Search

Neo-Gramscians have drawn on the concept of interregnum and connected terms to shed light on the 'global organic crisis' they claim we have been living through since 2008. I examine their ideas, highlighting the important contributions they have made in this terrain. In doing so, however, certain oversights are detected in the neo-Gramscian theoretical framework, leaving them unable to explain fully the dynamics of the contemporary international system or, more pointedly, structural change itself. Ultimately this stems from ontological shallowness: a tendency to reduce reality to intersubjectivity and conscious class agency. Rooted in critical realism, and drawing on Gramsci and Gramsci-inspired scholars such as world-systems analyst Giovanni Arrighi, this article aims to offer a more convincing account of the present conjuncture. In contrast to the neo-Gramscian transnational perspective, I recognize the continuing relevance of 'world hegemony', arguing that the global organic crisis is actually an expression of a systemic crisis afflicting American world hegemony and the neoliberal accumulation regime it helps underwrite. Hegemony has never been solely based on consensus—coercion and militarism are integral to it. Nonetheless, this article questions the sustainability of a world hegemon (the United States) increasingly reliant on political and military means to overcome 'incurable structural conditions' in a changing global scenario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focusing on the relationship between distributional justice and hegemonic world orders, this article turns attention to a fundamental contradiction in historical capitalism between profitability and legitimacy that manifests itself in successive creative destructions of hegemonic orders. Through a comparative–historical analysis of world hegemonies, I show that increasing distributional injustices during periods of 'legitimacy crisis' compel new hegemonic powers to pragmatically address some of these injustices as a part of their hegemony-building strategies. Despite growing efforts by world hegemonic powers to address such distributional injustices, social and global inequalities in the capitalist world-economy tend to increase over time. As social and global inequalities increase, new hegemonic powers are compelled to make greater promises and to undertake much greater efforts to address distributional injustices in order to gain intellectual and moral leadership in an emergent new world order. Yet, none of these efforts become successful in the long run because even the partial successes of redistribution policies pave the way for 'profitability crises' and undermined world hegemonies. This dynamic poses several challenges to achieving global distributional justice in an emergent new capitalist world order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - The aim of the paper is to indicate the reasons for too insignificant determination of some countries with regards to the issue of environmental protection. Research method - Acritical analysis of the literature together with deductive reasoning have been used. Among the quantitative methods, the author employed the use of the simple tools of descriptive statistics. Results - One of the reasons for too insignificant determination of some countries relating to issues in environmental protection is competition for the hegemony position they are involved in. The conservation of nature demands expenditure, which could be used to achieve higher economic growth. In the conditions of countries' competition for the hegemony title, higher economic growth enables beneficial solving of the conflict. Originality/value - The author attempts to explain the reason for too low determinations of some countries in environmental protection, which is a current topic. Understanding the reason may contribute to helping to solve the problem of environmental protection on a global scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hileya: Scientific Bulletin / Gileya is the property of GILEYA Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Alternative Politics / Alternatif Politika is the property of Alternatif Politika and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article argues that the current financial crisis that began unfolding in late 2007 cannot be explained merely by institutional failure, false economic theories, or human misbehavior. Instead, the crisis must be analyzed against the backdrop of the internal contradictions of capitalist accumulation and the gradual disintegration of the post-war hegemonic world order under U.S. leadership. The specifics of the crisis are inherently related to the failure of Fordism in the 1970s and the emergence of a post-Fordist, neoliberal, and finance-driven regime of accumulation that was pushed to its limits in the lead-up to the current downturn.

There is debate in the literature regarding whether China can become a new world hegemonic power in the 21st century. Most existing analyses focus on economic aspects of world hegemony-building processes and ignore its macro-political dimensions. This article starts with the premise that reshaping the geopolitical configuration of the inter-state system is an important part of world hegemony-building processes. One of the ways in which previous and current world hegemonic powers established their world hegemonies was through the inclusion of new nations by co-opting, supporting or sometimes selectively leading a section of nationalist movements into independence. Our comparative analysis shows that, as of now, contemporary China has not been following this historical pattern. Compared to Mao-era China, which was perceived as a champion of national liberation--at least when colonial and semi-colonial areas were at stake--today's People's Republic of China (PRC) is emerging as a champion of the global geo-political status quo. The current Chinese government is not actively pursuing the transformation of the inter-state system or seeking to create instabilities at different levels. This is because, unlike previous and current world hegemonic powers, during its rise to global preeminence, Chinese territorial integrity has been challenged due to rapid escalation of nationalist/secessionist movements within its own state boundaries. Hence, the PRC's foreign policy has consistently been concerned with creating and preserving macro-political stability at national and international levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sosyologca is the property of Sosyologca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article argues that the current financial crisis that began unfolding in late 2007 cannot be explained merely by institutional failure, false economic theories, or human misbehavior. Instead, the crisis must be analyzed against the backdrop of the internal contradictions of capitalist accumulation and the gradual disintegration of the post-war hegemonic world order under U.S. leadership. The specifics of the crisis are inherently related to the failure of Fordism in the 1970s and the emergence of a post-Fordist, neoliberal, and finance-driven regime of accumulation that was pushed to its limits in the lead-up to the current downturn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Review of Eurasian Studies / Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice is the property of Romanian Review of Eurasian Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The violent acts that took place in some important cities of the world during the first years of the XXI Century have revealed that the mundialization process that eliminates commercial barriers and achieves a spatial approach among the population, has also consequences like the generation of an uncertain a "world wide fear" panorama above the most incomprehensible threat for humanity: terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Place and space are treated as the fundamental concepts for answering where and what questions. Their relationship is defined as a tension with places tending to be enabling and spaces dis-enabling in progressive political practice. The political geography of this position is explored through identifying nation-state and home-household as exemplary examples of place–space tensions. The addition of nation to state and home to household is interpreted as necessarily resulting from the social turmoil that is modernity. While nation turns state space into place, states remain major space producers of the modern age. The way in which home turns household space into place is derived from the identification of three modernities within which this new place–space tension was created. For both nation-state and home-household their treatment as place–space tension highlights their ambiguous political roles. A final place–space tension is identified at the global scale between a geoecology place and a globalization space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]