IS AMERICA THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE STATE SYSTEM?

Since the end of the cold war there has been debate about the nature of world order - it has been argued that the emergence of the US as the sole superpower has created a unipolar world order, based on US hegemony.

          But to what extent is the US the most powerful nation in the state system? 

Power is a hard concept to define - it can be understood in terms of capability (the ability of a state to conduct its own affairs without interference from others) or, more commonly, in terms of influence - the ability to influence the behaviour of another state, or power over other states. In what ways does the US have power?

One way is through its military dominance. The USA has a huge military spending budget (the largest in the world, accounting for 42% of global military spending). it has 700 military bases in over 100 countries as well as an 'unchallengeable' lead in high tech weaponry. For these reasons it is thought to be the only power that can intervene militarily in any part of the world ans sustain multiple operations at the same time.

However, military prowess as a means of power may no longer be a relevant characteristic in determining whether a state is powerful globally - the nature of wars are changing from traditional conflict to asymmetrical wars in which a states military is up against a terrorist organisation and the use of guerrilla war tactics - the USA's struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate this. The use of such tactics in recent years has allowed weaker states to prevail over states which are far superior - such as America's effective defeat against north Vietnam in 1975.

The US is also incredibly economically powerful - it accounts for 32% of global spending on research and development, giving it am enormous lead over other countries. While the fast growing Chinese economy is expected to over take the US by 2020, just as Britain remained a global hegemon in the mid- twentieth century despite being overtaken by the US and Germany, the US may be able to remain the most powerful nation state when China overtakes it. However, the flaw of the US economic model were exposed during the financial crisis of 2007-9, threatening the dollar's position as the world's leading currency.

Additionally, America's soft power has been damaged by its association with corporate power and widening inequality, as well as the resentment created by theories of Globalisation as Americanisation. The US's war on terror has also damaged its reputation of being opposed to colonialism and unconcerned by imperialist gains - particularly the Iraq war which was very much illegal in the eyes of the UN. Its human rights record is also under question as details emerge from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib

Another way the US could be considered the most powerful nation state in the system is in terms of structural power - it has a disproportionate amount of influence over NGOs as well as NATO. Despite China closing the economic gap, no other state comes close to challenging the US' influence over global economic decision making  - this was reflected in its role in instructing a global response to the financial crisis of 2007-9. However in recent years, the G20 has rivalled America's economic decision making monopoly.

The spread of the US' capitalist ideology after its cold war victory is another way it has exerted power globally - through having its consumerist culture, capitalist ideology and TNCs a part of most countries it could be said to be the most powerful nation in the state system. The Washington Consensus is further support for its global domination and the idea that America is the hegemon in a global state of unipolarity.

For these reasons I would argue that America is the most powerful nation state in the state system, however I think it will be interesting to see how this changes in the near future when China surpasses the US economy and inevitably strives to exert an increased amout of political influence globally as a result.

Is Globalization merely Americanization in disguise?

Globalisation is the emergence of a complex web of inter-connectedness that means our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us - essentially globalization is the increasing interdependence of countries on one another - or is it?

In our era of globalization, critics have begun to argue that it is not in fact globalization that is occurring all over the world - it is Americanization, or the imposing of american culture, politics, and economics onto the rest of the globe. America has long since been seen as a global hegemon, but to what extent has the American ideology been spread to the rest of the world?

Critics of globalization claim that America is using globalization as an engine of corporate imperialism, trampling on the human rights of less powerful states (claiming to bring prosperity or to create democracy) but always profiteering and plundering in the process.

America, which has the largest military spending budget in the world, has preoccupied itself in recent years with fighting a 'war on terror' in Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Syria. Astonishingly, the US has managed to invade, occupy or bomb 14 middle eastern counties in the space of 30 years - and at the end of each war it seems america acquires yet more cheap oil to run its economy with.

Through globalization, America is not only able to influence the politics and economy of the world but it also imposes its culture - even advocates of globalization such as Thomas Friedman question this: 'globalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears mickey mouse ears, it drinks pepsi and coke; eats big macs'. America has, through cultural globalisation, been criticised for bringing about a global monoculture of consumerist capitalism -  and it is true that trends towards materialism have a markedly western (but more specifically american) character.

But aside from spreading its culture across the globe, (through cultural globalisation), how far is the US a true hegemon? Can it be said that the US is achieving global ideological domination?

The Washington consensus can be used to answer these questions to an extent. This describes the policies favoured by the IMF, World Bank (international institutions based in Washington) and the US Treasury in terms of reconstructing economies in the developing world. The Washington consensus draws on the ideas of Neoliberalism, the essence of it being to 'stabilize, privatize and liberalize'.
More specifically, it favours:
-cutting public spending
-free trade
-privatization
-cutting personal and corporate taxes

These are common conditions imposed on counties which have been bailed out by the world bank after a financial crisis, (a recent example being Greece) implying that America's ideology, or at the very least its preferred policies, are being imposed on developing countries through non governmental organisations. It should also be noted that America is the only country able to veto decisions made by the IMF, demonstrating its disproportionate influence over NGOs.

But how much influence does America really have on the world? Government in each country (as long as it is developed) has the freedom to make its own policies, and state sovereignty remains to an extent - it cannot truly be said that all countries are turning into carbon copies of America - culture remains even in a multi-cultural society. It could be argued that TNCs (which are essentially supranational so cannot be considered American) are a prominent reason for globalisation being compared to Americanisation due to their existence in all countries (McDonalds and Starbucks are a good example).

In conclusion, I would say that America certainly does have a disproportionate influence on global politics (over NGOs especially) as well as state politics (in terms of it invading counties with 'authoritarian' regimes and imposing democracy). However, in terms of cultural globalisation, it may be that a western ideology is spreading, but in everyday life American culture is unique in having escaped its borders - it is not uncommon for us to eat Chinese or Indian takeaway, do yoga or practice Karate or Kung-fu. It would be hard to imagine culture staying within rigid borders in today's world of instantaneous communication (through technology), increased tourism and frequent migration - naturally, as globalisation progresses, we will become more connected with one another. So while America does have a questionable foreign policy and perhaps too much influence over NGOs, its culture has spread no more than other cultures have - it should also be noted that the spread of neoliberal values is not necessarily Americanisation but is better suited to westernisation. In terms of cultural globalisation, the term cannot be interchanged with Americanisation - in economic or political terms this is questionable.