KUASA HEGEMONI DAN KESTABILAN EKONOMI POLITIK ANTARABANGSA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51200/ejk.v22i.849Keywords:
Theori Kestabilan Hegemoni, kuasa hegemoni, Great Britain, Amerika Syarikat, institusi antarabangsa, kestabilan antarabangsa.Abstract
Artikel ini membincangkan kepentingan Teori Kestabilan Hegemoni dalam memahami pembentukan kestabilan dan ketidakstabilan ekonomi politik antarabangsa. Mengikut teori ini, peranan yang dimainkan oleh sesebuah kuasa hegemoni sangat penting dalam membentuk kestabilan ekonomi dan politik antarabangsa. Tanpa kewujudan sebuah kuasa hegemoni yang betul-betul kuat dalam sistem antarabangsa, maka kestabilan antarabangsa sukar untuk diwujudkan. Data-data sekunder digunakan dalam kajian ini bagi menganalisis peranan yang dimainkan oleh kuasa hegemoni dan kestabilan antarabangsa. Kajian ini merumuskan bahawa peranan yang dimainkan oleh sesebuah kuasa hegemoni sangat penting dalam membentuk kestabilan dalam ekonomi politik antarabangsa. Ketidakstabilan politik antarabangsa dan kemelesetan ekonomi dalam dekad-dekad sebelum Perang Dunia Kedua 1939 meletus mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan ketiadaan sebuah kuasa hegemoni yang benar-benar kuat dan berupaya memainkan peranan yang berkesan dalam sistem antarabangsa. Great Britain telah berada dalam keadaan terlalu lemah (dalam tempoh 1919–1939) dan Amerika Syarikat pula enggan (atau belum benar-benar mampu) memainkan peranan sebagai kuasa hegemoni baharu menggantikan Great Britain. Sementara itu, Liga Bangsa-Bangsa tidak berfungsi dengan berkesan dalam tahun-tahun 1930-an kerana tidak wujud sebuah kuasa hegemoni yang benar-benar kuat. Keadaan ekonomi dan politik antarabangsa yang lebih baik dan stabil selepas tahun 1945 banyak dipengaruhi oleh peranan yang dimainkan oleh Amerika Syarikat sebagai kuasa hegemoni baharu. Sesebuah institusi antarabangsa tidak mungkin dapat berjalan dengan lancar dan berjaya mencapai matlamatnya tanpa sokongan kuat daripada sebuah kuasa hegemoni.
This paper discusses the importance of the theory of hegemonic stability in understanding the stability and instability in the international political economy. According to the theory of hegemonic stability, the role played by a hegemonic power is very important in creating stability in international politics and economy. Without strong hegemon, the creation of international stability is impossible. The secondary data since early twentieth century was used in analysing the relationship between role of the hegemonic power and international stability. The study concludes that the hegemonic power was very important in creating stability in international political economy. The political instability and economic depression in the decades before Second World War closely related with the absence of strong hegemonic power in the international system. Great Britain was very weak (during the period 1919-1939) and the United States refused to take the role as a new hegemonic power. The League of Nations was not well function in the 1930s because of the lack of hegemonic power. The better and stable situation in international politics and economy after 1945 was strong influenced by the role played by the United States as a new hegemonic power. The international institution is impossible to run smoothly without strong support by a hegemonic power.
References
Balaam, D. N., & Veseth, M. (2008). Introduction to International Political Economy (fourth edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Burk, Kathleen. (1985). Britain, America and the Sinews War, 1914-1918, Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Cha, V. D. (2009). ‘Powerplay: Origin of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia,’ International Security, vol. 34, no. 3, (Winter 2009/2010), hal. 158-196.
Gadzey, Anthony Tuo-Kofi . (1994). The Political Economy of Power: Hegemony and Economic Liberalism, New York; St Martin’s Press.
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding The International Economic Order, Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Gilpin, R (1971). “The Politics of Trans-national Economic Relations,” International Organisation, vol. 25, no. 3, summer 1971.
Hill, C.P. (1975). British Economy and Social History 1700-1964, (third edition), London: Edward Arnold.
Howarth, T. (1980). Twentieth Century History: The World since 1900, London: Longman.
Hsiung, J. C. (1993). ‘Asia Pacific in the Post-Cold War Order,’ dalam Hsiung, James, C. (ed.), Asia Pacific in The New World Politics, Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, hal; 2-3.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, N.J.; Princeton University Press
Keylor, W. R. (2003). A World of Nations: The International Order since 1945, New York: Oxford University Press.
Keylor, W. R. (1992). The Twentieth Century World: An International History (second edition), New York: Oxford University Press.
Keynes, J. M. (2007). The Economic Consequences of The Peace (Introduction by Volcker, Paul, A.), New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1981). “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy: Exploitation, Public Goods, and Free Rides,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, June 1981.
Lairson, T. D. & Skidmore, D. (2003). International Political Economy : The Struggle for Power and wealth (third edition), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Lake, D. A. (1983). ‘International Economic Structures and American Economic Policy, 1887-1934,’World Politics, vol. 35, no. 4, July 1983, hal. 517-543.
Marshall, J. (1995). To Have and Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw materials and the Origins of the Pacific War, Berkerly & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Milward, A. S. (1989). ‘Was the Marshall Plan Necessary?,’ Diplomatic History, vol. 13, hal. 231-253.
Mohd. Noor Yazid. (2007). Hegemonic Powers, Radical Politics & Developmental Politics, Kota Kinabalu: Penerbit Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Nye, J. S. (2003), Understanding International Conflict: An Introduction to Theory and History, Boston: Longman-Pearson.
Oatley, T. (2012). International Political Economy (fifth edition), Boston: Longman-Pearson
Ross, G. (1997). The Great Powers and the Decline of the European States System 1914-1945, London and New York: Longman,
Scott, P. D. (1985). ‘The United State and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967,’Pacific Affairs, vol. 58, summer 1985, pp. 239-264.
So, A. Y. & Chiu, S. W.K. (1995). East Asia and The World Economy, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Spero, J. E. (1977). The Politics of International Economic Relations, Boston; George Allen & Unwin.
Strange, S. (1987). ‘The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,’International Organization, vol. 41, 1987, hal. 560-575.
Stubbs, R. (1994). ‘The Political Economy of the Asia-pacific Region,’ in Stubbs, Richard and Underhill, Geoffrey, R.D., (eds.), Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, London; Macmillan, hal. 366-376
Stubbs, R. (1989). ‘Geopolitics and the Political Economy of Southeast Asia,’ International Journal, vol. 44, Summer 1989, 520-526.
Webb, M. C., & Krasner, S. D. (1989), ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment’, Review of International Studies, vol. 15, no. 2.
Yahuda, M. (2004). International Politics of The Asia Pacific (revised and enlarged edition), London and New York: Routledge
Yahuda, M. (1995). International Politics of Asia-Pacific Region 1945-1995, London and New York; Routledge,
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Total Views: 4448
| 
Total Downloads: 4959
