Lost Hegemony?

Author(s): Helen Milner and Jack Snyder

Source: International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 749-750
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706647 .
Accessed: 24/03/2011 15:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International
Organization.

http://www.jstor.org

Lost hegemony?HelenMilnerand

JackSnyder

mythof lost
Susan Strangechallengedwhat she termed"the persistent
hegemony"in herarticleofthattitlein theAutumn1987issue ofInternationalOrganization(vol. 41, no. 4), pp. 551-74. Thoughnot necessarily
hingeson a crucialtable,whichProfessorStrange
herargument
incorrect,
withminorabridgeTable 2, on page 567,reproduced
has misinterpreted.
Strange
1985),is labeledbyProfessor
BusinessWeek(14January
mentsfrom
''percentageoftotaloutputproducedintheUnitedStates." It is clearfrom
thetextat thebottomofpage 567 thatshe takesthisto be a tableshowing
theU.S. shareofworldoutputinvariouseconomicsectors.Thetableshows
unchangedbetween1970and 1985,so
thesepercentagesto be relatively
is not in
ProfessorStrangeconcludesthatAmericaneconomichegemony
decline.In fact,however,thetabledoes notreferto theU.S. shareofworld
sharesofoutputin theUnitedStates
output.Rather,it describeschanging
amongvariouseconomicsectors.Thisis evidentfromthefactthatthethree
"services," and "all others"-add up
mainheadings-"manufacturing,"
to 100percentin each of thefourcolumns.The label thatBusinessWeek
outputwillgrowmoreslowly...
attachesto thistableis "Manufacturing
butits shareof theeconomywillstabilize,thanksto hightech." Clearly,
"shareoftheeconomy"refersto theAmericaneconomy.
thecorrectdata,shewouldhavefound
IfProfessor
Strangehadpresented
thatAmerica'srelativeeconomicpositionhad indeeddeclinedover this
period,as measuredin termsof the U.S. shareof worldoutput,world
trendincludedproducThisdownward
exports,and mostotherindicators.
ofhightechnology
sectors,as wellas inservices.I
tionandtradeina number
1. See, forexample,the chartsand discussionin StephenS. Cohenand JohnZysman,
Matters(New York: Basic Books, 1987),chap. 5, and BruceR. Scottand
Manufacturing
George C. Lodge, U.S. Competitivenessin the WorldEconomy (Boston: Harvard Business

(NewYork:
Strange
citesRonaldShelp,BeyondIndustrialization
SchoolPress,1985).Professor
will
(p. 567)that"Americanserviceindustries
Praeger,1981)as thesourceforherstatement
holdtheirshare-50 percentor more-ofthewholeworldmarket,"butinfactShelp'stables
as
on pp. 24-25showtheU.S. shareofworld"invisible"tradeas 19.7percentanddeclining,
ofhisdata.
ofthe1978end-point

Organization
750 International
than1970,thedeclineis ofcourse
Measuredfromthe1950sand 1960srather
decline.
even greater.But even some veryrecenttrendsshow significant
Accordingto Paul Kennedy,"In late 1986,forexample,a congressional
goods had
studyreportedthatthe U.S. tradesurplusin high-technology
plungedfrom$27billionin 1980to a mere$4 billionin 1985,andwas swiftly
'2
headingintoa deficit.'
refute
Professor'sStrange'sconOfcourse,thesedatado notnecessarily
One couldargue,as Bruce
tention
thattheUnitedStatesis stillhegemonic.
Americais stilllargerrelativeto itscomRussetthas, thatevena declining
thanwas GreatBritianevenatits"hegemonic"peak.3Alternatively,
petitors
is
one couldargue,as ProfessorStrangedoes, thatthemostvalidindicator
withintheUnitedStatesas a percentage
oftheworldtotal,
notproduction
in
ultimately
headquartered
butthatfigure
by enterprises
plus "production
in Washington"
(pp.
theUnitedStatesand responsibleto thegovernment
notionthatsuchmultinationals
566-67).Even ifwe acceptthequestionable
we cannotevaluateProfessor
are somehow"responsible"to Washington,
no figure,
correctorotherwise,
forthat
sincesheoffers
Strange'sargument,
indicator.
it mightsupporthercase. RobertReich,
If she didpresentsucha figure,
in "The Economics of Illusion," Foreign Affairs:America and the World,

corporationsac1987-88 (p. 525), states that "Americanmultinational

countedforover 17 percentof worldexportsin 1966,and theirsharehas
remained
aboutthesamesincethen,"thoughexportsfromtheirproduction
to one-halfof
facilitiesoutsidetheUnitedStatesincreasedfromone-third
thetotalduringthatperiod.4This is stillnotProfessorStrange'spreferred
however,sinceit refersto shareofworldtrade,notproduction,
indicator,
and considersonlymultinationals.
In short,ProfessorStrangemay be rightor wrongabout the mythof
hegemonic
decline.We hopethatshewillprovidethereadersofInternational
withthedata thatwillallowthemto evaluateherclaim.
Organization

2. Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random, 1987), p.
525.

3. BruceRussett,"The Mysterious
Case ofVanishing
Hegemony;
or,Is MarkTwainReally

Dead?" InternationalOrganization39 (Spring 1985), pp. 207-32.

4. We have notbeenable to verify

Reich'sfigure,
however,sincehis sourcecouldnotbe
locatedwiththeinformation
in hisfootnote.