2026-09-22T12:20:48Zhttps://skemman.is/oai/request

oai:skemman.is:1946/100452018-10-15T08:51:37Zcom_1946_2000com_1946_1992col_1946_2001

Háskólinn á Bifröst Knútur Zimsen 1981- Eva Heiða Önnudóttir 1973- In this paper I examine how the United States of America has conformed to hegemonic stability theory and whether it contunes to do so. The theory predicts that the hegemon will establish multilateral institutions serving its own interest but at the same time sacrificing resources to maintain them. I survey and establish how the theory manages to describe previous U.S. behaviour and the international trading regimes that it either failed to create in the Great Depression and sucessfully did after the World War Two. I take a look at the the position the U.S. is in now vis-à-vis the trading regime it established in the form of the WTO. My conclusion is that the U.S. had enjoyed hegemon status for a good reason but it no longer has near unilateral control over the worlds multilateral trading regime as is evident by the difficulty to negotiate the Doha round to a close, the associated trading shocks unmitigated by the U.S. and its own retreat into bilateral agreements and stiffer trade laws. The hegemonic decline seems to match the theory‘s prediction of fading multilateral interest. 2011-09-13T14:21:06Z 2011-09-13T14:21:06Z 2011-09-13 2011-09-13T13:22:26Z 2011-09 http://hdl.handle.net/1946/10045 en Félagsvísindi Alþjóðastjórnmál Alþjóðaviðskiptastofnunin Hegemonic Stability Theory Able and Willing? does the USA's action during the 2008 crisis conform to hegemonic stability theory? Thesis Bachelor's