the relationship
between the New Deal and the post-war ideology of world order. Richard Gardner, Srerling-Dollar
Diplomacy: Anglo-American Collaboration in the Reconstruction of Multilateral Trade (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1956) shows the link between New Deal ideas and the institutions of world economy
set up after World War II in the Bretton Woods negotiations .
30. The basic point I am making here is suggested by a passage in Gramsci's Prison Notebooks
which reads: "Do international relations precede or follow (logically) fundamental social relations?
There can be no doubt but that they follow. Any organic innovation in the social structure, through its
technical -military expressions, modifies organically absolute and relative relations in the international
field too." Gramsci used the term "organic" to refer to relatively long-term and permanent changes,
as opposed to "conjunctural". Selections op. cit., pp . 176-177. In the critical Italian edition, the
original is to be found in vol III, pp. 1562.
31. E. J. Hobsbawm writes: "The men who officially presided over the affairs of the victorious
bourgeois order in its moment of triumph were a deeply reactionary country nobleman from Prussia,
an imitation emperor in France and a succession of aristocratic landowners in Britain.'' The Age of
Capital, 1843-1875 (London: Sphere Book, 1977), p . 15.
32. Among analysts who concur in this are Karl Polanyi, op. cit., Gunnar Myrdal, Beyond the
Welfare State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960); E.H . Carr, Nationalism and After, op. cit.;
and Geoffrey Barraclough, Introduction to Contemporary History (London: Penguin , 1968).
33. George Lichtheim, Imperialism (New York: Praeger, 1971) has proposed a periodisation of
imperialisms, and I have taken the term "liberal imperialism" from him.
34. "The Imperial State System" paper presented to the American Political Science Association,
Washington, D.C ., August 1980.
35. Max Beloff was perhaps the first to point to the mechanisms whereby participation in
international organisations altered the internal policy-making practices of states in his New
Dimensions in Foreign Policy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961). R.W. Cox and H.K. Jacobson, et al,
The Anatomy of Influence: Decision-making in International Organisation (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1972) represented the political systems of international organisations as including
segments of states. R.O. Keohane and J.S . Nye, "Transgovernmental Relations and International
Organizations" , World Politics (Vol. 27 October 1974) pointed to the processes whereby coalitions are
formed among segments of the apparatuses of different states and the ways in which international
institutions facilitate such coalitions. These various works, while they point to the existence of
mechanisms for policy co-ordination among states and for penetration of external influences within
states, do not discuss the implications of these mechanisms for the structure of power within states. It
is this structural aspect I wish to des ignate by the term "internationalisation of the state" . Christian
Palloix refers to "L'internationalisation de l'appareil de l'Etat national, de certains lieux de cet
appareil d'Etat .... " (L'internationalisation du capital, Paris, Maspero, 1975, p. 82) by which he
designates those segments of national states which serve as policy supports for the internationalisation
of production . He thus raises the question of structural changes in the state, though he does not
enlarge upon the point. Keohane and Nye, subsequent to the work mentioned above, linked the
transgovernmental mechanism to the concept of "interdependence", Power and Interdependence,
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1977). I find this concept tends to obscure the power relationships involved in
structural changes in both state and world order and prefer not to use it for that reason. Peter
Gourevitch, op. cit., does retain the concept interdependence while insisting that it be linked with
power struggles among social forces within states .
36. There is, of course, a whole literature implicit in the argument of this paragraph. Some
sketchy references may be useful. Andrew Shonfield, Modern Capitalism (London: Oxford
University Press, 1965) illustrated the development of corporative-type structures of the kind I
associate with the welfare-nationalist state. The shift from industry-level corporatism to an enterprise-
based corporatism led by the big public and private corporations has been noted in some industrial
relations works, particularly those concerned with the emergence of a 'new working class', e.g. Serge
Mallet, La nouvelle classe ouvriere (Paris: Seuil, 1963), but the industrial relations literature has
generally not linked what I have elsewhere called enterprise corporatism to the broader framework
suggested here (cf. R. W. Cox, "Pour une etude prospective des relations de production", Sociologie
du Travail, 2, 1977). Erhand Friedberg, "L'internationalisation de l'economie et modal ites
d'intervention de l'etat: la 'politique industrielle' ",in Planification et Societe (Grenoble: Presses
universitaires de Grenoble, 1974), pp. 94-108, discusses the subordination of the old coporatism to the
new. The shift in terminology from planning to industrial policy is related to the internationalising of
state and economy. Industrial policy has become a matter of interest to global economic policy

154
makers, c/William Diebold, Jr., Industrial Policy us an International Issue (New York: McGraw-Hill
for the Council on Foreign Relations, 1980) and John Pinder, Takashi Hosomi and William Diebold,
Industrial Policy and the International Economy (Trilateral Commission, 1979). If planning evokes
the spectre of economic nationalism, industrial policy, as the Trilateral Commission study points out ,
can be looked upon with favour from a world economy perspective as a necessary aspect of policy
harmonisation: "We have argued that industrial policies are needed to deal with structural problems
in the modern economies. Thus, international action should not aim to dismantle these policies . The
pressure should, rather, be towards positive and adaptive industrial policies, whether on the part of
single countries or groups of countries combined. Far from being protectionist, industrial policy can
help them to remove a cause of protectionism, by making the process of adjustment less painful. "
(p. 50). It may be objected that the argument and references presented here are more valid for Europe
than for the United States, and that, indeed , the very concept of corporatism is alien to US ideology.
To this it can be replied that since the principal levers of the world economy are in the United States,
the US economy adjusts less than those of European countries and peripheral countries, and the
institutionalisation of adjustment mechanisms is accord ingly less developed. Structural analyses of
the US economy have, however, pointed to a distinction between a corporate international-oriented
sector and a medium and small business nationally-oriented sector, and to the different segments of
the state and different policy orientations associated with each. Cf John Kenneth Galbraith,
Economics and 1he Public Purpose (London: Andre Demsch, 1974) and James O'Connor, The Fiscal
Crisis of the Slate (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973). Historians point to the elements of
corporatism in the New Deal, e.g. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., op. cir.
37. The Zaire case recalls the arrangements imposed by western powers on the Ottoman Empire
and Egypt in the late-Nineteenth century, effectively attaching certain revenues for the service of
foreign debt. See Herbert Feis, Europe Lhe World's Banker, 1870-1914 (New York: Kelly for the
Council on Foreign Relations, 1961 ), pp. 332-341, 384-397.
38 . The evidence for the existence of a transnational managerial class lies in actual forms of
organisation, the elaboration of ideology , financial supports, and the behaviour of individuals. Other
st ructures stand as rival tendencies, e.g. national capital and its interests sustained by a whole other
structure of loyalties , agencies, etc. Individuals or firms and state agencies may in some phases of
their activity be caught up now in one, now in anot her tendency. Thus the membership of the dass
may be continually shifti ng though the structure remains. It is som.etimes argued that this is merely a
case of US capitalists giving themselves a hegemonic aura, an argument that by implication makes of
imperialism a purely national phenomenon. There is no doubting the US origin of the values carried
and propagated by this class, but neither is there any doubt that many non-US citizens and agencies
also participate in it nor that its world view is global and distinguishable from the purely national
capitalisms which exist alongside it. Through the transnational managerial class American culture, or
a certain American business culture, has become globally hegemonic . Of course, should neo-
merca.ntilist tendencies come ·w prevail in international economic relations, this transnational class
structure would wither .
39. Some industries appear as ambiguously astride the two tendencies, e.g. the automobile
industry. During a period of economic expansion, the international aspect of this industry dominated
in the United States, and the United Auto Workers union took the lead in creating world councils for
the major international auto firms with a view to inaugurating multinational bargaining. As the
industry was hit by recession, protectionism came to the fore.
40. R.W. Cox, "Labour and Employment in the Late Twentieth Century", in R. St. J.
Macdonald, et al, (eds.), The International Law and Policy of Human Welfare (Sijthoff and
Noordhoff, 1978). This tendency can be seen as the continuation of a Jong-term direction of
production organisation of which Taylorism was an early stage, in which control over the work
process is progressively wrested from workers and separated out from the actual performance of tasks
so as to be concentrated with management. See Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital (New
York: Monthly Review, 1974) .
41 . Recent news from Brazil indicates restiveness on the part of Sao Paulo workers whose unions
have been subjected to a state corporatist structure since the time of President Vargas.
42 . The World Bank promotes rural development and birth control. The concept of " self-
reliance", once a slogan of anti-imperialism meaning "decoupling" from the imperial system, has
been co-opted by the imperial system to mean self-help among populations becoming marginalised -
a do-it-yourself welfare programme.
43. I have borrowed the term from Hartmut Elsenhas, "The State Class in the Third World: For
a New Conceptualisation of Periphery Modes of Production" (unpublished).

155