Seit der Finanzkrise gelten die USA als post-hegemonial. Dies ist übertrieben und Folge unscharfer Bestimmungen von Hegemonie. Sicherten die USA im Fordismus kapitalistische Verhältnisse nach Außen militärisch und nach Innen mit Produktivitätspakten ab, so verfechten sie heute die neoliberale Stärkung der Rechte der Kapitaleigner mittels Globalisierung, Finanzialisierung und Militarisierung. Derzeit besteht eine verschränkte Hegemonie des US-Nationalstaats und der emergenten transnationalen Bourgeoisie.


Hegemonie Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika Transnationale Bourgeoisie Militärische Vormacht Technologische Vormacht 

The Post-hegemonic USA?


Many consider the U.S. as post-hegemonic nowadays. This is an exaggeration and results from an imprecise definition of hegemony. During Fordism the U.S. defended capitalist relations militarily abroad and with productivity pacts domestically. Today they pursue a neoliberal strategy of strengthening the rights of property holders via globalization, financialization and militarization. Thus, the current state of hegemony consists of a linkage between the U.S. state and an emerging transnational bourgeoisie.


Hegemony United States of America Transnational bourgeoisie Military leadership Technological leadership 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, L. (2011). Meeting the right’s attack on Public Sector Unions in the United States: Are there effective strategies? In M. Serrano, E. Xhafa, & M. Fichter (Hrsg.), Trade unions and the global crisis. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, R. C. (2009). The great credit crash, 2008: A geopolitical setback for the West. Foreign Affairs, 88(1), 2.Google Scholar
  3. APSA – American Political Science Association. (2009). U.S. standing in the world: Causes, consequences, and the future; Public Report of the Task Force on U.S. Standing in World Affairs.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. D., & Andes, S. M. (2011). The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU & U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Washington, DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Augar, P. (2000). The death of gentlemanly capitalism: The rise and fall of London’s investment banks. London: Penguin Books Limited.Google Scholar
  6. Ayres, A., & Mohan, R. C. (Hrsg.). (2009). Power realignments in Asia: China, India and the United States. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, S., & Scherrer, C. (2005). Der rot-grüne Einstieg in den Abschied vom „Modell Deutschland“: Ein Erklärungsversuch. Prokla, 35(1 Heft 138), 111–130.Google Scholar
  8. Beckley, M. (2011). China’s century? Why America’s edge will endure. International Security, 36(3), 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belik, W. (2013). The Brazilian food and nutrition security policy: Concept and results. In C. Scherrer & D. Saha (Hrsg.), Food crisis: Implications for labour. Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Berghahn, V. (1986). The Americanization of West German industry, 1945–1973. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bousquet, N. (1980). From hegemony to competition: Cycles of the core? In T. K. Hopkins & I. Wallerstein (Hrsg.), Processes of the World-system. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Brand, U., Görg, C., & Wissen, M. (2007). Verdichtungen zweiter Ordnung. Die Internationalisierung des Staates aus einer neo-poulantzianischen Perspektive. Prokla, 147, 217–234.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of balance: International relations and the challenge of American primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broz, J. L. (2012). The Federal Reserve as global lender of last resort, 2007–2010, manuscript, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego. Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  15. Busch, K. (1985). Mythen über den Weltmarkt – Eine Kritik der theoretischen Grundlagen der Weltsystemtheorie Immanuel Wallersteins. Prokla, 15(2 Heft 59), 101–121.Google Scholar
  16. Calleo, D. (2009). Follies of power: America’s unipolar fantasy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Callinicos, A. (2009). Imperialism and global political economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cammack, P. (2005). ‘Signs of the Times’: Capitalism, competitiveness, and the new face of empire in Latin America. In L. Panitch & C. Leys (Hrsg.), Socialist register 2005: The empire reloaded (S. 256–270). London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  19. Carroll, W. K., & Sapinski, J. (2010). The global corporate elite and the transnational policy-planning network, 1996–2006: A structural analysis. International Sociology, 25(4), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Castel, R., & Dörre, K. (2009). Prekarität, Abstieg, Ausgrenzung – Die soziale Frage am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  21. Castells, M., (2002). Das Informationszeitalter, Bd. 2: Die Macht der Identität. Leverkusen: Leske und Budrich Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cecchetti, S. G. (2009). Crisis and responses: The Federal Reserve in the early stages of the financial crisis. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cox, R. W. (1987). Power, production, and world order. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. DeLong, B., DeLong, C., & Robinson, S. (1996). The case for Mexico’s rescue: The peso package looks even better now. Foreign Affairs, May/June 1996, 75(3), 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DoD, Department of Defense. Base structure report fiscal year 2012 baseline. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Dodge, T. (2007). The causes of US failure in Iraq. Survival, 49(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eppacher, T. (2012). Private Sicherheits- und Militärfirmen. Wesen, Wirken und Fähigkeiten. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  28. Fichter, M., Helfen, M., & Sydow, J. (2011). Employment relations in global production networks—Initiating transfer of practices via union involvement. Human Relations, 63(4), 599–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fouskas, V. K., & Gökay, B. (2012). The fall of the US empire. Global fault-lines and the shifting imperial order. New York: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fratzscher, M. (2011). Capital flows, push versus pull factors and the global financial crisis. Working Paper No 1364; European Central Bank.Google Scholar
  31. Galama, T., & Hosek, J. (2008). U.S. competitiveness in science and technology. Santa Monica: RAND (prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense).Google Scholar
  32. Gathii, J. T. (2011). The neo-liberal turn in regional trade agreements. Washington Law Review, 83(3), Albany Law School Research Paper No. 10–40.Google Scholar
  33. Gill, S. (1990). American hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gill, S. (2001). Das globale Panopticon. Finanzwesen und Überwachung nach dem Kalten Krieg. Prokla, 31(3 Heft 124), 353–382.Google Scholar
  35. Grässlin, J. (2005). Das Daimler-Desaster: vom Vorzeigekonzern zum Sanierungsfall? München: Droemer.Google Scholar
  36. Hamm, B., & Smandych, R. (Hrsg.). (2011). Kulturimperialismus. Berlin: Kai Homilius Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Heinz, R. (2000). Die Japanische Bankenkrise. Kurswechsel, 4, 85–94.Google Scholar
  38. Hildebrandt, R. (2009). US hegemony: Global ambitions and decline. Emergence of the Interregional Asian Triangle and the relegation of the US as a hegemonic power; the reorientation of Europe. Frankfurt a. M.: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Hopkins, T. K., & Wallerstein, I. (Hrsg.). (1980). Processes of the World-System. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Huang, Y., & Wang, X. (2012). Financial reform and economic development in China. In Y. Huang & W. Yu (Hrsg.), China’s new role in the world economy (S. 123–144). London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hurst, S. (2009). The United States and Iraq since 1979: Hegemony, oil and war. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ivanova, M. N. (2013). The dollar as world money. Science & Society, 77(1), 44–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kagan, R. (02. Februar 2012). Not fade away: Against the myth of American decline. The New Republic, 19–25.Google Scholar
  44. Keiswetter, A. L. (18. Januar 2012). The Arab spring: Implications for US policy and interests. Middle East Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Kennedy, P. (1987). The Rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500–2000. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  46. Kennedy, P. (2002). The greatest superpower ever. New Perspectives Quarterly, 19(2), 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koller, S. (2011). Power shift in international organizations: Republic of Korea and People’s Republic of China, Masterarbeit, Universität Wien. Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  48. Kuttner, R. (2013). Debtors’ prison: The politics of austerity versus possibility. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  49. Lake, A. (1994). Confronting backlash States. Foreign Affairs, 73(2).Google Scholar
  50. Layne, C. (2006). The unipolar illusion revisited. The coming end of the United States’ unipolar moment. International Security, 31(2), 7–41 (Fall 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. List, F. (1841). Das nationale System der politischen Oekonomie. Stuttgart: Cotta’schen Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. Lüthje, B. (2001). Standort Silicon Valley Ökonomie und Politik der vernetzten Massenproduktion Studienreihe des ifs Frankfurt. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  53. Marcus, J. (26. Januar 2004). America: An empire to rival Rome? BBC News. Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  54. Mazzetti, M. (2013). The way of the knife: The C.I.A., a secret army, and a war at the ends of the earth. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mirkin, Y., Kuznetsova, O., & Kuznetsov, A. (2013). The financial depth of emerging markets: The case of Russia. Competition & Change, 17(2), 156–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mirowski, P., & Plehwe, D. (Hrsg.). (2009). The road from Mont Pèlerin. The making of the neoliberal thought collective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Modelski, G. (1987). Long cycles in world politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mosoetsa, S., & Williams, M. (Hrsg.). (2012). Labor in the global south, challenges and alternatives for workers. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  59. Norrlof, C. (2010). America’s global advantage: US hegemony and international cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. NSB. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington: National Science Board.Google Scholar
  61. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2011). The future of power. New York: Perseus.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. (2011). Patents. In OECD Factbook 2011–2012: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Pew Research Global Attitudes Project. (2012). Pervasive gloom about the world economy. Faith in hard work, capitalism falter; but emerging markets upbeat. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  64. Pflüger, T. (2002). Lackmustest für Schröders und Fischers angebliche Kriegsgegnerschaft. Analyse der deutschen Position zum Irakkrieg, IMI-Analyse 2002/071.Google Scholar
  65. Pickford, J. (25. März 2013). London retains financial services crown. Financial Times. Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  66. PIPA – The Program on International Policy Attitudes. (2006). 20-Nation poll finds strong global consensus: Support for free market system but also more regulation of large companies. Maryland: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  67. Prestowitz, C. (1993). Trading places – How we are giving our future to Japan and how to reclaim it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  68. Rügemer, W. (2012). Rating-Agenturen – Einblicke in die Kapitalmacht der Gegenwart. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Russett, B. (2011). Hegemony and democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Scherrer, C. (1999). Globalisierung wider Willen? Die Durchsetzung liberaler Außenwirtschaftspolitik in den USA. Berlin: edition sigma.Google Scholar
  71. Scherrer, C. (2001). Double hegemony? State and class in American foreign economic policymaking. Amerikastudien, 46(4), 573–591.Google Scholar
  72. Scherrer, C. (Hrsg.). (2011a). China’s labor question. Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.Google Scholar
  73. Scherrer, C. (2011b). Reproducing hegemony: US finance capital and the 2008 crisis. Critical Policy Studies, 5(3), 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Scherrer, C., & Hänlein, A. (Hrsg.). (2012). Sozialkapitel in Handelsabkommen. Begründungen und Vorschläge aus juristischer, ökonomischer und politologischer Sicht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  75. Sender, H. (02. Februar 2012). China’s capital flight looks ready for take-off. Financial Times: Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  76. Shibo, T., & Long, C. (2012). Is capital flight taking place in China? by China Seminar on November 29, 2012, Institute for New Economic Thinking.Google Scholar
  77. SIGTARP – Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. (2009). Factors affecting efforts to limit payments to AIG counterparties. SIGTARP-10-003, 17 November. Zugegriffen: 12. April 2010.
  78. Stokes, D., & Raphael, S. (2010). Global energy security and american hegemony. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  79. Subramanian, A. (2011). The inevitable superpower: Why China’s rise is a sure thing. Foreign Affairs, 90(5), 66–78 (September/October 2011).Google Scholar
  80. Tellis, A. J., Bially, J., Layne, C., & McPherson, M. (2000). Measuring national power in the postindustrial age. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  81. U.S. – Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Joint Report, 2012. Bilateral Presidential Commission, Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  82. Van Apeldoorn, B., & de Graaff, N. (2012). The limits of open door imperialism and the US state—Capital nexus. Globalizations, 9(4), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Van der Pijl, K. (1984). The making of an Atlantic ruling class. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  84. Van der Pijl, K. (2006). Global rivalries: From the Cold War to Iraq. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  85. Williams, W. A. (1959). The tragedy of American diplomacy. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  86. WES Research and Advisory Services. (2012). Trends in international student mobility. New York City. Zugegriffen: 25. Okt. 2013.
  87. Winseck, D. (2011). The political economies of media and the transformation of the global media industries. In D. Winseck & D. Yong Jin (Hrsg.), The political economies of media (S. 3–48). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  88. Yuk, P. K. (12. Juni 2012). China’s capital flight: To US real estate. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  89. Young, B. (2009). Vom staatlichen zum privatisierten Keynesianismus. Der globale makroökonomische Kontext der Finanzkrise und der Privatverschuldung. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 16(1), 141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zakaria, F. (2008). The post-American world. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Scherrer
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität KasselKasselDeutschland

Personalised recommendations