Robin Harding raises a fundamental question about the risk of a leadership vacuum in the world economy if the US is no longer willing to provide the necessary guidance and resources (Opinion, February 20). While warning of these challenges, he appears to use “hegemon” and “stabiliser” interchangeably — both referring to the provision of global economic stability.
However, “hegemon” is not a neutral term. As Perry Mehrling argues in Money and Empire, the American economic historian Charles Kindleberger did not advocate hegemony but rather economic stability through co-operation. This is more than a semantic distinction. “Hegemon” suggests leadership that exerts influence through both coercive and non-coercive means, overshadowing the collaborative and supportive aspects of stabilising the world economy. By contrast, “stabiliser” highlights the leading country’s role in providing public goods, such as open markets and financial support, without implying dominance.
A “stabiliser” need not be benevolent, but it must be willing to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden to ease co-ordination problems among economies. The US has signalled a growing reluctance to play this role, yet no clear successor stands ready to take up the baton. This doesn’t mean that the world economy is doomed. However, we must recognise the urgent need to develop and strengthen alternative forms of leadership — distributed and multilateral. As Harding rightly notes, the world cannot afford to wait for another financial crisis to address the vacuum that the idiosyncrasies of US leadership are creating.
Paola Subacchi
Essential Economics, London, UK and SciencesPo, Paris, France